A little bit about me:

I debate PF at Lakeland High School

I can flow at most speeds, but if I can't flow you, I will let you know.

Please weigh and use analysis of the round - I don't know who to vote for if both sides give different link chains with the same impacts unless you explain to me why your link chain is better.

Be nice to each other, it's not fun when crossfires are just shouting matches or when a speaker is interrupted.

If something is going on during the round that you don't like, please say something!

Have fun and enjoy debating! :)

A little bit about me:

I am an intermediate PF debater from Lakeland High School.

Preferences:

1. I will flow during round, and so whichever arguments/impacts are extended throughout the round will be voted on.

2. I can handle speed for the most part but be sure to annunciate

3. For me, winning more arguments doesn't necessarily mean winning a debate if the impacts are not as large. Also be sure to weigh these impacts and show me how one is more important than the other.

4. Argument link chains have to be explained clearly. If it is not I cannot weigh it in the ballot.

5. Remember to collapse on arguments during summary and final focus.

6. Be sure to use off time road maps and Signpost your arguments to make it easier for me to flow. The easier it is, the more I can flow and the easier it is for me to make a ballot.

7. Having good evidence is key to a good debate. I will call for evidence that I find questionable. This means taking cards out of context by cutting the word "not" out of a card. If this is done, then it will not be taken into consideration while I am making the ballot.

8. I like aggressive crossfires but just remember to be respectful to each other.

9. I shouldn't even have to mention this but like I said before be respectful to each other. I don't want to hear any cursing or comments against race, gender or anything of that sorts. Debate is meant to be a fun activity so just remember to have fun. Also if you are reading this, it shows that you are good debaters.

I'm a PF debater at Lakeland High School.

If you're creating an email chain: jbblue1231@gmail.com

Speeches:

Constructive - Any argument you make should have a clear warrant and impact. Also try to emphasize where each contention or sub point starts so we can all flow better.

Rebuttal - It's easiest to rebut your opponents' arguments by going down their speech line by line. Responses include turns, historical examples, logic, etc. Second rebuttal should respond to the arguments against their case that were made in first rebuttal.

Summary - If you didn't defend your case or weigh in rebuttal, you need to in summary. Be sure to include everything you want me to extend in this speech, such as your arguments and responses.

Final Focus - This speech should be used to clearly paint the picture for the judge of why you won the debate. Include weighing, offense, and defense. Don't make up any new arguments in final focus.

Cross - Please don't spent all 3 minutes on the first question, or turn cross into a shouting match. Take this opportunity to ask clarifying questions or poke holes in your opponents case.

General Things:

Flowing - I will flow the entire round except cross, and will vote off my flow. If you want me to flow something that was said in cross, bring it up in any future speech except final focus.

Time - I usually keep track of speech and prep time but I forget sometimes, so it is encouraged that both teams keep their own time as well.

Extending - When you extend cards, don't just read the author's name. Be sure to at least summarize what the card is saying. Most importantly, if you're going to extend an impact, make sure to extend the warrants and links too.

Calling Evidence - For the team that asks for the card, your prep time starts when you beginning reading it. I also may call a card at the end of the round if it is necessary for my decision.

Framework - If you have a framework, don't forget to relate back to it throughout the round.

Speaker points - Clarity is the most important aspect of speaker points. If you say a good joke or analogy I'll give extra points.

Finally, I completely understand how debate can be sometimes, but please be respectful and have fun! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Good luck :)

Hi! My name is Gurmehar Bawa and I am a Novice Public Forum Debater from Lakeland High School.

If you're here to look at my preferences (which you probably are) continue reading...

1) Most importantly: Please be respectful to your partner, opponents, and your judge (me). Let's keep this debate civil.

2) I will flow throughout the round. But, don't be alarmed if you see me interchange between moments of intense writing and leisurely listening.

3) Although the ability to speak fast can be useful in multiple scenarios, please try to refrain from doing so. Speaking clearly and selecting the proper cards is key. Quality over quantity. To add, if you do speak fast, it makes it harder for me to flow your arguments, which will burden your speaker points, and quite possibly your overall result.

4) I advise you to keep track of time, I will be as well.

5) Do rememebr, however, that there are no fromal rules in debate.

6) Defend your own arguments, as well as attacking your opponents'.

7) Evidence is one of the key assets of debate. If you are making an argument, please support it with the proper evidence. If you fail to do so, the validity of the argument is impaired and will not be weighed accordingly.

8) Remeber to expand on your evidence.

9) Use ethos, pathos, and lagos in your arguemnts. Use evidence, intertwine emotion, and utilize logistics/examples.

10) My final descision is derived from from two things, the flow of your arguments and final focus. If you are ogranized and speak well and are able to create a persuasive conclusion, you will do fine.

11) Have fun! Enjoy yourself! Don't stress too much over your rounds.

12) Finally, I know you can do it. Believe in yourself and your evidence. And BREATHE!!!

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Background: I am a pf debater from Lakeland high school. That’s basically it.

Rules and preferences: I like a clean match. No bad language or inappropriate jokes. If it’s an appropriate and a related it’s totally fine. I know how heated some rounds can get, but just try to keep it cool. Another thing to keep in mind is that while I may or may not be keeping time myself, I expect YOU to keep track of time during all speeches additionally. It’s just good practice. (Keeping time for opponents doesn’t hurt either). evidence is important in debate, but you also need to be able to back it up. I’m sure you all know you’re cases very well and will be able to do so. If the opposing side asks to see one of your cards, you need to reveal it or I will have to assume that the card doesn’t exist.For crossfire, I encourage back and forth talk after a question is asked. Use this time to defend your case. (If you want to ask your own question feel free to interrupt). When it comes to speech reading, you can read as fast as you like, as long as it is intelligible. If I seriously can’t understand you I might tell you to slow down or be more clear. However, I expect you to NEVER interrupt the other side in the middle of one of their speeches. In your final focus try your best to weigh out the round for me so that things are more clear. I will not weigh any new arguments in the final focus speech.

A note from me: I know that you are all working hard and giving this a lot of effort. Just believe that you can do it and I’m sure that you’ll do great. I’m super exited to watch you all debate and I’d like to wish everyone good luck. Make it count!✊

I am a Senior at Berkeley Carroll from New York. I have been debating for two years and recently switched to speech.

Here are some guidelines:

I would appreciate it if you organize your speech and state when you are starting new contentions or sub-points.

I don't want you to speak too quickly. It becomes difficult to understand what you're saying for not only me but for your opponents.

Please don't be rude. During cross-fire, everyone should have equal opportunities to speak.

I don’t care for off-time roadmaps—this is not policy.

Finally, please maintain a strong voice, not yelling and not whispering.

You're gonna do great :)

Debate coach at Bergen Debate Club for almost 10 years. Feel free to ask me debate-related questions at the end of the round--I always enjoy chatting about the topic, arguments, theory, and philosophy before moving on to the next round.

For new debaters: Have fun and try your best! I have an endless amount of patience for new debaters. Welcome to the world of debate!

PF Paradigm

Everything will be based on flow, so everything that is said is binding--you are responsible for all extensions including cross comments.

The following are not listed in order of importance, so please consider each element with equal merit.

Evidence:

- Add me to email chains: wkang.1221@gmail.com

- I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find and then use your prep time for the remainder of time it takes you to send the card. The round is easier when you start the round with a shared Google Doc or email chain to streamline the card-sharing process.

Speech Components:

- Signposting: Non-optional! This always adds to the clarity of any debate. Please don't just say "On my first contention"... full signposting includes what that first contention is. (I mention this because debaters usually begin signposting effectively and either forget/forgo/become lazier as the round moves forward and stop signposting clearly).

- Turns: Please extend your warrants (this does not mean to just re-read your cards)--contextualize your response. Additional reasoning/warranting never hurt anyone.

- Frontlines: Essential starting from 2nd rebuttal! Remember that everything holds in the flow. If you don't frontline, their response(s) against your speech holds until the end of the round.

- Defense: Likewise with weighing, please implicate your defense.

Weighing:

- Weigh as early as possible in the 2nd rebuttal/summary after any necessary frontlines and be explicit in voters during FF. Weigh as effectively as possible (in a clear manner) within the allotted time.

- Comparative weighing is essential. If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please comparatively weigh AND implicate your arguments so that I don't have to do it in my head for you.

- Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

- Please metaweigh!

- Merely because you've won a framework, does not mean that you've won the round--ensure that you outline/complete weighing during the Sum & FF.

Presentation:

- *Well-warranted argumentation is good, but analytical and nuanced argumentation of well-warranted arguments is even better.

- (Un)fortunately, as a long-time debate coach, I am a tech over truth judge (even if I know the topic/argument/evidence)--meaning that how well something is debated determines how much truth value I place upon it.

- If there is a loss of professionalism from either side, I will ensure to give 25s & a loss to the individual(s).

- Turning on questions is expected, but if any individual during any CF refuses to answer a single question (in a clear manner), I will consider it to be poor handling of the CF. Depending on the severity/consistency, this may result in lower speaks.

Two asides:

1) I will always disclose (unless the tournament rules prevent me from doing so). My RFDs tend to go through everything on the flow, but due to time constraints of presenting RFDs, I will go through them relatively quickly so that we can all move on to the next round--so, I tend to speak somewhat quickly. If at any point you are unclear about something I've said, please ask before I let you go. I try my best to be constructive, so I hope that you listen to the feedback rather than waiting for a win/loss (If you just want to hear win/loss then lmk and I can do that to save everyone time!) If we have time and it's not too late in the day, feel free to post-round me by asking questions.

2) Theories/Progressive arguments are fun but do not make them your end-all-be-all. You still have to be clearly topical, btw. If the opposition responds with reasonability args/inability to engage statements--I respect it and understand it as a once novice debater.

LD Paradigm

Everything will be based on the flow. (Would be much appreciated if you add me to the email chain at the start to supplement this element). Additionally, a clear analysis of your arguments will be pivotal to winning.

I've studied philosophy so feel free to present the technical stuff, theories, and Ks, but if you do so, it would be helpful if you took a brief moment to review the parts of the arguments that you wish to ensure I focus on in my flow. Theories of justice, moral philosophy (mainly regarding forgiveness), and contractualism are what I'm primarily comfortable with, in the absence of additional analysis. Regardless, feel free to run what you desire, so long as you adhere to the reviewing element mentioned prior.

Keep the following in mind:

- Critical Theory arguments need to genuinely add something to the round, not be an excuse to avoid topicality. I focus on topicality when discussing theory. I will most likely skew the debate in favor of whoever presents a case to which more components can prove to be topical. This is especially true for link chains — I need to see a link from the case and Ks to the topic.

- K debate is great when it serves to challenge existing power structures and/or address the marginalization of groups. Remember: if you are going to run theory, don't just read theory cards to confuse your opponent.

- Please don't make your whole case just by reading cards. Rereading your cards does not equate to analysis when asked to elaborate on a piece of evidence during a cross.

- If you are going to abbreviate anything, please state what you are abbreviating initially before just using the abbreviation to avoid unnecessary remarks between debaters.

Pronouns she/her.

Updates for 2024

I have not judged since 2022 and so may be unaware of new arguments.

Please be thoughtful about class, race and gender dynamics happening during the debate. My threshhold for abusive behavior in the debate space lowers every year and I become more and more willing to vote on theory in all formats.

For PF:

I appreciate sign-posting, tagging and articulation. I am not a fan of the pf cases that read like an oratory and are impossible to flow. I expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. Offense is not sticky. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches so you don't need to tell me. I also expect teams to follow NSDA evidence rules.

I am open to theory arguments in PF as I see it as one of the only effective mechanisms for addressing some abusive tactics. You should have a proper theory shell though.

Let's all be nice and generous and kind. I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

Don't give speeches during crossfire. I like a crossfire that is clarifying and illuminates areas of dispute. To that end, I prefer that everybody be super chill. Yelling, berating, and asking obviously abusive questions are all good ways to tank your speaks. You will never impress me by out-aggressing your opponent during CX.

I'm not a fan of blippy debate and tend to vote on the arguments that are fleshed out, well evidenced and that provide a clear path to the ballot. I personally think the emphasis on weighing overlooks the need to have a clear link with good warranting and strong evidence. I'm not entirely tech > truth because I can't always bring myself to vote on technical arguments that are not fleshed out enough to be plausible.

I think the second rebuttal should respond to turns but I'm okay with other responses coming in summary. I see defense as sticky. I like to see teams collapse and don't love the style of debate where final focus is an exact rerun of summary --would rather see that the debate has progressed or that your weighing and warranting has advanced b/c of clash.

For LD and Policy

****Disclosure on the Wiki is encouraged. Please add me to the email chain: danisekimball@gmail.com ****

I can handle a fair amount of speed but haven't judged LD/Policy in a long while so you may lose me if you are super fast. It helps me a lot if you make it clear when you are ending a card. I will say "clear" if I can't understand and "slow down" if I can't keep up.

For LD

I am open to different styles including LARP and K debate. Slow down for theory shells and K alts, especially if they are novel. I am much more likely to vote for an argument that has been well explained. I am less technical in the sense that arguments that do not have a clear story with warrants won't always win a round even if they got under-covered.

I am not a fan of silly theory arg's but they still need to be responded to. I will do RVI's in LD but I don't love them.

I am pretty familiar with a lot of the K literature and it is difficult for me to vote for debaters who use it so badly that it is nonsensical.

For Policy:

I like both traditional and progressive debate. I really want students to engage directly with the arguments, their underlying assumptions and areas of clash with the opponent. It is hard to be convinced by an argument you don't understand.

I'm open to role of the ballot/framing issues when weighing structural violence impacts.

I will mostly be writing during the speeches. I don't flow crossfire. I can take some speed, but if I am looking up then you may be going too fast. Be kind and respectful as well.

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Quick stuff to Know about me because : I'm a PF debater who's been debating for some time now at Lakeland High school. Don't try anything you might regret or something unexpected out of nowhere, i will call you out.

An ideal debate involves good communication, creativity, and clash. The only possible role of the ballot is to designate who did the better debating which I decide by determining the superior advocacy. I will weigh in both teams contentions still standing strong and impacts.

1) A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating. No use of Aggressiveness towards opponents is tolerated. Civil debates are always key to success.

2) Rapid Delivery is good. I can handle speed, but make sure to make Strong points stand or be clearer

3) Keep Crossfires civil. The last thing i need to see is two teams screaming at each other. Any uncivilized manner will cost speaker points

4) If you have a framework, make sure to relate back to it.

5) Debate is all fun in the end. Do your best and I'll reward you for that. You guys are all great people ( i hope)

6) I will call out any evidence that doesn't sound right. Don't pull something that doesn't make sense

7) I will be calling Time and keeping track of it. I've seen opponents in the past lie about their time and such, so I'm keeping track of it for accuracy and reliability between both teams.

+.5 Speaks for Food/ drinks. Debating makes people hungry and thirsty. I will be grateful for anything

I hope some of you read this, it's what good debaters do. Also, if you're reading this and think I'm super strict, I'm pretty chill in the end. All I ask is a Respectful and civil debate! Evidence and all matters too, but Logic should also be involved. If you have evidence that has zero logic, I will not accept. At least try to explain it to me, and I could probably accept. It just has to make sense in accordance to the topic. Alrighty, this is my paradigm....good luck on your rounds guys!

Hi, I am a former policy debater: 4 years at Emory and 3 in HS. I have worked with Urban Debate Leagues in Atlanta, Chicago, and NYC. I have recently been teaching philosophy, so I am very familiar with ethics. Please discuss as much theory and critique as you want. Also, speed is not an issue if clear. I am also interested in science and religion (and the relationship between the two), but argue about what you are passionate about.

Hello! My name is Victoria and I have just graduated from Barnard! I did public forum debate from 7th-11th grade, and for that reason am a flow judge. Make sure to extend your arguments throughout the round, address what has been dropped, and address framework (if one is given). In the final speeches, give me clear voters. Logic and reason are still important to me, so just extending an argument isn't enough: explain your link chain, and convince me! I also prefer that teams keep track of their own time, and don't take too long finding and sending cards.

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Email: nmtommarazzo@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric.

FOR LD: Arguments are arguments, no matter what form the argument takes (theories, other k's, LARP, traditional, etc). Argumentsmust be justified, and you must persuade me of its importance (aka, the impact, be it to the topic, to the round, to debaters, etc.).DO NOT SPREAD.More-so than in numbers-based debates, losing the thread of a philosophical or idealogical argument will hurt you.

FOR PF: I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

I’m currently a Freshman at Georgia Tech.

There are a few things to keep in mind during the round:

1. Make sure to watch speed. I can basically understand anything except the fastest speeds, but you have to make sure that your opponents can understand you. If you’re gonna go really fast just tell everybody before you do so.

2. I listen in but don’t flow crossfire.

3. I’m generally a flow judge. That means that presentation matters little to me; you should focus on getting arguments out there.

4. I won’t be too happy if you run theory or K’s, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for you. Just keep in mind that you are taking a risk by running prog.

5. Be respectful throughout the round. Everybody has worked hard to get to this round and that should be respected.

To get my ballot:

1. If you want an argument weighed at the end of the round, bring it up in FF and summary. I generally won’t look at arguments that don’t show up in both FF and summary.

2. That being said, I’m not super strict on extensions. You don’t have to strictly extend warrants, argument tag, impacts, and cards for me to consider an argument. Of course, the more you extend, the better, but I don’t keep specifics out of consideration if they aren’t perfectly extended. For example, if you extend an argument tag and warrant in both FF and summary, but only extend the impact in summary, I won't immediately take the impact out of consideration.

3. Please, please try to signpost and give an offtime roadmap. The more you do this, the better my flow will be, and the likelier I am to catch your arguments.

4. Debate your style. Whatever I’ve put in this section are suggestions; you don’t have to conform to that exactly. I hate when I look at a judge’s paradigm and they tell me to debate in a specific way that I’m not used to. Take these as recommendations, not strict guidelines.

If you have any questions, just reach out to me at my email (villardilan22@gmail.com) or ask me before the round. I’d be happy to answer any questions I receive!

I am a PF debater at Lakeland high school

put me on the email chain webbl2016@gmail.com

I am a flow judge, if it's not in my flow I won't weigh it

plz tell me what to weigh because you don't want me to be the one to choose what to weigh

with all arguments I want evidence to back it up, you should be able to produce that evidence because I card call.

I do not flow on crossfires

In terms of speaker points if I can understand you, and you're not being a jerk to me and your opponents, I won't redact many speaker points.

Talk at whatever speed you're comfortable with, as long as I can flow it

any kind of hate speech which includes homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, etc. will immediately result in a loss 25 speaks

Greetings, Debaters!

When I judge, I look for solid, logical reasoning that is backed up by clear evidence. Make sure you explain how your evidence relates to the topic at hand. If you don't draw the conclusions for your audience, they may not draw the conclusion that you would like.

Also, make good use of your time. Use prep time when you need it, but don't run the clock if you don't need the time to prepare. Be respectful of everyone's time.

If you plan to use an off-time roadmap, make sure it gives me some new information. If your roadmap is just "I will refute my opponents' claims and then crystalize our own," you are not giving me new information. You just explained to me what a rebuttal speech is. I don't need a roadmap for that.

Good luck and enjoy this debate!