I debated PF for four years in high school mostly on the local circuit sans qualifying to nationals twice in a row- though I competed in world schools debate there. I technically don't have that much experience with circuit debate but tended to debate local rounds in a similar manner anyway- so yes I am a flow judge. I was the captain of my PF team my senior year in high school with a various assortment of awards and helped coach nat circuit debaters as well. Additionally, my mentors were circuit debaters.

Specific notes:

I love signposting and off time road maps. I do think they help more for lay debate but I judge every round on tech and weigh arguments accordingly. Still, if you do this, it will make it easier for me to follow your flow and also boost your speaker points. The same applies for numbering your responses.

I don't like spreading in PF and I will dock you speaker points. That being said, I can follow for the most part.

Second rebuttal should always respond to first in my opinion.

Defense is not sticky for me.

A good summary contains offense, defense, and weighing. I will look for all three.

I consider the framework to be a cost benefit analysis on default unless explicitly otherwise stated. I think framework debate is relevant and reasonable in certain cases but not all.

Weighing will win or lose you a round- I prefer more advanced forms of weighing to timeframe and magnitude but that will do. I tend to heavily pref probability of impact weighing as a heads up if it's relevant.

I won't weigh an argument without an impact in my final decision unless that applies to multiple arguments in the round.

I give you a 15 second grace period in your speech- anything you say after will be struck from the flow.

This is very important- I am a stickler for evidence ethics. If your opponent calls out a piece of evidence as improper or misquoted- which you should do if you believe it is true, I will evaluate the evidence after the round- and they are correct, it will not be evaluated as part of the flow.

I like analytical arguments if they're well warranted- speaking of which you should always warrant your arguments.

Anything dropped in summary will not be extended through final focus. Always extend cards through to final focus as well.

Be respectful and kind to each other- assertiveness can be beneficial but not aggression.

I try not to do a lot of judge intervention and I generally succeed so your best bet is to make everything so clear that I will not have to.

Feel free to ask me any more questions before the round.

Please use all of your speaking time. Organization is key in every speech. I will not be paying attention to cross ex but if something important is mentioned, bring it up in the next speech. If you do not mention an argument in your summary I will not consider it when weighing the round. I would prefer to see every speech started with roadmaps or frontline. For a recap on me: In high school, I competed in speech and debate for three years. I primarily competed in Public Forum and World Schools debate and dabbled in Extemp. I have played the role of both second and first speakers in PF and in both roles I prefer to see great crystallization and consistency. I have competed on the national level twice and every time I believe the strongest debates I have seen are those that remain mature and do not begin to get hostile, despite how difficult it can be. Other than that I would say I am quite a Flow/Lei judge

mateens@umich.edu

My name is Mateen, and I am a freshman at the University of Michigan. I competed in Public Forum debate for all four years of high school at Basis Peoria, where I most notably finalled @ Silver TOC.

PF Paradigm (inspired by David Parau):

The short version is: tech over truth but winning the tech of an argument doesn't mean I will vote on it unless it is 1) warranted and 2) weighed. Ultimately, I look for the least mitigated link chain into the most weighed impact.

Speed is fine (I personally prefer fast and technical debate because I think it is more entertaining and intellectually stimulating, however, my principal philosophy about debate is that it should be totally up to the debaters to decide what they want the round to be like as long as it's not problematic*)

I would like to be on the email chain and I do prefer cards/read evidence in case/rebuttal and then implicated in the second half of the round.