dont be mean!

be funny

Debated for Acton-Boxborough

I'm a pretty simple judge and like simple rounds, so don't try to overcomplicate things.

Fan of frontlining in second rebuttal, good comparative weighing with every argument/response as early as possible, and smart collapses.

I can handle speed to a certain extent, but pls send speech docs if you know you'll be going fast. It benefits everyone.

Have debated prog stuff a bit but lowk don't understand much of the structure or lit so if you're gonna read it, consider me lay. If there's legit abuse in the round, I'm honestly fine w yall j calling it out and reading some paragraph theory, it ain't that big a deal to me. With that said, don't be a jerk (sexist/racist/-ist gonna be automatic L20).

Overall, keep it concise. Spit some bars and be confident and y'all will be chilling.

Hi, I'm Amir and I debated at Westborough for 4 years on the local and national circuit

my email is: amir.hameed@emory.edu

Follow me on spotify

I judge flow but you should debate flay

I flow so I'll try to be as tech>truth as possible

If you do/say anything / read any argument that is sexist, racist, ableist, etc. , I won't hesitate to drop you with low speaks

Here's what'll win you my ballot, in no particular order:

1. Have fun and be nice, no one likes a toxic debate round and at the end of the day you should be enjoying this.

2a. I won't be listening too closely to cross and I won't vote off it, but if something big happens, bring it up in the next speech for me to consider it.

2b. Please don't just scream at each other in cross, keep it civil for all of our sakes

3. At a minimum, you should be front lining all responses to the contention you're going for and responding to offensive responses (turns, disads, etc.) in 2nd rebuttal.

4a. Weigh comparatively! Weighing is the easiest way to get my ballot, but you have to comparatively weigh, don't just state your impact again and say it outweighs on x,y,z, tell me why to prefer yours over your opponents

4b. Because weighing is so important, try doing it as early as possible, if you're in 1st rebuttal and run out of time, weigh! I'll probably give you higher speaks because it makes my job easier, and it's very smart.

4c. Link level weighing is so smart, I'm much more likely to vote on an argument that has a fleshed out link chain with comparative weighing against your opponents, than a weak link chain

5a. Collapsing is probably one of the highest IQ things you can do in a round, condensing the round to 1-2 main arguments is extremely smart and makes the round 100x better

5b. Extend all parts of the case argument you're collapsing on (Uniqueness, warrant, impact, etc.) but that doesn't mean re-read your case, try to summarize it to be more efficient

5c. You must respond to all responses made against the argument you're collapsing on.

6. Summary and FF should mirror each other, I won't evaluate arguments in FF that aren't in summary.

7. Build a narrative through the round, its super helpful for me

8. Final Focus should be all about writing my ballot for me; Tell me where, how, and why I'm voting for you and you've probably got my vote.

9a. Before your speech, give me a general overview of the structure, at a minimum tell me where you're going to start.

9b. Please signpost in your speeches, this is super important to me because if I don't know what you're responding to I will spend half of your speech messing with my flow and I will probably miss some of your responses.

10. I haven't debated in a while so if speed is your thing consider slowing down on a bit, I don't want to lose something important you say and it'll just make it easier for me to vote for you

NS AB Scrimmage

I'm a junior at AB and have been competing on the nat circuit for 2 years. I'm a pretty normal flow judge.

~~~~Generally~~~~

Etiquette: Be nice to your opponents! They're also your friends, this is not life or death.

Tech vs Truth: I'm tech over truth, but extending a narrative makes it infinitely easier to vote for you.

Evidence: If you tell me to call for evidence, I'll call for it at the end of the round. I really don't like calling for evidence otherwise because it's intervening, but if the round really can't be voted on without looking at the evidence I'll ask for it.

Speaks: If you're not offensive you're getting good speaks

Speed: Anything short of spreading is fine. Do not go fast for the sake of going fast - slow down, it makes the whole round cleaner. If you do have enough content to go fast, SIGNPOST. If I don't know where to flow your response, the chances are I'm not going to flow it.

Progressive Stuff: Don't run theory unless there's a legitimate violation. I'll vote on anything, but there's a much higher standard you will have to hit if you want me to vote on progressive arguments. Tricks are stupid

~~~~Specifically~~~~

Second Rebuttal: Frontline- at the very least frontline turns.

First Summary: Defense is sticky if it gets dropped - turns are not.

Crossfires: Have fun go stupid be nice. This is comedic relief imo

Weighing: Do it. Please don't make me weigh for you that's not fun

New arguments: New responses in first summary have to be justified. No new responses in second summary. Don't try to cheese in final it'll honestly drop your speaks - I will respect you so much more if you weigh against an argument and tell me why I should be cautious voting on it than if you try and bring new content against it.

Have fun! This is a scrimmage- use it to get better but don't take it too seriously :)

- Post-Round all you want -

if you sing "Hip To Be Square" by Huey Lewis and The News and start dancing like this before opening statements, you get 30 speaks.

tech>truth

win a piece of offense (this means uq, link, and impact extended and frontlined), win the weighing off the piece of offense, and you probs win the round.

i always prefer timeframe (prereq, short term vs long term, long term vs short term, reversibility, urgency, yk what i mean), link ins (with link weighing), framing, and other more interactive weighing mechanisms than someone just yelling that they outweigh on scope or magnitude.

bonus points if u control the narrative, makes rounds so much cleaner.

weigh early, weigh well, and you win.

Progressive Argumentation

idrc i am minorly familiar with it but dont expect me to understand tricks and whatever other bs ppl r reading. Theory, Ks, prefiat framing are fine as long as u explain it well and treat it like any other substance argument. Dont expect me to make an awesome decision off it tho because I am really not that experienced with this stuff

Bottom line:

Have fun, learn, and dont be an idiot.

About Me:

Hi! I'm Ayush, and I debated for Westborough for four years, two of which were on the national circuit. I qualled to TOC junior and senior year.

Preferences:

tldr: Debate on the flow + don't be overbearingly fast

I'm a pretty standard tech judge and I don't have a ton of preferences. Here they are anyways:

Speed is a massive turnoff for me. Even though I spoke pretty fast when debating, I can't flow super fast nor do I think it improves the quality of rounds at all. If you can explain your arguments without going light speed it's a good thing and it'll reflect in your speaks.

When extending arguments, I need more than author names. Explain what that author says and why it matters. Warrants are dope, weighing is dope.

All offense from second constructive and after needs to be frontlined in the next speech. This means turns in second constructive (yes this is a thing) need to be frontlined in first rebuttal. Second rebuttal should frontline any arguments that they want me to vote on.

If you're planning on reading progressive args you should probably strike me. I'll try my best but I never ran them nor do I know much about how to evaluate them. If a round becomes abusive then I'll try to intervene.

I'm not calling for evidence unless I'm told to.

Defense can be sticky if you want but it's much more compelling if you extend it in summary.

I don't flow cross, nor do I care that much about it. Bring up any concessions in the next speech. That being said, if you dominate cross without being a jerk then I'll for sure reward that.

I think I give out pretty high speaks, do with that info what you will.

Feel free to reach out before the round on fb or ig with any questions, or just ask me before the round.

Call me Ayush in round. Make me laugh. Debate is not that deep and I want to have fun judging y'all

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | Umich '25

Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.

Before the round, tell me your favorite song and I will play it like a baseball walk up song before your speeches.

--- PF ----

I think I'm a pretty standard flow judge. I'll evaluate anything, and you should do whatever you do best in the round. That said, here are some preferences I have:

Speed is totally fine. I'll be able to flow mostly anything, unless you're spreading 3081 paraphrased blips per second. I will not flow off a speech doc, I can't read.

The second rebuttal should frontline the first, but I won't drop you for not doing it. If the second rebuttal doesn't frontline, then the first final focus should pull the defense from the first rebuttal. Don't go over defense that doesn't have a response in 1st summary that's wasting time.

More progressive things: Theory is fine but not encouraged. I do not want to evaluate a paraphrasing or disclosure round, it's just not very fun. If you win, you win, but don't expect good speaks. My bias is that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is good, but that won't impact the round. I'm probably one of the best K judges you will get in PF. Tricks are truly horrible things, but if you win it you win it.

Post-rounding is encouraged. Please ask questions during my RFD, it helps me focus feedback. If you think I made the wrong decision, feel free to tell me that and reason with me. I'm not very smart, so it's very possible I'm wrong. If you believe my decision was wrong, punch me in the face.

--- Policy ---

Note: Basically nothing in the PF Paradigm applies, don't read it.

I only started doing policy in college, and have watched single-digit high school policy rounds. You should treat me as if I know literally nothing about the topic (because I don't know very much about the topic). It'd also help me make a better decision if you went a little bit slower than top speed.

I'd be comfortable judging either a policy round or a K round, but I'd probably be better at evaluating policy rounds. I'll vote on absolutely anything so long as there are warrants and you are explaining things well.

Tech over truth within reason - it matters to me that you are making good arguments. Those arguments can be as bizarre as you please, so long as you're explaining and warranting things well.

Impact calculus that's somewhat specific to the impacts being read would probably be good. The less I use my brain, the happier you will be. (I'm not very smart)

All things considered, I'd rather the aff have a plan, but who am I to tell you how to debate. I'll be generally sympathetic to framework arguments but don't let my preferences impact your strategy too much.

Please face me during speeches, I feel really uncomfortable when teams don't do this.

Have fun with it and be nice to each other.

Ten Commandments to be Good at Debate:

1. relax and have fun!

2. signpost in speeches

3. start weighing early

4. for novices at little lex: if you are first rebuttal, PLEASE do not extend your case if you don't know what else to say, just end it early.

5. frontline turns and DA's in 2nd rebuttal

6. 3 min summary should have offense, defense, and WEIGHING in it

7. summary and ff should collapse and mirror each other. I love great back half narratives so literally, paint a solid picture of how you are winning and I'll pick you up.

8. Progressive stuff:

- Don't read theory unless there was an actual harmful abuse conducted by the other team. If you are a PF debater who thinks they are *tech* by reading disclosure/paraphrase/random frivolous theory for easy wins please stop (also, if you are reading prog args against inexperienced debaters it is abusive).

9. speaks (not the same for novice tourney)

29.5-30: you are raw

29-29.5: you are really good

28.5-29: you are pretty nice with it

28-28.5: you are above average

27-28: you can do better

<27: you are toxic

10. don't be toxic, a lot of novice rounds are just people yelling at each other, be chill to everyone and it will make the activity much more enjoyable. Any sort of -ism's in round finna get you auto dropped and I will tank your speaks, so be kind and accepting to everyone :)

good luck,

raaj

Hello

i have been doing pf for the last two years at Acton Boxborough.

General Stuff

Tech>truth. I'll evaluate any arg but if its really ridiculous then my threshold for responses to the arg is very low

Im fine with speed but if your gonna go speedy, I'd like a speech doc

Progressive Arguments (Ks, Theory, Tricks, etc. ) - If there's some actual abuse in the round and the argument is well warranted, i'll vote off it. That being said, generally I will not vote on progressive args as I dont think they belong in this event. This basically sums up my opinion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ktZ8jX3JTbwB7ae-NopSoKg1KH0Mb2zCW5Ccsuy-XYM/edit

Defense needs to be extended in first summary

if neither side has any offense at the end of the round, i will presume first speaking team. this is because i believe that 2nd speaking is a huge advantage and if you are unable to capitalize on that advantage by generating offense you should not be rewarded

In terms of speaks, winning team gets 30s and losing team gets 29s.

Things i like

1. frontlining in second rebuttal

3. clear extensions w/ uniqueness, link, impact.

4. good warrants. I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

5. weighing. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make a questionable decision. If both teams are winning their case then i look to who's winning the weighing. Please respond to your opponent's weighing (if they read weighing) otherwise i choose which weighing to buy.

6. good evidence ethics. Paraphrasing is fine just don't horribly miscut the evidence

7. parallelism between summary and final focus

8. signposting

Things I dont like

1. offensive overviews in second rebuttal

2. being rude to your opponents. Im fine if you make jokes during cross as long as it isnt condescending \

3. if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. you are getting the L and your speaks will be nuked. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person

4. Postrounding

I will take notes.

Hey y'all, I'm Ansh and I debated on the Nat Circuit for Acton Boxborough since my sophomore year of high school. It's been a minute since I've touched debate, so here's how I'd go about treating me as a judge:

• Please don't go fast (250+ wpm), especially since I'm not familiar with the topic
• I am not too familiar with theory, tricks, Ks, etc., so don't read it unless there is a REAL violation in the round. It will be harder for me to vote for it

Things I like

• Weighing should be done on any offense that you are trying to use to win the round. I start evaluating with the weighing debate, and the earlier it is the stronger I evaluate it. A bonus would be meta-weighing and telling me why your weighing outweighs your opponents
• Explicit extensions from summary onwards, and consistency between summary and final focus (and a bit of collapsing since summary is 3 mins)
• Comparing responses or arguments when both teams are extending but not comparing them, tell me why yours is better
• Collapsing to 1-2 offensive arguments by summary, anything more than that doesn't allow you to fully flesh out your argument
• Front lining in second rebuttal, at the bare minimum any offense from 1st rebuttal. 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it was frontlined
• No new offense after 2nd rebuttal, and no new responses after 1st summary

No-no's

• Don't waste time debating evidence, just tell me to call for it and we can look at it after the round
• Don't postround, I'll make my own decision, just answer my questions if I have any

Other things

• If you have questions about my decision, you can send me an email or message me on Messenger (Facebook is Ansh Viswanathan)
• I'll start with 28.5 and go up or down based on your argumentation, strategy, clarity, and efficiency.
• Overall if you are Flamboyant, Ultimate, Charismatic, and/or Kwirky, we should all have a good time

Email (for whatever need be): ansh.viswanathan@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Zach and I debated for Hackley. For context, I debated technically but spoke slowly and (somewhat) persuasively.

For the email chain, my email address is: zyusaf@students.hackleyschool.org

For NSD, DO NOT read theory on anyone lower than your lab level. If you do, it's auto L 20s.

Here are some of my preferences:

1. Have a good narrative. This does not only have to be in the constructive speech. When collapsing on defense or weighing, the best way to get my ballot is to collapse on what will advance your story.

2. Please weigh! It helps to resolve the debate when both teams win their cases. This is not only weighing offensive arguments, but also doing comparative analysis as to, say, why your defense is better than their link/case argument. Weighing helps resolve clash all over the flow.

3. Frontline all offense and defense on the argument that you are going for in second rebuttal. If you don't, then I'll cut your speaks a bit and first summary doesn't have to extend defense.

4. I will 100% vote on any well-warranted argument if it's clean, even if it seems wacky.

5. Collapse in summary! Don't go for too much -- I really prefer when teams go for less and give more comparative analysis or in-depth frontlining.

6. You can read progressive arguments but I don't know much about them, so just make sure to explain them really well and I'll vote for you.

7. Warrants > Evidence.

Good luck!!

Hi! I'm Zach and I debated for Hackley. For context, I debated technically but spoke slowly and (somewhat) persuasively.

For the email chain, my email address is: zyusaf@students.hackleyschool.org

For NSD, DO NOT read theory on anyone lower than your lab level. If you do, it's auto L 20s.

Here are some of my preferences:

1. Have a good narrative. This does not only have to be in the constructive speech. When collapsing on defense or weighing, the best way to get my ballot is to collapse on what will advance your story.

2. Please weigh! It helps to resolve the debate when both teams win their cases. This is not only weighing offensive arguments, but also doing comparative analysis as to, say, why your defense is better than their link/case argument. Weighing helps resolve clash all over the flow.

3. Frontline all offense and defense on the argument that you are going for in second rebuttal. If you don't, then I'll cut your speaks a bit and first summary doesn't have to extend defense.

4. I will 100% vote on any well-warranted argument if it's clean, even if it seems wacky.

5. Collapse in summary! Don't go for too much -- I really prefer when teams go for less and give more comparative analysis or in-depth frontlining.

6. You can read progressive arguments but I don't know much about them, so just make sure to explain them really well and I'll vote for you.

7. Warrants > Evidence.

Good luck!!