Tech Judge - I currently do Public Forum debate, Elims at TOC.

Add me to the email chain or evidence sharing doc - aryan.bavera@gmail.com

GENERAL STUFF:

I don't like Spreading.

Truth = Tech, meaning if you have a garbage case, a garbage response is all that's needed to destroy it.

Time yourselves and your opponents.

I'll presume Con if every argument on both sides is dead.

CROSSFIRE:

Crossfire is seriously undervalued. You should use cross to explain arguments or to understand opponents arguments better as well as to find logical flaws between the opponents. I don't really want a massive "who's evidence is better debate" in cross, but I understand that sometimes it is necessary because you have more interaction with the opponents.

FRONTLINING, WEIGHING, AND NEW STUFF:

You don't need to say flashy words like "magnitude, link-turn, meta-weighing". However, an explanation of the word's meaning is necessary (explain your weighing, implicate your responses).

If you say for example, "we outweigh on magnitude", but don't explain how, your weighing was useless.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

Frontline in First Summary.

CARDS:

If you can't pull up a card in a 1min 30, the card is dropped and you get lower speaks.

PREPTIME:

Flex prep is fine, don't overdo it.

Solo's get extra prep time (1 minute)

SPEAKER POINTS:

When I evaluate speaker points, I'm basically a lay judge. That means eye contact, meaningful hand gestures, clear tone of voice and emphasis on certain points when needed. Efficiency is also a key point here as well as how good your collapse is.

👋 My name is Sudhan Chitgopkar and I'm a judge for Ivy Bridge Academy, River Trail Middle School, and South Forsyth High School. I've also coached and led the South Forsyth High School Debate Team (2017-2019) as well as coached for Ivy Bridge Academy (2018-2019). I'm currently a student at the University of Georgia.

As a PF Debater for the last 6 years, here's my ideology for judging rounds as well as some general preferences:

[1] Stock/run-of-the-mill arguments are boring. While I won't penalize stock args, I prefer to see unique ones.

[2] Extend arguments you want me to vote on. If I vote on it, it has to be in final focus. If it's in final focus, it has to be in summary. I want to see extension of both defense and offense in the summary speech by both teams.

[3] Framework drives the debate. I like seeing framework debate and I use a well-extended framework as the most important thing to weigh the arguments in a given round. Failure to give me a framework means I revert back to Util CBA.

[4] Having cut cards ready is important to me. If I hear a piece of evidence that's either too good to be true or is heavily debated through the round I will call for it. If it can't be provided, the team that claimed to have the evidence will be docked significant speaker points and I will disregard all arguments that are dependent on the card. I also believe that card-organization speaks to team preparedness. Being able to present a called-for card quickly will increase your speaks. Taking too long will drop your speaks.

[5] Be independent/responsible through the debate. Keep your own speech and prep time, let me know when you start/stop prep, don't go over the time limit, etc.

[6] Be polite but passionate. Don't get into a shouting match with your opponents but show that you care about the debate and what you're arguing for. Without this, the debate gets very boring very quickly.

[7] Read my paradigm. Proactively reading paradigms is important and shows that you are responsible and care about the debate. If you let me know before the round that you read my paradigm I'll probably bump your speaker points a bit.

[8] I don't like seeing K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

[9] I never evaluate terminal defense when it comes from spreading on the neg during second constructive. I view this act as abusive and will drop your speaks accordingly.

[10] Edit starting Dec 2019: I am no longer keeping up with resolutions in the PF community and their corresponding arguments. Please do not assume that I will automatically know any abbreviations and technical, resolution-related terminology for any topics hereafter.

[11] Edit for Zoom rounds: Speech docs make my life significantly easier and will help you make sure all your most important cards are on the flow. Ask me about my contact details for this in round

Social

Follow me anywhere :)

[Instagram] not.sudhan

[LinkedIn] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Spotify] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Website] sudhanchitgopkar.com

Notes for novices:

Don't worry about terms you don't know on my paradigm just try your best. Ask if you have any questions.

***

TLDR: Basic tech>truth. Weigh and Extend cases. Anything warranted is fair game.

No spreading, spreading leads to blippy arguments and incoherent logic and reason. You can read at a fast pace but read in a clear manner.

No racism, sexism, or anything of the sort. I'll drop you. Also, leave me to decide what is racist, sexist, or inappropriate in a round. You do not need to point out that your opponent said something that is inappropriate.

Interps, Theory, and Kritiks are great as long as they are thorough and warranted. Reading frivolous theory and Kritiks to simply take advantage of unskilled debaters is not going to win my vote.

2nd summary onwards cannot extend any new arguments. 2nd final focus should not introduce any new weighing.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH... I will literally drop you if you do not weigh. I want you to write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you and not the other team. Extend these weighing mechanisms through summary and final focus. 2nd rebuttal should try to start weighing. Give me a good comparative.

During rebuttals: Please implicate responses. Do not read blippy arguments that waste time.

Summary: Don't extend through ink.

DAs/Disads must be implicated and weighed. I won't buy a DA without an impact. That being said I actually enjoy DAs as long as they are implicated and coherent. If you do read DAs try to impact it on their case. A disad does not have to be long to be better. The structure and link have to be good.

Speaks:

I'll give you a 29 or higher as long as you weigh and do all the above things.

Get up and spin every time you read a turn and I'll give you a 30.

Have fun!!

I have primarily debate PF. I debated for Lambert High School for 2 years, and I have overall 3 years of PF experience.

Add me on the email chain jasonme02@gmail.com

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning (Trigger Warning). Be prepared to give an alternative case if a team does opt-out. Trigger warnings are extremely serious.

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. However Cross is very underrated. Try and get concessions and try to clarify arguments.

Weighing:

- Weighing Impacts is crucial, if you don't weigh I'll have no idea why I am caring about the argument. If u take weighing to the next level, i.e comparative and link weighing more likely to pick up ballots.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't end up weighing them, then I have no idea which piece of offense I should prefer)

- Just saying Strength of link/impact weighing is not weighing

- I have a high threshold for counting Link-ins as weighing but it can be beneficial to try and use a link as an external piece of the offense.

Tech

- Defense is key to muddle arguments as well as cast doubt. extending defense is Summary should be a good strat, but you don't have to extend defense.

[Not Orginal]

- Any type of theory is good with me and is probably becoming more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. I will default to reasonability. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.] Please also weigh your standards it goings to make evaulting theory shells easier especially in a high-tech round.

- No CPs

- Weighing in first FF is okay ig? [This shouldn't happen], but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- Tech>truth, the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. Collapsing can make extensions cleaner.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round. [Note: if you read presumption please tell me why and give me a warrent on why it is true]

- Frameworks are fine. I think they are important in the round, if you drop the framework in rebuttal I will consider it dropped.

- Don't spread, if you do end send a speech doc. I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is can exclude so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks. However, if you send speech docs and the other team is fine with it then go ahead.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

truth > tech

pf ≠ policy or ld so keep it that way

If you run theory make sure its a specific interp, not just "disclose on the wiki" -- what wiki?

Have fun, cross 100% matters and don't ask to skip for 'prep' instead.

..and have fun! I understand competition is important, but the connections you make and the lessons you learn are more valuable than a W or L on your long list of rounds. If I sound rude during an RFD I promise it's not intentional and I will do better -- just let me know. My goal is to help you learn from the round regardless of whether or not you win.

Hi,

I am a flow judge, however, I do appreciate the big picture throughout the debate but specifically through the last 2 speeches on both sides because that, overall, clears things up and helps me decide what to vote on.

My Debate Experience-

• South Forsyth HS Sophomore

• PF Nat Circ Debate with 5 years of experience including multiple national tournaments

Please add prakharg2805@gmail.com to the email chain if there is one created for the round.

Things to watch out for-

What I instantly drop you for (Debate is a safe space)- Cheating (card clipping, stealing prep, somehow hacking into the opponent's computer, etc.) NO BEING MEAN (no racism, homophobia, bullying, profanity, etc.)

What I vote off of- Moving on, I usually vote off of arguments in Summary. Whatever you present to me before the round I usually only flow it. The things before the summary have to be clearly extended in the summary and FF for me to vote for them. I am always trying to vote off of technical arguments made throughout the debate however whatever is not extended don't expect me to evaluate that. If you make a bogus/ bizarre argument I will not take it into account at all.

Rebuttal- 2nd rebuttal is obligated to frontline At least half if not all of the responses made in 1st rebuttal. If there are no frontlines present then I consider them dropped and easy for 1st Summary to extend without much warranting needed. I don't want to hear like 30 responses to your opponents' case because my hands start hurting and that's bad for both teams since then I can get fewer things to vote off of during summary and FF. I also do not like it when you only extend defense so also try to have at least some offense on their case if not a lot.

Extensions- I also do not like spreading but if you do it I won't drop you. If you drop an argument then you still have to answer all the turns on that argument for me to consider it dropped, if all the turns aren't answered then the opponents can still extend those. I do not care if you run a Kritik but I care if you form it in an abusive form. I am going to drop you automatically.

Final Focus- Try to clear up the big picture. I have usually made my decision by summary based on frontlines and extensions but I will still listen and if there is something big that was mentioned in summary and you blow it up I count that since it still counts according to PF rules.

Crossfire- Don't think crossfire doesn't matter in my decision. If I think that the round was a wash then I will look at every cross so I am paying attention to these as well. I do sometimes write down notes during cross if any important arguments are mentioned that were mentioned through the debate. Try to do a good job defending your argument and attacking your opponents' argument at the same time and with good warranting.

Weighing- A lot of judges care about weighing but I am not one of those. I don't like very long weighing and complicated weighing. If you do weigh make it clear and short so I can easily flow it. If you do weigh I also want it to start from Rebuttal whether be 1st or 2nd. If it starts, in summary, I consider it late and if the round comes down to weighing then I will look at it. Whichever side has the better weighing and was easier for me to flow I will vote for that side.

Cards- I will call for cards if need be. And sometimes I might just do it because I want to make sure your paraphrasing is correct and not taken out of context.

Evidence- Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the High School Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss for the round and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome-

• Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).

• Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.

• Taking more than 3 minutes to produce a piece of evidence. Failure to produce a card will not result in me “removing” a card from the flow. You will lose the round, because you have used “non-existent evidence.”

Speaking- Clarity = speed --> I want clarity and not a lot of blank time during speeches. If I don't understand your argument, I don't buy it. If you see me drop my writing utensils through the debate during any of your speeches it means you are going way too fast and I will not evaluate what I can't understand or flow.

Specific Speaker Point evaluations-

<26 --> You need to work on speaking. Not going to give this to a lot of people unless your speaking was honestly bad. Please don't be offended.

<26.1 to 26.9 --> I don't think you were very knowledgeable on the topic. Your speaking skills could be improved.

<27 - 28.9 --> Did a decent amount of job holding onto your arguments during cross. Some amount of stuttering was present but was overall good. However, you did make some bad decisions throughout the round.

<29 - 29.9 --> Smart decisions made throughout the round. I liked your arguments. You were very knowledgeable about the topic. Your speaking could be improved a little bit to just get on the perfect level but overall was good.

30 --> You are very good at defending your arguments during the crossfire. You have no stuttering and/or blank spaces in your speeches. I like your arguments a lot and you are almost an expert on the topic meaning you researched a lot in my opinion.

Thanks,

Prakhar Gupta

I like theories, just make them basic because i'm dumb. Memes will ALWAYS give you more speaker points. I am ok with everything as long as you ARE NOT MEAN to your opponents. Speak loud and fast because its good. Spreading is pogchamp please spread.

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I am a Business student at Georgia Institute of Technology with experience as a CX debater for 6 years. Prior to college, I was captain of the South Forsyth High School team. Throughout the end of my high school years I have judged multiple rounds and was a coach at a local debate institution. I'm an extremely flow judge; but I'll vote you up through if your opponent does not know what a flow is. Greater timeframe=Dub.

Other rules that I tend to agree with from Zakharov Paradigm:

1) Please don't make bigoted arguments or do bigoted things

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (e.g. don't rely on the existence of a card as a sufficient explanation for your argument)

3) Defense in summary is a choice for the debater (as a general rule, if it's important, you should bring it up in every speech, but this is a matter of personal preference for the debater); responding to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal is a choice for the debater as well

4) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks

7) If you don't bring up a certain contention throughout the rest of the debate I will consider it dropped.

8) Not a fan of K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

For LD, which I judge from time to time, all of the above applies (except 3 obviously, and theory is fine but again needs to be well applied, and you can speak quicker than you would in front of a parent but still don't spread please.

Techish judge here, all my preferences are down below.

Rebuttal - Offense, offense, offense! This is really important in the round, and you have to have it. 2nd side is obligated to frontline.

Summary - Extend your offense to let me give you credit for it. Extend your defense, or their offense will obviously go against your case.

Final Focus - I really like when you focus on the big picture, gives me more weight on the argument and which side I should vote for.

Weighing: I prefer weighing starting in the rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in the summary.

CX: I love clash, don't be overly aggressive though.

Other stuff:

If I miss something, I'll ask you what you said, but please don't explain it more than you did in your speech.

email - moonbenjmn@gmail.com

Tech > truth

The most important thing is to have fun. Debate is a learning experience and everything you learn from it is valuable. I will give as much constructive feedback as possible to help you out for the rest of your debate rounds.

Make sure to compare arguments and collapse (pick 1-2 arguments to mainly focus on in the second half of the round).

For any specifics, just ask me before the round starts!

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

I am a PF debater with 7 years of experience. I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, or other personal attacks. In terms of arguments, I am definitely tech over truth. If you don’t respond to arguments or responses, I will weigh them even if the arguments are ridiculous or false. Make sure to frontline everything you want to extend. If you decide to drop a contention, make sure you have responded to all turns on that argument, or the other team will still be allowed to extend turns.

Speaking- I am fine with speed, but make sure you signpost arguments, weighing, and which side of the flow you are on. Make sure your speech is clear with not a lot of blank time.

Frontlining- I prefer you frontline in the second rebuttal.

Summary- I regard summary speech as the most important speech in the debate. I will not flow anything in the final focus that is not in summary so make sure you bring up the major voting issues by summary speech. Weighing should be brought up by summary speech at the latest, if not already brought up in rebuttal.

Weighing- In terms of weighing, impacts weighing is important but it is also important for you to discuss why your links hold up more than theirs, and extend the warranting behind your contentions.

Crossfire- I will not flow crossfire, but I will be listening, so if anything important is said in the crossfire, you must bring it up in your speech. I expect civility in a cross, so continually interrupting your opponent or being overly aggressive will cost you speaker points.

Cards- I am fine with paraphrasing, but if a card is important to the outcome of the round, I may call for it. If you can’t produce a card or have misrepresented a card, I will ignore the argument. If you have deliberately and extremely misrepresented a card, I might drop you.

Time- I will time speeches and prep, but I expect teams to also keep track of their own time.

If you ask the opponent if water is wet in cross or reference Hamilton songs in a speech, I will give you an extra speaker point

Add me to your email chain careeryen@gmail.com

My paradigm

What is your debate/judge experience?

Former debater/judge/coach in HS and in College.

What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?

Articulate measurable outcome(s) delivered by feasible solution(s) aligned with the nature of the objective(s). They should not become unmoored from reality.

Establish cause-and-effect relationship between upstream action(s) and downstream impact(s) through facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc.

Root-cause followed by correlation and attribution.

What kind(s) of performance is counter productive?

"Spreading" inane arguments.

Dumping statements without logically linking the root-causes driving the symptoms.

Rude, talk over opponents.