Please put me on the email chain: amandeepbedi01@gmail.com

PUBLIC FORUM:

I did public forum at Eastside Prep in Seattle, WA from 2015-2019. I am very much a traditionalist. Public forum is not slower policy. Your goal is to convince me. I will not look favorably on policy-type arguments in public forum including Spreading, Plans, Counter Plans, Kritik's, Topicality, or Theory arguments.

In general, though Public Forum should be a paradigm free debate event.

Numbering your argument and debating/explaining the links are great ways to increase your speaks and win in front of me.

Policy:

I debate at Emory University (2019-2023) in Atlanta, GA.

I am more familiar with policy arguments than critiques. If you go for a critique, please make sure you clearly state your alternative in terms that a simpleton like me can understand.

My preferences:

Quality over quantity of arguments.

I tend to read evidence at the end of the debate; please make it good evidence.

Numbering your arguments is a good way to improve your speaks in front of me.

Links should be about the plan (whether you have evidence to defend them or not).

I do not consider myself a good judge for topicality debates versus policy Affs.

Be respectful of your teammate and competitors.

I try to take the round as a whole when judging.

You should clearly address your opponent's arguments and not simply throw out a source that says your opponent is wrong. Make sure you link the evidence to the point you are addressing.

No argument is perfect so if you are clearly losing a point admit it and move on. Don't spend the whole round trying to defend a losing argument. Concentrate on strengthening your other points. I respect competitors who know their strengths and can admit their weaknesses.

I can mostly keep up with faster delivery, however if you decide to spread just know I likely will not keep up and you risk me missing points in your arguments. If I don't have an argument on my flow I cannot weigh it when deciding a winner.

The real key to winning is making clear, logical, arguments that are supported by legitimate evidence.

TLDR: I like smart narrative tech debates. But you do you!

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and my email is zarachapple (at) gmail.com. I debated PF for Dalton (C)Y from 2017-2020, ran Beyond Resolved, coached for PFA, and now I study Public Policy and Sociology.

Don't be bigoted, don't be mean, respect pronouns + use content warnings. If I make this round/tournament safer or more accessible, please reach out, and I'll do what I can!

.·:*¨༺ ༻¨*:·.

Debate is a game and that game is Jenga. Collapse!

Procedure: Preflow, track your prep, and don't skip cross. I'll disclose decisions/speaks/comments as the tournament allows and give feedback, but don't post-round me.

Getting Good Speaks: Signpost everything, especially weighing/off case args. Implicate weighing/responses to your opponent's case. Crossfire shows how well you know your own arguments. I strongly prefer analytical responses that go after the structure of your opponent's arguments to prep-outs and card dumps.

Speed: Check with all teams/judges. My limit is ~220 WPM and I won't flow arguments I didn't hear.

Evidence: Your evidence probably isn't as good as you make it, but I won't evaluate issues with things I'm not asked to look for. Good analytics >>> unwarranted evidence. I'm chill with paraphrasing when it explains something more efficiently.

Theory: I am familiar with and will evaluate theory. I have high standards for reasonability, and argumentation still matters. Please don't make me intervene on vibes because your theory arguments aren't extended, warranted, and/or implicated. Theory isn't an RVI unless you make args otherwise.

Ks/Progressive Arguments: I really believe most policymaking approaches are problematic, so I welcome these arguments, and I'm familiar with most authors read in PF. That said, I have more experience judging LARP rounds, and I see their educational value too. PF's structure isn't conducive to Ks so I understand if you just explain the role of your argument, but I would encourage you to focus on strong links and alternatives.

Misc: I'm a Cancer Sun, Scorpio Moon, Pisces Rising. I judge nothing like Ben.

Good luck, and have fun!

* I did PF for 4 years and am a Poli Sci/Phil major at Youngstown State University

My decision usually takes the path of least resistance. Give me a clear picture of where and why I'm voting for you. If I have to use mental gymnastics to find a reason to sign my ballot in your favor, it's not a good sign.

I prefer a handful of fleshed out, well warranted points /responses, rather than many surface level arguments in all speeches, but especially rebuttal.

I prefer that 2nd rebuttal frontline against 1st rebuttal to help increase clash.

I prefer you weigh your arguments against you opponent's arguments at all levels. Don't just tell me your impact is bigger. Tell me why your link is more probable and unique than your opponents, and then tell me why your impact is more important. This is just a guideline of areas I enjoy seeing debaters weigh, so feel free to make analysis as you see fit, just make sure it's meaningful. However, weighing only on scope and magnitude is boring. I thoroughly enjoy seeing debaters do better than this.

Summary doesn't have to extend defense that wasn't responded to.

I enjoy polite, well paced cx, be aggressive, but not rude.

Spread at your own risk. I'm ok at flowing, but there's no guarantee I get it all down.

I appreciate consistent signposting (if you do want to go fast, this is necessary). Don't just say "on their first contention" and read a bunch of unnumbered responses. Please tell me what part of the argument you're responding to. Telling me that your response is a delink/turn/mitigation etc, allows me to make a note on my flow and makes it less likely that the arg gets lost in the shuffle.

All of these are just preferences. Obviously, I can't make you follow them, but I'll have a hard time voting for you if you don't.

*Optional*

I like it when debaters are clever and make me laugh. Don't be a jerk, but injecting some humor that makes my day a bit better is a good way to stand out. Obviously I won't vote off of it, but it's still nice and I might give you more speaks.

1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.

2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.

3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.

3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.

4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.

6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.

7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."

Make clear, concise arguments and take your time. Make sure you date your sources as newer material tends to be more relevant. I will flow rounds. Do not make new arguments during summary as it can be unfair to your opponents, other than that have fun.

Ardrey Kell '20 | UNC Chapel Hill '24

Email: goskonda24a@ad.unc.edu

Contact me if you have any questions with the email above

***Note for online rounds: Online debates are really weird and the possibility of someone's internet cutting out or their audio lagging is really high. In order to keep the round going smoothly, I strongly suggest that you send over speech docs for each speech and disclose your cases either on the wiki or putting it on the email chain. That way even if there is a technical issue during a speech we don't have to backtrack.

General

I was the captain of the Ardrey Kell High School Public Forum team. I competed in PF for 4 years and had some decent success on circuit.

Speed wasn't an issue as a debater but judging is a whole different story, so slow down just a little bit, especially if it's a new topic. I'm fine with spreading as long as you provide speech docs (otherwise I won't flow).

Provide warrants for everything you read. Explain why something happens, instead of just claiming that it happens.

Signpost signpost signpost!

Flow stuff

-Debate is a game. I am tech>truth and will flow any argument, as long as you articulate them well and your link chains actually make sense.

-I like framework debates, but in order to win off of framework you need to extend it in every speech of the round. If no framework is given, I default cost-benefit.

-No new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns (you can kick out of them strategically, but don't bs). Weighing in rebuttal is lit.

-If an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true.

-Summary and final focus have to be consistent. You can re-explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round in FF. 1st FF can do a little bit extra weighing and new backlines to responses made in 2nd summary given that the first speaking team has a disadvantage in the round but no new link extensions that weren't in summary.

-My favorite protein is weigh protein (if you don't understand you're either gonna lose the round or you spend time prepping for debate so much that you don't have time to go to the gym)

-If you don't extend a link in summary, it's game over for you. Link extensions should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Weighing should also be extended in every speech. You can't link in with weighing if you're not winning your link.

-Extending something doesn't mean saying "extend the Smith evidence that goes conceded". Extend what the evidence says as well as the warranting/implication

-Summary doesnt have to extend conceded defense unless it's turns or TD. Turns without warranting and implications aren't turns at all so I'm not gonna evaluate them if you don't flush them out.

-2nd FF can't have any new link ins or weighing. Extend it from summary

At the end of the day, I will vote off of the most important argument in the round. If it is well-articulated and weighed, chances are you probably won it.

Progressive Argumentation

I'm going to be honest here. I understand and support the fact that progressive argumentation is key for checking back abuse of norms and create inclusivity in the debate sphere. However, I ran substance for most of my career and I am not an expert at progressive argumentation. That being said, I will evaluate theory and some basic level Ks if they are really really well explained. My threshold for evaluating progressive args is high so the simpler your arguments are, the better. I'd still much rather judge a normal substance debate, but if there is a violation that you absolutely have the need to call out, then go for it. Don't run frivolous arguments.

-CIs>reasonability

-I slightly lean to no RVIs but I'm pretty taboo about it

-No K-affs, Plans/CPs, tricks, etc (I have no idea what these are)

Miscellaneous

-I'm not going to call for cards after round unless you make an effort to indict one and I am told to call for it.

-I will be flowing the entire round except for crossfire, so if something important in cross pops up, I'm not going to consider it unless it's mentioned in speech.

-If you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, ableist, or show any other kind of discrimination you will be dropped automatically with the lowest speaks possible.

-You can paraphrase your cards as long as the content is what it actually says. If you do get caught lying about your cards, you will get an L with really low speaks

-Any Weeknd or Drake reference = 30 speaks

At the end of the day, whether you're on the bid round or you're riding the bubble, make sure you have fun. I get bored very easily debating or judging so make the round entertaining and light hearted. If you're funny, I'll bump your speaks and will like you but don't force it or come off as rude.

If you have any questions that I may not have answered in this paradigm, you can contact me using the info I put at the top.

Good luck!

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

A couple things:

- I can't flow spreading, so please don't :'(

- I'm not good with theory, but I'll try my best

- You don't need to disclose, but I'll buy any theory arguments about it being good

- You can paraphrase if you want, but I'll buy any theory arguments about it being bad

- No offensive overviews in rebuttal

- Second rebuttal should probably frontline

- Anything in FF needs to be in Summary

- Weighing in FF also needs to be in Summary considering that it's three minutes

- If I can't vote on anything, I'll default to the first speaking team.

Otherwise, have fun with the round!

Hi I’m Juliana. I did PF for 4 years at Stow High school in Ohio and I’m now a freshman at John Carroll University. Here’s a couple of important things you should know about me as a judge:

1. If you say something important in cx please say it in a speech. I’m not a huge fan of cross. I will still pay attention but definitely won’t vote on it.

2. Plz don’t spread. I’d prefer you to talk slow and project your voice rather than go super fast to hit every point.

3. Don’t go over the time in your speeches

4. No need for an offtime roadmap.

5. I LOVE a good and interesting fw. Tell me something I haven’t heard before

6. I prefer teams to break down the round into the most important ideas by summary and FF rather than hitting every little point, even if it means dropping part of your case. Addressing every single turn, subpoint, card in FF is not necessary and will probably hurt you in the end. At that point, I just want to hear about overarching impacts, and why yours are more important than your opponents. Quality over quantity

7. DO NOT LIE ABOUT EVIDENCE. This is literally my pet peeve. If I see that an important card is misconstrued, you probably cost yourself the round. If you get called out for lying about evidence PLEASE address it in one of your speeches so I can know what you have to say about it. If someone calls for a card I would like to see it as well.

8. Don’t card vomit in your speeches. While I think evidence is important, I still want to hear why your argument logically makes sense and I need to see how you can respond under pressure.

9. Narratives are really important to me. Always show me what the bigger picture is at the beginning and end of your speech and keep reminding me of this bigger picture throughout the round. If you persuade me to believe your narrative in your speeches even if you don’t have perfect technique and prove to me that your narrative is better than your opponents, you have my ballot. If you have perfect technique, bring up every single turn, card, and minor detail without a narrative, I probably won’t pick you up. Also, give me a nice and good analogy.

10. Please do not be rude in crossfire. This can be really irritating for everyone in the room. Also don’t talk over your opponent. Just because you’re talking more/louder doesn’t mean you’re right. BE NICE

Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending McGill. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.

Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!

Also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3

Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc

Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.

Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:

1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case (People seem to forget to do this often). Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.

2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.

Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters

Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)

If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing

3. SIGNPOST

i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.

4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.

As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.

5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.

Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)

6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat

IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation

You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?

ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS

I believe that prog args are a way to change the debate space and make it a better place for us. This means a) I'm really uncomfortable voting off "friv theory", especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so if it feels like your theory is an EZ path to the ballot to trip up an opponent, I'll usually try not to evaluate it as much as other arguments. basically, the more friv the theory is, the more u need to make sure ur opponents are ok with it. i know that sounds super objective, i'm sorry, but rounds where high level varsity teams who have the privilege of going to camp and resources run theory on teams who don't have those resources are unfair and make me uncomfortable. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID - b) if there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of something u think is important and you explain that in your theory, progressive args are fine with me. I never ran Ks/ theory as a debater, but I get how they work and can evaluate them, just explain them well ofc. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.

i dont like tricks much

I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them, but u have to warrant why im evaluating them ofc. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.

Other notes

I think every debater should watch this video.

If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.

Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.

I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise

Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.

Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.

Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.

I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.

I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.

I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.

calling me "judge" is annoying

Please send me a speech doc @ esmeslongley@gmail.com if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.

I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.

Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!

Fun stuff

I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you

- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")

- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)

- Reference Beyond Resolved

- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.

- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh decently with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal

- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine

- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ kate bush (I LOVE HERRRR)

- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.

- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case

- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.

I will take off speaks (-.1) for

- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)

- If our star signs are incompatible

- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.

I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!

PF Paradigm (If I'm judging a different event, may the debate gods have mercy on your soul):

Stats to make you trust me as a judge and not read the paradigm:

• Often ranked #1 in Ohio and top 20 nationally in PF.
• Several speaker awards.
• Quarterfinals at NCFL, Stanford, and UK. 4 bids to TOC senior year. State semifinalist.
• 2019 NSDA Champion.
• 1550 SAT. IQ 138-145 depending on the test (since my partner Izzy always said judges should have to take an IQ test).
• 4th at Intel ISEF in Biomedical Engineering.
• B.S. in Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University.
• Seen over 1000 different movies: tinyurl.com/davidsmovies
• Can perform 100 push-ups in a row.
• Knows a secret technique to tie shoes faster than most people.
• Over 1000 YouTube subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeiGQOP-o8zt_xXh0A4hR9w
• 2-time ISD scavenger hunt champion.

Speaking Style:

This section is just here to scare you into thinking maybe I'm a lay judge. Thanks to Cassie (Team USA '20) I now know that apparently what most people perceive as "passion," I perceive as frantic speaking, that you're not in control or struggling to go fast enough or something. As someone with probably medically-diagnosable control issues, I find calm, collected speaking much more persuasive. I like to see debaters remain steady in the face of challenge rather than get worked up.

So as my friends know, my reading comprehension is not the best. I took a practice ACT and got 36,36,35,27 because I got through like 2 of the 4 reading passages and guessed for the rest. One of the reasons for this is that I'm hit or miss with words longer than 8 letters. Sometimes I can understand them, and sometimes I can't. So while you think gigantic words might make you look smart, there's a nonzero chance I misunderstand your argument. Similarly, don't offer to send me a speech doc because I won't be able to read it anyway.

Logistical stuff:

I do not have a seating preference. Anyone incompetent to the level that they can't tell who's pro and who's con if they're not sitting in specific chairs shouldn't be judging. I’ll pass on the handshake since I’ve gotten sick on trips way too much.

If you get there before me, do the coin flip. I expect you to come to round preflowed and will deduct ten seconds of prep if you aren’t.

No dress code. Debate naked for all I care. My tie choked me constantly, and I can only assume heels are way worse, so I'm not going to torture you. That's what my RFD is for.

No off-time road maps needed. Just tell me where you’re starting and then signpost. Time yourselves. If time ends, and a question has been asked, answer it, but there better not be any commas. Humor is appreciated.

Not sure why this isn’t universal (NCFL), but if you call evidence, the prep time begins when you start reading the evidence. If it takes more than one minute to find evidence, then I’ll start deducting prep unless you want to just drop the card.

I will disclose if both debaters are okay with it. As a judge, my job is to give you feedback to help you improve, and that's better done in person so you can ask me questions. If the tournament doesn’t allow, find me after the round.

I’ll probably be responsive if you pay attention. I’ll likely nod if I understand something - doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with it, so don’t get any ideas.

Wear sunglasses in round for +0.5 speaks. There's a nonzero chance I wear them whilst judging. I will not go lower than a 25, and for me “good” is 28 and “great” is 29. Any team I think will bid will probably get 30s since speaks are inflated now, and I don’t want to be the reason you get a screw.

In my personal opinion, asking to take a second or two of prep to tell your partner a quick cross question or the last name of a card they need to run is stupid. I probably can’t even start the timer before you cease prep, so it’s a waste of my finger energy. Here’s my deal: I understand that when people finish speaking, you sometimes need to take a second or two to finish writing down what they said. I understand debaters are somehow constantly thirsty and need to be chugging water every five seconds. When a speech ends, I will mentally count ten seconds. After that, I expect the next speech to start and will ask you if you’re ready. Don’t ask me - I am. If you’re not, I’ll start docking prep.

How I evaluate rounds:

Flow judge. I begin with weighing. Which argument am I convinced is the most important? Who am I convinced wins this argument? The answer to those two questions decides my ballot. Answer these questions best and you win. Pretty simple.

...but of course it never ends up being that simple. If no one weighs, I do a tally. If both teams weigh but the weighing is unresolved, I’m kind of at a crossroads. Sometimes the weighing is clear and I know which argument matters, but I don’t know who won that argument because people read two pieces of evidence that say the exact opposite. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but if there’s work that isn’t done, I have to do it. This is the circumstance under which I will call evidence - to resolve something that wasn’t resolved.

Want to make my decision easy? If you and your opponent read opposing evidence, tell me why to prefer yours. Is the author more credible? Is the study more recent or more comprehensive of all factors? If you outweigh on scope and your opponent outweighs on magnitude, tell me why scope matters more.

Want to make my decision really easy? Tell a clear story. If you have the stronger narrative, I’ll probably find a way to vote for you in close rounds that could go either way. PF is fundamentally a persuasion event - if you convince me your side is true, you’ll probably win the round. That being said, if you’re as persuasive as Gandhi, but you’re losing every argument, you won’t win my ballot - that’s just how I decide rounds that are tied and would otherwise force me to do work like call evidence, which I don’t want to do.

Technical stuff:

I will vote off of disads if explained well. I will vote off of theory if you convince me there is legitimate abuse. If you convince me you’re trying to get a cheap win, you won’t. I will not vote for disclosure theory under any circumstances no matter how well you run it (so opposing team, feel free to ignore it). Responding to something on the spot is a part of PF, and preparing everything before the round is bad. The one exception to this philosophy is if one side has a hearing disability, in which case of course being able to see the case is good for education. I will not evaluate a kritik unless their case is blatantly racist/sexist/ableist/whatever. No non-topical K affs and no "fundamental assumption" garbage.

I require turns and disads to be responded to in second rebuttal. In other words, the rebuttal speech must respond to all offense on the flow at that point in the round. Defense can be responded to in summary if you'd like, but then I'll accept new responses to those in first final focus and won't accept new responses to those in second final focus. Defense from rebuttal to first FF is fine but should be in summary if frontlined in second rebuttal. I expect a warrant and weighed impact in both summary and final focus for the argument you want me to vote off of.

Speed? Go crazy. I can handle 250/minute no problem (I’d prefer if case is slower). Beyond that, I’ll miss author names and might ask you after the speech (since that’s how you’re going to extend things). I won't ask for a speech doc, so in the unlikely event you can go faster than I can handle, RIP you.

I’m logic >>>>>> evidence. You can win my ballot without reading a single card. I care about ideas, not authors. I will not evaluate a card without a warrant. The warrant can be either in the card or made analytically by you. Only evidence > logic if both teams have rock solid logic but one has evidence. Real world examples are another tiebreaker.

I’m tech > truth with one caveat - the stupider an argument gets, the lower my response threshold gets. If your opponents run an argument that army ants are going to overthrow the Romanian government and take over the world, a response of “that’s unlikely” is probably good enough. That said, a response has to exist. If your opponents say Iron Man is engaged to Thor, and you don’t respond, I guess we have a wedding to go to.

If you disagree with any of these philosophies and believe I should be judging the round differently, tell me in a speech and warrant it. I'm very open to creativity. For example, if you think the specifics of an issue dictate that I should be evidence > logic or think I should not require frontlining in second rebuttal, and your reasoning is sound (and not well responded-to), I'll oblige.

TL; RABWAS (Too long; read anyway, but want a summary):

I know what I’m doing. Tell me where to vote, why I’m voting there and not somewhere else, and why you’re winning that argument. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

most recent update:

If both teams agree, I'm more than happy (MORE THAN HAPPY!!) to cut all prep time for 6 additional minutes of grand cross, and speaks will be rewarded very heavilyif this happens :) (For LD, I'd happily cut all prep for an 8 min crossfire between 2nr and 2ar)

I reward humor in speaks.

Mid America Cup 2023 UPDATE: please send all cases (and cut cards) to apapap1919848jj@gmail.com prior to constructive for me to read along w you.

I kinda don't care about cross in tech rounds. If something important happens, say so in a speech.

For prog stuff, I'm really pretty out of the loop in terms of jargon. Explain it well.

Hi I'm Abraham (he/him).

If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible to anyone in any way, please let me know and we can work on something together :)

I evaluate the round primarily off of the arguments made.

Properly extended links, warrants, and impacts (with good frontlines, as necessary) that are clearly compared against - and weighed over - other arguments (on link, warrant, and impact level, also as necessary) will win my ballot. (Proper weighing isn't just saying "probability" or "magnitude." It must be directly and specifically comparative)

That being said, I'm also a fan of "big picture" and "narrative" style debating. Make your arguments fit a clear theme, or have a theme around your arguments: make and frame the round (or at least your arguments) about a bigger idea or concept. Boil your points (and narrative) down to a concise, simple, and memorable message or thesis (if you can, aim for a unique narrative as well). Also, weighing your narrative makes it all the more persuasive. [To be clear, I think narrative debate won't necessarily decide who I vote for: if you win the narrative but lose all your arguments, I'm probably gunna drop you - but, if you win your arguments and can make a good, effective narrative as well (while not abandoning the flow), I will like that, and give higher speaks. Narrative can also be helpful for winning close rounds as well.]

I also a sucker for clever bits of rhetoric, such as well thought-out and executed analogies or witty chiasmus (to be clear, good rhetoric alone won't win you the round, but it'll help your speaks). Funny quips are also good.

Be smart and strategic. You can go fast if you want.

Also if something is dropped in the speech after it is read, it is dropped for the round. So, if 1st Rebuttal reads something, 2nd Rebuttal drops it, 1st Summary extends it as dropped, it is TOO LATE for 2nd Summary to read new responses (2nd Summary CAN weigh against it though). That being said, new stuff can be in 2nd Summary if it's "advancing the debate" in my opinion. So, if R1 says something, R2 responds, S1 rebuilds/responds to what R2 said, S2 can further "advance the debate" on said thing, giving new analysis / evidence to what S1 said in response to R2. This is rather rare though, often the debate doesn't get to that level. If that does happen, and S2 says new stuff that specifically responds to S1's response to R2's response to R1's response, F1 can advance the debate even farther by saying new stuff in response to S2's new response (which is in response to S1's new stuff, which responds to R2's new stuff). So yeah, new in final is ok in this case. In theory, that means that F2 can say new things as well if it's responding to new analysis from F1, but this is such a specific and small case that I doubt it will happen. Generally, rather than continuing to go back and fourth like that on some response by adding new stuff or warranting, teams should weigh the response against the case/frontlines given, or weigh the case/frontline against the response. It's cleaner and easier.

Also, if one team makes a poor extension (misses links or whatever) and the other team points it out in the speech after, that counts as pretty terminal defense, e.g. if 1st Summary extends case poorly, and 2nd Summary points that out, then that arg is pretty sufficiently responded to in my view. It's also too late for 1st Final to try to extend fully to make up for 1st Summary. BUT: if 1st Final does try to revive it, 2nd Final should point out the improper extension made in 1st Summary.

**PLEASE don't be afraid to ask me any questions 1) before the round, about anything covered or not covered here, or 2) after the round, about anything in my decision or evaluation of the round - just as you all want to improve as debaters, I want to improve as a judge. (Please postround me. I do not find it disrespectful. Please postround. PLEASE!)

Other stuff that other judges probably have that might be helpful for you as a debater:

- i'M a FoRmEr Pf DeBaTeR

- Go as fast as you want. I'll let you know if it's too fast or unclear what you're saying.

- 2nd Rebuttal doesn't HAVE to frontline anything necessarily, but it's usually strategic to do so. If R2 speaker does not frontline anything on their own case, all the defense (and turns) is/are conceded, which basically means that their case is now perma gg'ed. Some rounds it doesn't make sense to frontline case though. Up to you to decide what to do in R2 that's strategically best for you in the round. Basically, if you wanna win case, you should probably frontline in R2, but it's not necessarily always strategic to try to win case...

- bE rEsPeCtFuL iN cRoSs -> meh I don't really care. Be aggro if you want, I was always kind of aggro in cross, don't be outright mean though - let them talk. You can push for concessions and stuff tho, or try to ask trap questions to put them in a bind. If they do concede something important, mention it in a speech - the first one that you can after the cross in which the concession was made (if they concede a contention in 1st cross, have rebuttal mention it - don't say nothing about it in rebuttal and expect me to value the concession if it's only later explained in summary)

- email chain or google doc is preferred.

- wear whatever you want in the round - I don't have a preference on whether you're in a suit or a t-shirt - whatever you feel comfortable in and helps you debate the best (for me, it was a suit lol, but my partner liked casual dress)

- If you get to round before your opponents and I'm also in the room (like one team and I are just chilling, waiting for the other team), you can challenge me to a game of online chess (probably blitz) on lichess/chess.com, you don't need an account to play btw. If you beat me, +.3 speaks. If I beat you, auto L20. Jk. If I win, nothing happens, if you win, slight speaks boost (you'll get more depending on how badly you beat me. If you crush me in a beautiful way, sacrificing your queen for some crazy checkmate pattern, I might award you up to +.8 speaks or whatever). If you also wanna just play for fun, that's cool too. [note: I'm not that good at chess, but I enjoy it, so challenge me and you can probably win some free speaks] [note: you can also still get a 30 without playing chess w me]

---

---

Please use a proper content warning prior to discussing potentially sensitive topics in speech. What that means:

1. Say, before the speech begins, a brief content warning statement (eg. "Brief content warning, this speech discusses nongraphic references to _____. We will provide an anonymous google form for opting in or out, as well as additional questions")

2. Send a link to an anonymous google form in the chat (or some other anonymous system, ideally not phone number). Provide not only a "opt in / opt out" option, but also a box for anonymous questions that could be used to ask for more specifics on something. State, however, that such questions will be answered out loud, unless specified otherwise. (You can make a link shareable google form in about 2 minutes. If needed, I can make one)

3. Wait until you receive "opt in" for every person participating in the round - BOTH opponents, and ALL judges. You can ask spectators to please leave the room if they would like to opt out.

4. If there is unanimous "opt in", say so out loud, and you may proceed with your speech. If there is EVEN ONE "opt out," please DO NOT proceed with your speech. If the CWed argument was a block, don't read that block, if it was a contention, read a different contention.

5. If you forgot to do this before your speech, and you started your speech, and realized you are about to make an argument about a potentially sensitive topic, please PAUSE YOUR SPEECH, proceed with the above steps, and you may resume your speech when all participants have answered, adjusting your speech accordingly. You will not be penalized in any way for doing this. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it.

Please follow these steps. Failure to follow these steps will make me unhappy, and potentially cause bad experiences for other members of the round. If you fail to do this, the bar for content warning theory is low, and I'll probably vote off it. Debate should be safe and accessible for all, no exceptions.

---

---

---

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION (feel free to skip this section if you're not gunna read some prog.)

I DO evaluate progressive argumentation. High bar though, must be done properly. If not, I’ll just look elsewhere, and you will have wasted your speech time. Be smart about it. Also, the same rules for extending regular arguments applies to prog too. If you want me to vote off of it, you gotta extend it properly and fully. If the other team calls out a poor extension, that's probably GG for the prog argumentation, unless perhaps you make some new prog warrants as to why it shouldn't be GG, and why I should change my judging philosophy. The bar for responses to that kind of prog ideas (ideas like my partner's summary extension can be sus and you should still vote for it bc XYZ) is pretty low - the other team doesn't have to say much for me to not believe the prog warrants for why I should let bad extensions happen. Oh yeah, that also means don't read new prog warrants in 2nd FF as to why your partner's bad 2nd Summary extension is permissible, it's too late lol. Even if other team doesn't make technical responses like "they dropped role of the ballot," if the prog team did, in fact, drop some crucial part to the argument, then I still probably won't vote for it (unless you give me prog reasons why I should vote for it anyway).

If you are going to read prog, let me know before the speech so I can get another piece of paper. If what you're going to do is really out there, feel free to ask me about it before the round starts, I can give you my opinions on it / if I know how to evaluate it.

I'm down for some wacky stuff - you could run some prog saying I should evaluate rounds differently - like, if you give good warrants as to why I should just not pay attention to their 2nd Final for whatever reason lol, and it's like uncontested, I'll probably buy it, given it's done in a good way, presented sufficiently early in the round. That being said, there are some things I can't do. I can't give double win or loss, as far as I know. I can't give you 100 speaks. (I mean maybe if a team makes a prog arg saying I should do one of those things, and then proceeds to tell me how to do it bc I'm dumb and don't know how to hack tabroom's code to let me do something like that, then maybe I'll do it haha). Other than that, I'm open to prog stuff relating other, less rigid parts of the debate, like maybe speech times or something.

Args for presumption are important if you want me to presume a specific way. If no presumption arguments are made and I have to presume, I'll probably flip a coin or have siri flip a coin. If it's your strategy to have the round decided on a coinflip, great! If not, make args to why I should presume a certain way.

ALSO: don't just dump unintelligible prog on some novices or something. No point. If you're like a senior and you can't beat a novice team on the flow without prog, cmon. (this is a little tricky because ideally everyone should be evaluated on an equal plane, but there's a pretty big prog disparity on the circuit. I don't want to say I'll drop you for running prog in bad faith, because I understand that prog has some clear strategic benefits, but idk. I guess if you're gunna run prog for the ballot, make it AS ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE for the opponents, ESPECIALLY if you know they may not specialize in this style of debate. I think we'd all prefer a good round over of a bad one, where the opponents are completely shut out from debating.

If you get prog run on you, and you'd rather concede the round to spend the remaining time to just discuss prog in general or discuss the arguments that the prog team read, with the goal of furthering understanding, that's cool with me.

ALSO: if you do run prog: be nice about it. If the opponents genuinely don't understand / are trying to understand it better, don't be mean to them. If you are, I might drop you just because.

ALSO: I reserve the right to intervene on / against any specific prog argumentation - like if someone makes an especially problematic prog argument, I may intervene against it. I also am not opposed to intervening and/or ending the round for reasons of mental wellbeing - eg: if a team asks me to end the round over a content warning shell, and I believe it is warranted, I will end the round.

Feel free to ask me questions about prog before the round. That being said, my knowledge and understanding of this style of debate is by no means exhaustive. I know there's a lot I don't know about prog.

I'm Lindsey, I am a law student who has some past experience with public forum debate.

My Paradigm

I will vote for the team that presents a stronger logical argument. I will consider arguments on quality of evidence presented, arguments speaking to why your case is impactful, and strength of responses to the opposition's argument.

The New York Post Article

I want to clarify a few things as succinctly as I can for future reference.

1) I do not condone banning topics from discussion or any judging style that automatically disregards a topic based on the subject matter. I have always been open to discussing difficult topics and will continue to be an advocate of freedom of speech.

2) In high school, I did not have access to many debate resources and did not regularly compete at national circuit tournaments (usually we had around 5 teams per tournament). Because of this, I often found advising and judging from online paradigms, forums, or message boards. When I became a Judge briefly, parts of my paradigm were meant to give free advice related to style and decorum. The main point I wanted to convey is that being respectful and genuine about presenting arguments leads to more persuasive argumentation. Contrastingly, utilizing provocative arguments only for the purpose of shocking a judge and winning is less fulfilling. I apologize if my language came across the wrong way, debaters should have the freedom to explore any topic they want

3) I do not support the recent publication of videos of debaters with the intention to shame their argument style. Every debater deserves the autonomy to make arguments that they want without fear of being cancelled or harassed on twitter. I think we should all try to be more open-minded about different ideas and understand that young people will often make mistakes and grow from them. Be respectful, engage with people in a good-faith way, and allow students the space to change their mind.

4) A good lesson for debate (and life) is to always try to understand nuance and different perspectives. I hope that anyone that reads any article (especially an article of this nature) would be intrigued enough to learn more, to contextualize their information, and to understand evidence before drawing conclusions. I will post the full conversation I had with James below for context.

Hi Lindsey: I am writing an article for The Free Press about judging bias in the NSDA. This bias is illustrated by Tabroom paradigms that tell students what they can and can’t say on the basis of politics and ideology.

I am reaching out because you along with other judges and the NSDA are the focus of my reporting. I will be publishing your name and your Tabroom paradigm below. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, I would like to provide you with the opportunity to comment and answer the following questions. I am reporting on the following comment from above:“...if you are white, don't don't run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.” 1. What is an example of an argument that you believe a white student could not run because of their race? 2. Why did you eliminate this statement about race from your most recent paradigm update? If you could provide a response by9PM Eastern today (Fri, May 12), that would allow sufficient time for your comments to be incorporated. Best, James T. Fishback --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey James! I don’t know if it’s exactly my place to say what arguments will/won’t make marginalized communities feel unsafe in the debate space and that’s one reason I updated my paradigm. I want it to ultimately be the debater’s decision, but I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space. Another reason I eliminated this sentence was because I incorporated a similar idea in my section about progressive debate and I feel it captures the main idea better: I think debaters should communicate before the round to make sure both teams are aware of what topics will be discussed and are comfortable with it. In essence, I think arguments that may be super hard to argue for communities that are directly involved with the impacts should be discussed prior to the round to ensure debate is fun for everyone. My goal isn’t to “eliminate free speech”, but to have both teams be able to have a productive and fun debate. This kinda goes along with my first comment, but I didn’t eliminate the idea itself. I wanted to clarify later in my paradigm that students should notify one another to see if their opponents are comfortable with a proposed topic. I think these topics are important to be discussed, but not when one team is using the argument as a means to get a win without considering the feelings/experiences of their opponents (especially if their opponents are directly affected by the impact).

I am happy to clarify anything else if needed! Best, Lindsey Shrodek

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

Thanks Lindsey! This is helpful

Re: "I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space." If, before a round, a team of black students expresses discomfort about their non-black opponents' case because it details the impacts of defunding the police on black families, would the non-black team still running that argument without consideration for the experiences of their opponents factor into how you chose the winner/assigned speaks?

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

I consider everything that happens in round. The goal of debate is to be a productive, positive-sum experience for everyone, and debaters need to be considerate of that goal when deciding how to run an argument and whether to run it at all. You can look at my updated paradigm if you want more information as the one you have is nearly two years old.

Best, Lindsey Shrodek

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

If you want to know where my intentions lie, please know that I intend to judge every round to its entirety, regardless of subject matter, that is why I wrote to James: "I consider everything that happens in a round." Thank you for reading! :)

I do not like "theory." Debate the topic.

As always...for me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Signposting is good. Please signpost. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off-time road maps are bad. They are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you signpost, I'll know which order you're going in. This is a more valuable skill to learn. For those of you motivated by speaker points, know that I will deduct a full point for each off-time road map.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying. I've seen too many teams blatantly lie in round. If you lie, you lose.

Yearn to Learn. This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

Hello!

My name is Daniel, and I competed in PF for four years from 2017-2021 at University School in Ohio.

TL:DR

I will judge off of the flow. I apologize if I do not judge the round as technically as you hope for–I will do so to the best of my ability.

Ask me for any clarifications before the round starts.

Long

Here are some more in-depth explanations of my preferences regarding certain things:

** New Rule (because people have been taking way too long). If it takes you longer than a minute to send evidence (per card) then I'll take time out of your prep. 

General:

1. Speed: Speed is fine unless you're unclear. Send a speech doc if you plan on going super fast. I won't flow based on the speech doc if I can't understand what you're saying at all.

2. Weighing: Please do comparative weighing and start it as early as possible! If you just say "we outweigh on scope" without explaining why I will be sad. If both teams do different types of weighing and do not meta-weigh then I will also be sad and have a headache. I will not default to prioritizing a certain weighing mechanism–I will simply tally up who has more (unless it's a pre-req).

3. Frontlining: You must frontline offensive arguments in second rebuttal including kicking out of turns. If you are conceding a delink to get out of a turn, please explain how it delinks it. If you choose to frontline defense in second rebuttal on a certain argument, you must frontline all of it or else it's conceded.

4. First summary: First summary only needs to extend defense if it is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

5. Final focuses: All offense in final should be in summary. If you want something to be on my RFD, it must be in final focus.

6. Implications: Please implicate everything clearly! This is especially true for (but not excluded to): Overviews, cross-applications, turns.

7. Turns: I like turns, especially if they are explained very well. I encourage you to go for them if it is strategic. Make sure they're extended are impacted out + weighed. 

8. Collapse: Please collapse only if it is strategic (99% of the times it is). If there is no reason for there to be 8 pieces of offense at the end of the round I will be sad and speaks will be lower.

9. Extensions: I care about good extensions. I will not appreciate it if you simply say "extend our Smith '18 response." You need to fully extend the response and implication. Same thing goes for case arguments. I will not consider poorly extended arguments only if the other team points it out–otherwise, I will grant bad extensions (unless it's 2nd final).

10. Analytics vs Evidence: Good warrants are good warrants even without evidence. In fact, I'll probably be more impressed by you if you can give well warranted analytics.

11. Evidence: I will try my best to not call for evidence and only judge off of what was said in the round. I will only call for evidence if the round is unresolvable without it where one team says it's good and the other says the opposite and you ask me to call for it. I will not call for your evidence just because you claim it is good and want me to look at it. IF I do end up calling for evidence and it indicts itself later, it will not factor into my decision unless the other team points it out.

12. Presumption: If there is *no offense* in the round, I will flip a coin to decide the winner absent any presumption arguments made in the round (Aff is heads, Neg is tails). ie. default neg or default first. Note: only saying "default neg" is also not a complete presumption argument, there needs to be warrants. (update: I will presume your side if you are both first & neg, otherwise I'll coin flip).

13. Crossfire: Have fun & make me laugh. Use this time to ask clarifying questions and help yourselves– I'll only care if someone makes a critical concession and is brought up again in a later speech.

Progressive Arguments (I'll try my best)

**If you are clearly running progressive arguments against a team that cannot engage with them (i.e. novices) to win then I will be very sad, and you will too. 

1. Theory: Most experienced with paraphrasing theory and disclosure theory. If you're running theory in front of me you should only be doing it if you really understand it. For example, unlike regular arguments, I will intervene against incomplete extensions (i.e. don't extend DTD). 

**Personal bias: Paraphrasing is good, Disclosure is good, Being offensive is bad.

2. Tricks: I'm game. I have basic knowledge–low threshold for responses.

3.. K's: Least comfortable with Kritiks. I don't think I'll make a good decision. Some experience with general PF Ks (Imperialism & Security). Won't be able to judge others very well. 

Speaks:

1. Bring me any fruity candy. ex. sour patch kids, skittles etc.

2. Be funny

3. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed + don't doc bot - I won't flow off a doc if you're unclear.

4. Off-time roadmaps: Just tell me where you're starting and signpost idc about every little thing you're doing. If you do an elaborate roadmap and then don't follow it I'll be sad :(.

5. come preflowed please

6. No speaks theory...earn them

7. good strategy

I am a rising senior at Laurel School and have competed in PF for 3 years (mostly on the local circuit).

! I will auto-drop and give you the lowest speaks possible if you run sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic args or make offensive comments !

General stuff:

1. I can’t handle speed that well, so if you’re gonna spread, email me your speech doc at yngbarbara@gmail.com

2. Progressive args: I am unable to evaluate and to the best of my ability because I have not encountered them locally. But if you are going to run theory/Ks, please explain them well - I believe that it is really important to advocate for important issues pertaining to the debate space - and I will vote off of them if you elucidate your points.

1. However, please don’t run theory/Ks if you just want an easy win (progressive args are meant to increase inclusivity in the debate space, so, for example, don't run it against a novice or someone who has little to no experience in debate)

3. Cards:

1. Don’t just refer to a card by the author’s name because I will be really confused for the entire round if I didn’t flow the name

2. Don’t card dump either smh

3. You can paraphrase

4. Always signpost: tell me the argument your responding to and number your responses

5. Collapse in the second half of the round: don’t go for all of your arguments if most of them are extraneous

6. Clean extensions of arguments: read your warrants and weighing (extend the internal links in summary) and extend your arguments throughout all of your speeches (ex: if you read something in rebuttal and FF but not summary, I will not consider it on the flow)

1. It’s SUPER really annoying and frustrating for someone to read a completely new arg in FF (especially in 2nd FF) - I will not vote off these new arg

7. Frontline: Since summaries are 3 minutes, I am expecting you to frontline your case and go for offense

8. Concessions: I will evaluate conceded arguments so tell me explicitly if your opponents have conceded an argument (in case I were to miss it)

How I evaluate a round:

1. Tech > truth with no caveats - no matter how long your link chain is or how ridiculous the argument is, as long as your arguments are cohesive, read warrants and weigh comparatively, I will buy it

2. Logic > evidence

1. Warrants: I can’t evaluate any of your cards unless you warrant it

1. I will always prefer logic over cards unless both teams have solid logic and only one team has evidence to back up their logic

2. Weigh!!: tell me where to vote - 1. which arguments are the most important and 2. why you are winning these arguments as opposed to your opponents

3. Win your link first before you can win your impact (this should b p obvious)

3. Narrative: convincing stories and persuasion is the path to the ballot when the round is super close

4. I will only vote off of terminal defense if there is literally nothing else on the flow

TL:DR

Analytics is cool : warrant and weigh your arguments - tell me what is important, why it’s important and why you are winning the argument.