I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I personally spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech!

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly; don't be caught off guard.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and never fully resolve it (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate

- I will evaluate theory arguments and Kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a warning/disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments (this applies to non-progressive arguments as well).

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round!

- If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, I would strongly advise issuing atrigger warning beforehand. I believe debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take less than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate any longer while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- I don't care if you have WiFi on, as long as you're not communicating with anyone outside of the round. Feel free to download a PDF or look something up on Google – whatever makes for a better/fairer debate. The exception to this rule is if certain tournaments have very explicit rules prohibiting internet access (e.g. NCFLs).

- Be nice to each other!

Add me to the email chain: katherineguo8@gmail.com

she/her/hers

Mission San Jose 2019, Wellesley College 2023. I study economics, with a focus on international political economy and health economics, and history, with a focus on imperial China. 

Lay/JV LD my freshman year and then circuit LD from sophomore year on. I broke at HW and Stanford my junior year, and while I did not debate extensively senior year, I broke at Stanford my senior year. I also did extemp and impromptu. I don't debate in college and haven't judged circuit LD since December 2019.  

Order of paradigms: LD, PF, CX

Conflicts: Mission San Jose High School, Golden State Academy, Dana Hall School

Update for CPS 2019: I haven't legitimately touched circuit LD since the middle of senior year, so please, please, please 1) don't hit me with 100% speed all at once 2) err on the side of overexplaining for anything not LARP-y 3) I'm not a morning person, so 8am rounds need to be super clear

LD Paradigm:

Shortcut:

LARP: 1

LARP-y K's :2

Phil/T/Theory: 2-3

High Theory and Performance K's: 4

Tricks: 5

Speed is kind of fine, start off slower so that I can get a sense of your tone. I haven't heard spreading since 2019. I will yell clear until I can understand you. I do not care if you sit or stand. I flow on paper.

I primarily debated LARP, theory, and phil. Was not a huge K debater, but being out of debate has given me a new appreciation for K lit so do what you will with that information.

LARP:

CP's must be competitive (either textually or functionally). Please have carded CP's. You don't have to have a solvency advocate, but I'd highly prefer if you have one; it's also probably better for you.

I'm ambivalent on one condo bad, but decidedly aff on 2+ condo bad. I lean neg on PIC's.

Unpopular opinion, but I love politics DA's, especially if you can make nuanced arguments about the current state of affairs.

K's:

I never read high theory K's in round but I generally enjoy learning about them and the lit. You'll have to explain these very well for me to vote for you. I'm also not your best judge for a performance v. performance debate, but I'll do my best.

It's a safe bet to assume I understand your standard LARP-y K's (cap, biopower, setcol, fem, etc).

If you have a shifty alt, such as a mindset shift alt, I will marginally lean aff on theory.

You need to be able to link to the aff in some way, shape, or form. The stronger the link, the more convinced I'll be.

Please make more perms than just the "perm double-bind" arg and be able to explain your perms.

For theory purposes, perms are tests of competition, not new ground.

T/Theory/Tricks:

I default competing interps, RVI's, drop the debater, and education, but I can definitely be persuaded the other way.

I think I Meets, especially semantic I Meets, are very under-used.

If you are the neg and you read T, please do not just skip the standards and go straight to the voters in the 2NR unless you are 100% convinced that you are winning the standards.

I have since forgotten the difference between a CI and an OCI. 

Not the best judge for tricks, but my team had some random things on the dropbox.

Do not make me flow theory blipstorms unless you're incredibly clear or have them in the text of the speech doc.

I find friv theory amusing, go for it if it's your thing, but that means you're going to have to go for a CI and I'm much more likely to grant your opp the RVI.

Philosophy:

I read this consistently through my junior year and senior year. My go to NC/NR strat was NC, CP or DA, DA, and I normally went for the NC in the 2NR. I definitely favored sentimentalism and contractualism but I read a decent portion of the lit. Kantian-derivatives and social contract theories are probably my preferred fields. Most of my cases were analytic heavy, so I'm fine with those.

You should be able to actually explain the normative ethic you're defending.

I default to epistemic modesty (bc that's the norm), but I regularly went for EC.

I read more ideal phil than non-ideal but I don't have a preference.

If you group arguments well when responding, I'll be much happier.

FWK (K vs. Theory vs. T vs. phil):

More ambivalent on K vs Theory, but will default to theory/T before K

Phil > K

T > theory

Misc.:

Don't be rude in CX; sass and snark is fine. Read a content warning at the beginning of your case if it's warranted -- if you feel uncomfortable in round because of what is being read, let me know in any way you feel comfortable. If you use Chicago citations, complete with proper footnotes, I'll give you an extra .2 speaks for kicks. Have proper citations regardless (MLA, etc) Please don't post-round me because I might cry -- RFDs already stress me out.

PF Paradigm:

I attend a school with a large PF presence, and I scouted outrounds for the PF team through sophomore year, so I have a pretty good sense of how it works. That being said, I am by no means well-versed in the nuances of PF. Speed is perfectly fine, but I will yell clear if I cannot understand what you are saying.

I am fine with theory in PF -- my high school PF teams read theory back in 2018.

If you want me to evaluate something in FF, you have to have at least brought it up in summary. Extensions need to have warrants; I don't need the full card explained again, but I need to know which card, what the card says, and why the card matters in the context of the full round. Please make your weighing very clear, especially as I'm less familiar with the way PF rounds tend to be evaluated in the end.

Please do not be overly aggressive in cross.

CX Paradigm:

All my defaults are the same as my LD paradigm. If there's something that specific to policy, you're going to have to explain it a little bit more. You're going to have to tell me if your opponent has dropped arguments/introduced new args when not allowed because I'm not as familiar with CX evidence rules. I don't think RVIs exist in policy.

Email: gupta.arunav@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background: I debated PF for 4 years on the national circuit for Mission San Jose HS in California. I’m currently a freshman at UC San Diego.

Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize that with what my obligation as a judge is. That said, please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible for you.

———

General Things: I understand that every region has a different way of debating, so these are just my preferences. By all means, do whatever works for you.

(a) Good logic beats good evidence 90% of the time.

(b) Frontline/rebuild case in 2nd rebuttal

(c) No new arguments in final focus (unless first final focus is answering something new in second summary). If you want me to vote for an argument, make sure it's in summary and final focus.

(d) I will call for cards if there is a dispute over them, a debater tells me to call for them, or it sounds too good to be true and I'm curious.

(e) Please provide brightlines. Even vague ones are better than none. You aren't going to solve for millions of lives or entire degrees of global temperature unless you have the best cards on this topic we have ever seen. Be reasonable with your points of access or give me risk analysis to say otherwise.

(f) Defense is NOT sticky from rebuttal to final focus. If you make a response in rebuttal that goes unaddressed for the rest of the debate, you should still bring it up in summary if you’re going for that argument. This is especially true now with the 3-minute summary, or the second speaking team just gets too much of an advantage.

(g) If there is no offense remaining at the end of the round, I'll presume first speaking team, not con. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage.

Speaks: I start at a 28 for speaks. Points go up for good strategic decisions on the flow. Points go down for miscut cards, forgetting extensions, and rudeness in round.

Weigh!! I can't discern which of ten poorly weighed arguments is more important, but I can easily vote on one argument that is presented as the most important in the round. Most importantly, give me some sort of impact framing/standard if there is a clash between two competing values. If I am not presented with a way to weigh, I would default to my own intuitions (probably something like: lives > environment > economy), but for your sake, you should do the weighing for me so you don't leave the round vehemently disagreeing with my decision (which, to be clear, would be because of your absence of weighing).

Jargon: If you have to ask about using it, you’re probably using it incorrectly. Just don’t.

Theory/Ks: Proceed with caution. I understand that sometimes there are abuses or messages that transcend the round and thus need to be addressed, so I don’t want to deter the reading of it. But, I absolutely will not vote for theory or Ks that I think are used purely to win my ballot or that are not fully fleshed out (if you want to run it, commit to it)

Speed: I am okay with some speed, but I reserve the right to shout “CLEAR!” if you’re going too fast. I don’t have experience judging Policy/LD, so try not to spread.

Crossfire: I don’t flow crossfire, so if there’s something important brought up that you think I should know about, please mention it in a speech. 90% of the time I’ll be using CX to flesh out my feedback/comments.

(Stolen from Hebron Daniel's paradigm) #WORLDSTAR

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.3 speaks for interrupting cross.

———

Finally, have fun, or there’s no value to this activity. Run cool shit, it’s fun. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

hello! i am a first-year at uc berkeley and i debated for mitty high school. throughout high school, i was most competitive in public forum debate, but i also did congressional debate as well as speech events like original advocacy and duo interp.

public forum debate:

- tech over truth (i try my best)!

- i vote for the team with the most offense at the end of the round by granting each team some (if any) offense for each offensive argument presented and taking into account the efficacy of the defense put on each. ez pz!

rebuttal:

- i expect frontlining all key pieces of offense in second rebuttal.

- if you want to add offensive overviews, please make them very thorough and well-warranted.

summary:

- even with three-minute summaries, please collapse.

- i expect full extensions of links, warrants, and impacts, when you are extending case.

- in terms of whether or not defense should be in first summary, i think it is strategic to do so if you want to blow up on it, but i will extend it anyway even if you don't.

final focus:

- this should be *and i cannot emphasize this enough* a carbon copy of the summary.

- i recommend more weighing in final focus than summary.

weighing:

- comparative weighing is super important! weigh as early as possible!

- link-weighing is even better than impact weighing! do both!

cross-fire:

- i will probably be on facebook so put it in a speech if you want it on the flow!

- be nice! that is all.

speaker points:

- this is an activity where we should all genuinely care about the words we are saying, so sound like it! for high speaks, sound passionate and genuine when you speak. also, be polite!

- make me cheese for more speaks!

speed:

- i can handle a good deal of speed, but not spreading. if you really want to go ham on the speed, start off slow then speed up.

- if your opponents do not feel comfortable with speed, you should be respectful and accessible and refrain from going too fast for them.

theory & kritiks:

- i do not have much experience with these arguments so explain them very well.

- for k's, read specific links since i want tangible proof that voting for you will contribute to the larger scale impacts you will probably talk about.

evidence:

- please do not miscut evidence! i will only call for evidence if one team tells me to do so or if i am really sussed out by it, so if you genuinely think it is miscut, tell me to call for it in one of your speeches. otherwise, i default to what the team tells me it says to minimalize intervention!

- i also want sources and dates.

- have evidence files on everything you read ready to go please!

stuff that is more important than the round you are about to debate:

- as a former debater on a girl-girl team comprised of two womxn of color, i have been on the receiving end of sexist comments during cross-fire. if you are explicitly degrading, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., i do not care about your arguments. i will drop you and/or tank your speaks. this is an activity where we are meant to be speaking up for the sake of progress, so we should all be courteous and respectful.

- please eat food at tournaments lmao.

please feel free to email me if you would like me to elaborate on my decision or if you need advice or anything (daryakavi@gmail.com).

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Competed in PF for 3 years, coach PF/LD in the summer, have judged PF/LD/Policy.

Make the round as easy to understand as possible. For me, the outcome of the round is usually pretty clear after flowign the rebuttals. The sum/FF basically tie it all up and lay out very clearly who should win.

If you do MUN I will vote against you

I did pf in hs.

1. I am truth > tech. Just because you have a card saying something is true but your opponents put a lot of analytical defense on it, that goes unresponded to, I will not vote on that argument.
2. DO NOT misconstrue ANYTHING. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if the round is so close I need to look at evidence.
3. I’m a pretty fast speaker myself, I can handle speed. That being said, don’t spread outright and if i yell clear please slow down. You going too fast for me harms your prospects of winning.
4. If you are running untraditional pf arguments (theory, K, etc.) tell me how to evaluate it. Don’t run theory unless there is abuse because if there is no abuse, I will not vote for you.
5. I think framework arguments are really cool and I’m fine with any framework set by either team as long as it is a) warranted very well and b) you tell me why that framework should be prioritized. Framework does not have to be in case, you can make it an overview.
6. Long overviews of any type (framing, narrative, new argument, solvency takeouts) are completely fine in both rebuttals. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline. First summary does not have to extend defense.
7. EVERYTHING said in FF HAS to be in summary. No exceptions.
8. The easiest way to my ballot is weighing. Weighing should generally start in rebuttal or summary. DO NOT say “we outweigh on magnitude” without telling me HOW you outweigh.
9. All evidence cited for the first time has to have author’s last name and date at the minimum. If it doesn’t have that, just say no author or no date.
10. Offtime roadmaps are SO important to me, so please do that for everything but case/cross! Signpost, otherwise I won’t flow what you are saying.
11. I don’t flow cross. I will most likely be looking at memes.
12. Your outfit needs to match your vibe.
13. Bring me food. I'm vegetarian and I don't like junk food. Food = automatic 30.

I’ll give high speaks to teams that I think deserve to break. My speaker points are not based on how pretty you sound, but how smart you are in round. If you are condescending in any way, I will give you a 26. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/outright being a jerk, I will give you a 25. I like humor and sarcasm and I will give you higher speaks if you try to entertain me during cross.

I think going first is a structural disadvantage, so if the round comes too close, I will pref the first speaking team. Feel free to ask any questions before round and you can always hit me up anytime during the tournament if you have any questions about how I voted.

I debated 4 years in policy and pf at Saratoga High School.

Most of this paradigm is stolen from my high school debate partner (love u ayush <3) so please feel free to ask questions before the round

*I won't vote for an argument that doesn't have a warrant

*If it's important it should be in every speech (including key defense)

*Speed is fine, but slow down for taglines and citations. Don't use it exclude other debaters. It's been some time since I've had to flow particularly fast debating, so please start slower and ramp up if you plan on going very fast. I'll shout clear if I need to

*I probably have a higher threshold for case extensions than other PF judges. I require a full extensions of links, warrants and impacts to vote on an argument

*DO NOT take advantage of or commodify the suffering of marginalized groups to win rounds !!!

Theory

-I'm fine with evaluating theory, but would definitely prefer to judge a substance debate

-Default to competing interps, no RVI, drop the arg (unless justified otherwise)

K

-I like kritikal arguments, but the worst rounds are those that contain badly run Ks, so please do not run a K if you are unsure about how to do so

-Ks don't necessarily need an alt

-Don't assume I know your literature and please explain thoroughly, especially if your K is not particularly common (ie cap, biopower, security etc.)

-Default to K comes before theory (unless justified otherwise)

Evidence

-I prefer debaters read evidence straight from cards. Paraphrasing often leads to misconstruing

-I will only call for cards if told to, and I'll be unhappy if things don't line up

-Pls read authors and years

My name is Margot (she/her) and I debated Public Forum at MSJ from 2015-2019. I haven't really been active on the circuit since, so please bear with me while I adjust to any new norms that might have sprung up in the last few years. If you have any questions, let me know at the beginning of the round or at zhaomargot@gmail.com!

Pretty simple, but a couple things I'm looking for when judging PF:

(1) All arguments (and important cards) used in FF must be in Summary. Collapse on important arguments & frame the round well, don't go for everything on the flow!

(2) Beyond line-by-line defense, I'm looking for clear and insightful weighing that explains how your arguments directly interact with your opponents', ideally starting from rebuttal, but especially in the latter half of the round. From summary onward, tell me how the round should be evaluated and give a concise explanation of your path to the ballot.

(3) I'll judge tabula rasa ("tech over truth") for the most part, meaning that I will vote off the evidence presented in round rather than what I believe to be true. If one team says something inaccurate, it's up to the other to dispute it.

This line of reasoning does not apply to clearly racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise harmful rhetoric or remarks.

(4) If you'd like me to call for your opponent's evidence, please clearly explain your issue with the evidence so I know what I'm looking for!

(5) Please signpost as clearly as you can throughout every speech. If my flow gets messy, it will not be of help to you!

(6) I don't flow cross! If something important happens, bring it up in speech.

I want to give high speaks generally (especially in JV) but will absolutely dock for bad etiquette (ex. how you conduct yourself in cross...)

Any other event:

As a PF debater, my knowledge of LD or CX is limited.

I would prefer to have cards / cases emailed, clear signposting throughout speeches, and please try to thoroughly explain any kind of K / T that you run as I will not be familiar with most. I'll try my best to keep up with speed and let you know if you're going too fast for me to flow. Feel free to email with any clarifications you may need before round.

Good luck to all competitors!