hello hello

i'm sophia from torrey pines hs, rising junior and i've been debating since freshman year

email: sta13216@gmail.com

basic flow things

- tech>truth

- i vote for the team who has the cleanest link chain into the clearest impact

- frontlining 2nd rebuttal is cool

- please don't go for everything, collapse. otherwise, you're making the round a lot messier than it should be

- signpost. please. i might get lost if you don't and at that point it's not my fault if i'm missing substance from your speech because i was too busy trying to find where you are on the flow

- extensions are nice. make sure that you're including the link, warrant, and impact. the card name is not enough

- if it's not in summary, it's not in final focus

- weigh or i'll cry.

- i'm not familiar with progressive arguments (theory, kritiks, trix, etc) and therefore am not the best judge to run it in front of. but if you feel like you can make it clear and easy for me to understand, go for it

other things:

- speed is fine, but not to the point of spreading. keep in mind that this is an online tournament over discord and you'll probably cut out at least 3 times. going too fast means i'm missing more substance when you cut out vs going slower and not missing as much

- i'll be listening to cross, but i will most likely be playing neko atsume or 1010. however, that does not excuse anything that is rude or offensive. i have 0 tolerance towards any sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, and other problematic behavior.

- i will call for evidence if you tell me to. otherwise, i probably won't unless it's super sus

- i default to 28 speaks

if you have any questions, find me on fb or ask before the round

Update: If you do everything you can to make the round go as quick as possible, I will increase your speaks (joining early if pairings go up early, not frivolously calling for cards or taking forever to produce them, etc.)

I'm Tejas, I debated a couple years at Del Norte

I STRONGLY prefer it if you frontline offense and whatever you're going for in second rebuttal

Defense is sticky for the first speaking team for whatever the second rebuttal doesn't frontline. However, if the second speaking team DOES frontline, defense is NOT sticky. However, even if second rebuttal doesn’t frontline turns, they need to be extended in the summary for them to generate offense.

If they are extended from rebuttal to final by the first speaking team, given that the second rebuttal did not frontline them, they will be evaluated as terminal defense.

I need full extensions in summary and final

Weigh as early in the round as possible, preferably starting in rebuttal

I'm fine with speed, but send a doc if you're spreading or if your opponents aren't comfortable with speed

Collapse in the back half please

For theory, K's, tricks, etc. I'll evaluate it, but I'm not the best judge for it, as I haven't debated it much myself, so tread with caution

I usually default competing interps and always yes RVIs unless told to do so otherwise

I default con for policy resolutions and first speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm tab

Be aggressive and interrupt as much as you want during cross I literally don't care at all

You can also do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

You don't need to add me to the email chain, I'll call for evidence only if I'm asked to do so

I'm pretty nice with speaks, I'll usually average at least a 29

I don’t call for evidence unless told to do so

If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s

Have fun

add me to the chain: stefan.boone12@gmail.com

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more. (However, dropped defense sticks to infinity if it goes unresponded to by the other team)

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense and responding to frontlines that are made, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interepretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the neg on presumption unless warranting given for a different way of presuming.

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am mostly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - ill give the highest the tournament allows me to

I cannot keep up with speeds over around 900 words /four minute. Give a speech doc if u plan on going faster.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Competed on national circuit for PF 2019-2021.

Email: daniel.basispf@gmail.com

Never competed in LD before. Treat me as Lay.

Assume I know nothing about the topic. Will probably like PF-style arguments

For PF and LD when applicable:

Standard Tech over Truth

1. Please weigh often and early
2. Defense is adhesive and I presume 1st speaking team
3. Strong logic > weak evidence
4. Not great with speed, progressive args, and theory

Not looking at speech docs/email chains unless a team specifically asks me to or if there is an evidence dispute. ie all cards must be read in speeches coherently

Feel free to ask any other questions before the around and lightly postround.

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

******EXTEND FULL ARGUMENTS******DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING******HAVE FUN******

^the holy trinity

Hey! My name is Seb and I love debate.

.

My pf debate judging preferences

• I flow, but above all else I want to be persuaded
• I like when speeches are filled with jokes, analogies, and metaphors
• I dislike roadmaps, you can just tell me where you are starting and signpost the rest
• I like when rounds move quickly and debaters speak slowly
• I think the simplest strategy is usually the best strategy
• I dislike card dumping strategies, and more broadly prefer depth to breadth

.

My pf debate philosophies

I think that:

• Paraphrasing is good
• Disclosure is a bad norm
• Theory should only be used when necessary
• Non topical k’s are unfair
• I should only flow what I hear

.

My pf debate advice

1. Collapse on your most important argument. If you are winning your entire case, you have no reason to go for all of your offense in Final Focus- extend the best offense you have, because it'll outweigh the rest of your case anyways. If you're getting up in FF and telling me that there are four voters in the round, you are doing it wrong.

2. Have a consistent narrative throughout the round. Everything that you go for in your Final Focus needs to have been in your Summary, and you cannot introduce new arguments after Rebuttal. I should be able to flow your arguments from Constructive all the way to FF.

3. Treat your opponents with respect. Debate has a tendency to get heated, which is perfectly fine. However, being in the zone is not an excuse to be rude in CX or any other part of the round. Please be courteous and chill when speaking to one another, even if it means that you wont have time to get to that one GaMe ChAnGiNg crossfire question you have.

4. Debate in the style that you are the most comfortable with. I am familiar with everything from very traditional to very technical pf. While my judging philosophy is on the technical side, every round can be won with smart debating, no matter what style that is. Don't feel the need to go fast or use more debate jargon just to win my ballot.

5. Signpost Signpost Signpost. I should be told exactly where the arguments you are making need to be flowed. If there was an argument that you thought won you the round but I don't have it on my flow, you probably didn't signpost it well and I had no idea where to put it. Bad signposting is the #1 cause of debate judge migraines.

6. Do comparative and meta-weighing. Claiming that you "win on magnitude because your impact is 3 million lives" or that you "win on probability because it's gonna happen" is bad weighing. Comparative weighing is making a weighing analysis directly between your impact and your opponents' impact. Meta weighing is comparing two different weighing mechanisms against each other (like saying why probability is more important than scope, etc.). Using these methods to weigh your impacts properly will go a long way.

7. Be Personable! At its core, debate is a game of persuasion. To me, the best debaters are always smiling, engaged, friendly, and working to simplify the round the best they can. Charisma and critical thinking are the most portable skills that you develop in this activity, and they are the fundamental to both your performance in round and interactions outside of debate.

Hello, I am Benjamin Feng. I am a junior debating at Torrey Pines High School. I qualified for the Silver TOC in my Sophomore and Junior year.

Important Stuff

Second Rebuttal NEEDS to frontline. If you don't frontline I'll consider your case dropped.

Defense is not sticky, even if it's dropped you won't get away with extending pieces of defense that weren't brought up in Summary. Only exception is if second rebuttal didn't frontline, then there's no need to extend every piece of defense.

Everything that was said in Final Focus needs to have been said in Summary. The only exception is new weighing; it's OK in 1FF, not in 2FF.

Offensive Overviews / New Contentions in Rebuttal are only OK in first rebuttal. If it's brought up in Second Rebuttal I will not consider it.

If you don't extend your case / crucial pieces of defense in Summary, I'm sorry but it's going to make it very hard to vote for you. Anything that isn't extended through Summary is considered dropped.

PLEASE DO WEIGHING AND/OR META-WEIGHING. If neither team does weighing and both have marginal offense I'll be forced to intervene. If both teams have conceded weighing and don't meta-weigh I'll be forced to intervene / consult my paradigm. META-WEIGHING SHOULD LINK INTO EITHER FAIRNESS OR EDUCATION. If both teams also do meta-weighing I would recommend further weighing Fairness/Education.

Turns don't mean anything if they're not weighed.

Please implicate defense as either terminal defense or weighing. Mitigatory defense has literally no use in the round if it doesn't feed back into your weighing mechanisms.

PLEASE SIGNPOST. If you don't I might miss something really important.

Defaults

Trix > Theory > Kritik > Framework > Substance

Theory: I default to Counter-Interps and RVIs good.

Framework: I default to Util.

Weighing: If no meta-weighing is given, for impact calculus I default to Magnitude x Probability, with Magnitude being Scope x Severity x Timeframe. Unless told otherwise I look at Prereq & Strength of Link weighing first.

Progressive Arguments

IMPORTANT: If you run Progressive argumentation (Trix, Theory, Kritik) against novices I will evaluate it but I WILL GIVE YOU 25 SPEAKS. Additionally, if you plan on running Prog args RUN THEM WELL. There's this weird obsession among PF debaters that suck at substance debate with Prog argumentation; if you run Trix, Theory, or Ks poorly I will give you LOW SPEAKS. Please first learn how to debate well before learning how to debate prog.

Trix: I hate them, and I think they're stupid so I have a VERY low threshold for responses; any semi-coherent response to Trix in the next speech will probably suffice.

Theory: I have little experience with Theory debate and am probably not the best judge to read it in front of, but go ahead if you want. I like TW Theory, dislike paraphrase theory, disclosure theory is 50/50 for me. Theory should be read before or in first rebuttal.

Kritik: I have very, very little experience with K debate and I am definitely not the best judge to read it in front of, but you do you. If you're not reading the most common K args (i.e cap, neolib, setcol, antiblack, etc.) you're going to have to explain your arguments REALLY well. Please give a ROTB for K args, it makes the round a lot easier to evaluate. In general, just understand the literature very well if you do plan on reading a K. Ks should be read before or in first rebuttal.

Substance

Framework: I love Framework debate, and I'm especially receptive to SV or SV-related (preventing racism, queer bigotry, sexism, etc.) framing. Make sure you have warrants for the Framework, and make sure you're extending the warrants in each speech (unless they concede it).

Substance: In general I'm tech>truth, so go crazy as long as the warranting is clear and the ev is good. I'll only call for evidence if you specifically tell me to (not "I suggest you call for this card" but "JUDGE CALL FOR THIS CARD") or if it's really crucial to my decision.

Speaks

4-2 screws suck, so I try to give high speaks whenever I can. In general:

30: You're an amazing debater. Good job.

29: Average speaks

28: There were a lot of things you could've done better on.

27: You made some very serious strategic errors (not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, not extending case in summary, etc.)

26: This isn't really for skill level, but if you're exceptionally rude, decide to run prog arguments really badly, or read 30 speaks theory I'll give you a 26.

25: You read prog args on a novice. Come on man.

If you are in any way racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, bigoted, etc. in the round I will immediately give you an L20.

Postround me please; I won't change my decision but I'd love to get feedback, just don't be a dick about it. If you want additional feedback you can message be on FB Messenger (Benjamin Feng) or via text (858-353-2502)

About Me:

Hello, my name is Gaurish Gaur! I use he/him pronouns. I specialize, in impromptu parliamentary debate, however, I have experience with judging and coaching other forms of debate too (i.e. PF, LD, Policy, Cong, etc). I also have some knowledge of speech/IE.

Judging Philosophy:

Overall, I will always choose flow>speaks. However, if a round is extremely close, I will into consideration how well an argument is presented as a sort-of tiebreaker. That being said, here are my general preferences:

*As another reminder, do not be rude to your opponent in any way (laughing, talking over, etc), please keep debate fun for all

*Crossfire questions/POIs will not be flowed but can be used as a gateway to future arg/links

*Spreading is fine, as long as I can follow along. If I am unable to, or the opponents can't either, we'll let you know

*You must explain impacts for arguments in order to do impact calculus at final speeches

*Anything not addressed before the final speech, will be considered a 'concession' (Tech>Truth unless completely unreasonable)

*Don't get too wacky with theory/critics

*I generally value logic arguments over pure empirical evidence, in other words, explain why your card makes sense

*In terms of speaker points, I value speeches that are able to tell jokes/a story or—in general—just switch things up

*Anything that seems unfair/abusive probably is, but the opponent must point that out (framer's intentions)

*Time yourselves, please don't talk too much overtime out of respect for your opponent

*As my last tip, always try to examine your final speech from the judge's perspective, or in other words, the bigger picture

Please feel free to ask me any questions!

Gaurish Gaur

gaurishgaur3@gmail.com

(858-649-9241)

- General guidelines:

If your opponent asks to see cards, do so after cross fire. At the end of the round, I may ask to see cards so be prepared.

I'm more of a flow judge, but please make sure to be clear and assertive during round. I am fine with fast speaking but clarity is more important to me.

Make sure you extend arguments throughout the round or I will not take them into account.

Make sure you signpost your arguments and extend your link chain.

Terminalize your impacts!!

Arguments need to be extended throughout both the summary and final focus or I will not evaluate them in the round -- this means no new arguments in the late speeches.

Weigh!! This needs to happen in the late speeches or else it makes it hard for me to vote on a team.

Carmel Valley '21

Conflicts - Carmel Valley, Torrey Pines, Del Norte, Fremont

Add me to the chain - iainlaw10@gmail.com

*CAL RR* - Know nothing about the topic

Flip/preflow before round. Fast evidence exchanges. Postround. I don't flow anything over time or off docs. Speed is fine, clarity is key. Anyone can talk in cross. Read whatever you'd like.

Everything must be responded to in the next speech or its conceded, besides constructive

Weigh. Link comparison. Warrant comparison. I vote for the team with the strongest link into the strongest impact. I like voting on turns or DAs but they must be weighed and have impacts.

High threshold for extensions. Link and impact extension on any piece of offense in summary and FF.

If you want to concede defense to kick out of the turns, you MUST do it the speech right after the turns are read and must point out the specific piece of defense you concede/explain why it takes out the turn.

Competing interps/RVIs

plz line by line ツ

Debate however makes you feel comfortable

not familiar with progressive arguments so explain well and I might vote on it

I vote off the flow but def prefer slower speed, prob max out at 200wpm

Not asking for much, but consider the following:

Extend your arguments (offense and defense) - if you don't do this, I will be very frustrated

Signpost or I will get lost

Solid impacts and weigh please

I won't flow down crossfire - that being said, if you bring up stuff from crossfire into your case, I'll flow it

Do not SPREAD

I will stop flowing after you go overtime

Feel free to ask any other questions before round starts

Have fun y'all

tl;dr explain progressive stuff really well, everything else is pretty standard

ill vote on anything pretty much so tech>truth as long as it’s not super offensive or abusive (racism, homophobia, etc.)

-frontline offense in second rebuttal

-defense isn’t sticky, so extend everything you want me to vote on, if it’s not in final I won’t evaluate it

-weighing is very nice, please weigh a lot

im not well versed in K's, theory, progressive stuff but im completely fine with having them read in front of me as long as you can explain it well to me

im very generous with speaks but if you're funny or make the round entertaining for me in some way then i'll probably give 29+

debated PF in high school on national circuit, currently coach some hs teams, am in college right now

(pronouns: she/her)

Here are some tech-y things:

Signpost, frontline at least turns in second rebuttal*, everything in final focus must be in summary (including defense**), extend case arguments and turns from uniqueness to fiat to impact.

*I prefer you frontline all defense for the argument you are going to collapse on in second rebuttal, but I guess I won't be too upset if you just run out of time.

**I would prefer you extend defense in first summary even if it isn't responded to in second rebuttal, but my threshold for extensions of not-responded-to defense is pretty low for first summary. Second summary needs to extend any defense that you want me to evaluate.

Here are some specifics for me:

If you aren't explaining WHY things happen, and just asserting things happen because a card says so, I will be sad. I am much more likely to buy well-warranted yet un-carded analysis over poorly warranted yet carded assertions.

If you tell me WHY your offense should be prioritized over your opponents' offense, then you are weighing!

Weigh Please ! ! !

Other stuff:

On theory, kritiks, tricks, or any other non-substantive arguments:

Theory/kritiks: I can follow it, but you are going to have to go a lot slower and explain things clearly. I'll get lost if you use too much jargon. so proceed at your own risk.

Tricks: nah

On Presumption: I presume neg unless other presumption arguments are made. If you think the round is too muddled and there isn't offense to vote off of, you might want to make a presumption argument. BUT I am more likely to buy poorly extended arguments that are adequately front-lined than I am to presume. ie I dislike presuming anything so prioritize trying to win the round with what you have on the flow rather than dishing out ten presumption args.

Also I flow on paper so don't spread.

I also don't call for cards after the round unless you explicitly tell me to call for it in a speech.

also, don't be a mean debater :p

i'm chill, come talk to me if you need anything even if you don't know me

email: rm859@cornell.edu - feel free to contact me if u have questions or coaching inquiries

"i think the longer judges take to come to a decision the more incorrect their ballot is"

- saikumar gantla

Carmel Valley/Canyon Crest '21; UCLA '25

Add me to the chain - syon.mansur@gmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------

be nice to each other!

Tech > Truth

I'll vote on anything as long as its warranted (no racist/sexist/etc. args)

Any offense you go for should have a link and impact extended in both summary and final

Second rebuttal needs to answer all offense

Defense is sticky

You can kick out of turns by conceding defense in the speech after

Weigh/meta weigh

Speed is chill

I appreciate it when you send docs

Not super experienced with progressive argumentation but I'm comfortable voting on everything. Make sure to explain stuff well and flesh out your extensions.

i really hate when ppl make casual conversation like "how was ur day" during cross, especially grand cross. id rather you j take prep or skip it. also when people count "3 2 1" before giving their speech.

feel free to ask me about my own debate history! i love talking about myself :)

-------------------------------------------------------

Specific to MSTOC '22

I have not been super involved in debate this year, meaning I've watched very few rounds and judged even fewer. I won't know much about the topic, especially early in the tournament-- make sure to explain well and explain acronyms/jargon. I also probably can't handle speed to the same level as before (though I doubt this will be an issue). Good luck and remember you're here to have fun!!

Conflicts: Carmel Valley, Canyon Crest, Pacific Trails, Del Mar Montessori

I competed LD all four years of high school. I did mostly league, so I'm not too familiar with circuit debate. I have some familiarity with Ks, theory, plans, etc, so feel free to run anything, and I'll try my best to follow your arguments.

Off time roadmaps and signposting are helpful.

I don’t use the info in cross, so if there is anything important, you have to bring it up in your other speeches.

I prefer if you don’t spread, but if you want to anyways, you can. It probably won't effect my decision, like I won't take off speaker points, if you do. I just might have a harder time following you. If you are going to spread though, please flash or send me your cases.

Also sorry ahead of time about how I assign speaker points. I feel like I'm pretty bad at determining how much speaker points to give people, so I apologize in advance if what I give you doesn't match how you feel you performed.

You can ask me more questions about how I judge before the round, and I’ll try to answer you the best I can :)

hello! i'm a junior at torrey pines hs, and i've been debating for about 3 years. my email is meganjpeng@gmail.com

-don't make me do any work for you

-preflow BEFORE round!!

-be nice!!! if you are super disrespectful, problematic (sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.), or constantly talk over people i will give you very low speaks

-content warnings if you think you need it

-tech>truth

-i can handle speed, but if you go too fast i will miss things. also this is an online tournament so keep that in mind.

-SIGNPOST

-please collapse! don't try to go for everything

-also when you're extending an arg, make sure you extend the link, warrant, and impact or else i will not consider it extended.

-defense is sticky

-frontlining in second rebuttal is cool

-if you bring it up in final focus, it has to be in summary except for weighing

-WEIGH

-i don't care about cross unless you are mean

-i haven't run args like k's/theory/trix before but if you think you can make it easy to understand, no one's stopping you. that being said, make sure your opponents are comfortable with it. do it at your own risk and don't complain about a judge screw if you think i voted wrong.

-bring up evidence quickly and don't steal prep

-i'm not going to call for evidence unless you tell me to

-i default to 28 for speaker points

- and +0.2 speaker points for every timothee chalamet reference / if you are funny i'll probably boost you a little

if you have any questions message me on fb (Megan Peng) or look at Sophia Ai's paradigm

have fun!

please make the round entertaining, don’t be overly annoying or rude, explain everything thoroughly, I refuse to read a case doc, paraphrase good, disclosure bad, have fun.

dont let me get bored and make sure to smile :)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

TLDR: Extend and Weigh! Rounds that end in a timely manner will result in higher speaks for everyone.

Paradigm:

Please flip before the round and let me know what topic, side, and order right before the round starts. Preflow too. Don't take too long to find a card/evidence.

Tech > Truth

here is how I evaluate rounds:

- prefiat > framework > weighing > link/impact

- frameworks should have clear warranting as to why I should reject an alternative framework and the default CBA/util framing. Don't just assert it.

- Extend full arguments and weigh. If there is no extension, then I can't vote for the argument. I love extensions. please extend. extend please. extensions are important. Reexplain the argument like I am a close friend who does not do debate trying to understand what your argument is on a topic they have vague information on. Be decisive with your language. But make sure to be concise! (if you can’t tell extensions are really important)

- Don't extend through ink and warrant as much as you can + arguments extended in FF should have been in summary.

- In 2nd Rebuttal: just please frontline the argument you are collapsing on and respond to any relevant offense, including turns, DAs, case. no reason to reread your own case. i care more about extensions in summary and final so no need to reexplain anything other than responses to their responses in this speech. Extensions in 2nd rebuttal make no sense!

- Please do not be abusive with disads in 2nd rebuttal. I will be reluctant to vote on it if it is not well warranted or weighed or if it feels wonky. (tip: try to phrase it as a turn so I don't think about it too much). I'm not a fan of DAs in read in rebuttal in general so just make sure its fleshed out like a contention from case is.

- Concede arguments in the speech right after

- Summary needs to extend defense (make sure you respond to what they say against it)

- I would appreciate if you would skip grand cross and go straight to final (That being said I'd rather watch GCX than sit in silence so if you need prep, just do GCX, I won't give flex prep) (if in a panel, check with other judges)

- Please weigh.

- I won't evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF, unless no one else does weighing at all or the weighing debate just becomes confusing. I would recommend starting weighing early.

- Respond to your opponent's weighing in the speech right after they bring it up.

- When there are two competing claims/pieces of evidence that cannot be true at the same time brought up by two teams, do comparative weighing for me to evaluate which argument I should prefer.

- I like reasonably paced debates where debaters make use of rhetorical persuasion rather than fast debates. I prefer not using a speechdoc to flow. This means speak slower.

- I will only call for evidence if I believe it will impact my decision/not cleared up in the round (or if I am just interested).

- Important stuff in cross should be brought up in a speech if you want it flowed.

- I don't flow cross so make your crossfires funny and entertaining to watch (be nice/respectful) or have a good in round strategy for 30 speaks.

- I don't really know much about Ks or theory (and other pre-fiat arguments), but I have had experience debating and judging those types of rounds. If you choose to run these arguments make sure to make it super simple for me to understand how I am supposed to vote. Make sure to read it because you believe in the actual argument, not because you want to win a debate round. I reserve the right to vote however I want when it comes to prefiat (and usually I am biased against most progressive arguments, so keep that in mind). I might just become a lay judge if I want to. I will say that im fine with teams reading theory in a paragraph form so you dont have to waste an entire speech on a full shell. just make sure that you still have the same parts that a shell may have.

- If there are no lines of offense for your opponents to win off of, feel free to call TKO. If there is no path to the ballot for your opponents left, I'll give you the win and 30 speaks. If there is, then you will lose the round.

- If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s.

- i'll become a lay judge if the round becomes boring.

- Give me food and magical things will happen.

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

(Scroll down for my PF paradigm)

Defaults

Comparative Worlds

Theory/T -> K -> Case

Reasonability

Drop the arg

No RVI

Fairness

Ethical Certainty

Presume Neg

Quals:

I do LD. I've qualled to the toc and reached deep elims in a few tournaments.

Disclaimer: I haven't done anything debate-related for two years, so I will be rusty with getting back into it.

LD:

Framework: I enjoy framework debates. Although I am a progressive debater, I do understand and can vote off of framework if sufficient enough for me. Just remember to extend reasons as to why your framework should take precedence in this round. Also, don't confuse your case with the framework and cross-apply your case arguments to justify your framework. They are two very different layers of debate.

Kritiks: Kritiks are my favorite part of debate. If you are planning to run a K, please make sure you understand how to debate a K and know sufficiently about the K to debate it.

Theory: When there is real in-round abuse, I think theory is a good check to it. However, when you run theory just for the sake of winning, it's annoying. I will vote off frivolous theory and a priori arguments but with very great displeasure (expect a drop of speaker points). Disclosure is probably good.

Topicality: Topicality arguments are great.

P/CP: Case arguments that pertain to the topic are great. I like clever plans and counter-plans. PiCs are great as well. I'll take whatever you got but remember to extend.

Contentions: If you aren't a progressive debater, this may seem more familiar to you. I am completely fine with lay and traditional arguments, and don't let the previous stuff scare you into thinking that.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the rebuttal speeches, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments and be explicit.

Add me to the email chain if you are spreading: jungwoo.seo@emory.edu

Please don't spread if your opponents can't either; it's abusive and doesn't promote educational practices that way.

PF:

If you're going to be fast, don't read paraphrased evidence. I will not flow it.

Framework: Although I know that PF is more of a contention level debate, I have seen interesting frameworks being used, so I'm open to new and interesting frameworks that work on proving your point. I default to CBA if no framework is mentioned.

Contentions: You are free to use whatever arguments that you think may help you and if I think you won that, I'll vote for it.

Crossfire: I think crossfire is my favorite part of PF debate. Please keep it civil but don't be afraid to make some sassy comments or ask good questions.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the summary speech, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: This is critical, especially in public forum. I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments.

Defense: Defense is not "sticky." You need to cleanly extend the defense you want me to evaluate in the summary and ff if you want me to evaluate it.

Theory: I will evaluate theory just as how it is evaluated in LD and CX. You do not need to ask your opponent if you can run theory or not; that's silly.

Please don't shake my hand, thanks.

Tech > truth, but I am only human.

Run whatever you want: Theory > K > Topicality > Trix > Substance

Competed in public forum from 2020-2022 under Basis Independent Silicon Valley AV and VB.

Strong warranting >>> blippy responses.

Egregiously bad evidence will likely result in lower speaks.

vinay_vellore@berkeley.edu

Be nice :)

Kelly Wang
I'm a senior at Torrey Pines High School and I have debated varsity public forum for 4 years. Here are some of my judging preferences:

- No theory, please!

- I will not flow arguments in Final Focus that weren't brought up in Summary

- Make sure to extend all your arguments and link chains clearly and thoroughly throughout the round

- Please sign-post clearly

- Tech > Truth

- Please be sure to weigh, weigh, weigh!

- You can use debate jargon, but please don't overuse it

- I know nothing about this topic so treat me as a flay judge

- I'm fine with a little speed, but no spreading please

- I'm okay with off-time roadmaps

- I would prefer it if the Aff sits to my left and the Neg sits to my right (you can also ask me before the round starts)

- No new arguments or evidence after the second summary

- Please stand during crossfire and sit for grand crossfire

- I will not flow crossfire

- I don't mind a little aggro, but make sure to be respectful and polite :)