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!

Debated PF for four years for Dalton. A few things I would like to see in round:

1. Weigh. Almost every judge puts this on their paradigm for a reason. If you don't tell me how to evaluate the round I'll have to evaluate the round using my own mechanism and you may not like it. Also, if the other team also does weighing, don't just bring up your weighing - explain why I should prefer your weighing mechanism over theirs.

2. Signpost well. It'll make it easier for me to follow your arguments.

3. Create a narrative. Don't just give me 5 different cards and say that's why we win the round. Work the cards into a cohesive narrative or argument that will persuade me.

4. Logical responses. Not every response needs to be a card dump. Those who can give me well warranted responses with evidence to go along with it that make sense to me will fare well.

5. Be careful of running theories or k's on me. My understanding of them is limited.

6. I DO NOT believe tech > truth. What this means is don't run any arguments that you know make absolutely zero sense in reality in front of me, even if you have some obscure source claiming it so. I like creative link chains but there is a limit. ***TO CLARIFY*** I've seen some concern that by this I mean I want arguments to be 100% true - this is not the case at all. I just want don't want arguments to be 100% not true - I can accept arguments that I know won't happen but sound plausible or even sort of possible. Basically just be wary about running nuke war -> extinction in front of me.

Debate was by far my favorite activity in high school, and sometimes a bad or good judge could really define the round experience for me. If there's any questions you have or anything you would like me to know to help me be the best judge for you just let me know before the round. Please also be respectful to your opponents both in and out of round. Above all, have fun!!!! This is a high school activity; sometimes we forget that(I know I did).

hi! i'm currently a junior at fairmont and i've been doing pf for five years (both first and second). feel free to email me at jennmariec2015@gmail.com or message me on facebook with questions/accommodations .

for the first and second year tournament

please make an email chain for online rounds it's so much easier to send cards and speech docs.

i went to 3 tournaments on this topic, so you probably don't have to explain any acronyms/welfare programs (for context, my partner and i ran lihtc/migrant education on neg and wage negotiations/small businesses on aff).

general

tech>truth but response threshold goes down the more ridiculous the argument is.

you have to read trigger warnings for any potentially triggering content and have an opt-out available, preferably through an anonymous form, and have an alternative to read.

don't run problematic arguments, you'll lose and get the lowest possible speaks.

i presume the team that lost the coin flip (absent a coin flip the first speaking team) but if you give warrants for why i should do otherwise i'll buy it.

prep: don't be sketchy about prep time and i'm fine with flex prep.

cross: "cross is binding" but i'm probably not paying a ton of attention so bring it up in a speech if you want me to flow it. if both teams agree you can skip grand and take 3 min of prep. please be civil during cross, if you're aggressive/rude it'll impact your speaks no matter how well you debated.

2nd rebuttal

2nd rebuttal should be frontlining all turns/das/terminal defense and probably all defense on whatever you're going for. preferably don't read a ton of random das (will impact speaks if you do) and if you read an "offensive overview" it should be some extension of ur case/new impact framing, not a new contention you want to dump in 2nd rebuttal.

summary/ff

please collapse if you didn't in rebuttal. don't go for every arg that you read in constructive plus turns-you're probably not winning all of it and it's just not necessary.

defense is sticky for first summary.

if you want me to vote on something, it must be extended through summary and ff with the same narrative. don't just extend card tags because i probably didn't flow the tag to every single one.

quantify your impacts in both summary and ff and do comparative weighing. absent some type of comparative weighing, i'm probably going to have to intervene.

evidence

i don't care if you paraphrase, just don't misconstrue and be able to get the cards/website reasonably quickly. if it takes too long for you to find it, i'll strike the card.

if u want me to call for evidence, tell me otherwise i won't unless i think the ev seems to have changed throughout the round in what it's saying or seems way too good.

speed

speed threshold is around 275/300 wpm (if you're speaking clearly), anything above this i need a speech doc. if i can't understand you i probably won't be flowing it very well. if you're going to be spreading ask your opponents if they're okay with it first.

speaks

i'll give pretty high speaks anyways, but i'll boost speaks for good strategic choices and collapsing in rebuttal.

progressive args

i'm not super well versed in progressive args, so run at your own risk. i've debated theory once (disclosure), a K once, and have never run it myself, so i probably won't evaluate either the way you want me to. don't read tricks or friv theory. if reading theory that isn't based on an in-round abuse (disclosure, etc.) you have to ask your opponents before if they're okay with this. i will probably drop you if i think that you're just reading theory to get a win off a team that doesn't know how to respond.

disclosure: probably 50-50

paraphrasing: i think paraphrasing's good and there usually isn't an actual abuse to necessitate a theory shell (the eception is if paraphrasing is being used as an ecuse to blatantly misconstrue ev).

trigger warning: tw theory and other theory shells used to check back for actual in round abuse are probably the only ones i'll willingly vote on. i also think you can read tw theory if the team doesn't provide an opt-out.

after round

i'll disclose, even if the tournament says not to. feel free to ask questions, but do not postround aggressively.

If you have any questions about this, either message me on FB (Joshua Fielding) or email me at jfielding@wustl.edu!

Hey y’all my name is Joshua Fielding! I debated for four years for The Dalton School in PF and I now attend Washington University in St. Louis where I compete on our mock trial team and (am probably) double majoring in Political Science and Sociology.

TL;DR I’m tab just don’t be sexist, racist, etc. and have fun, pls weigh, don't spread without a speech doc, and expert's opinions does not equal truth (aka warrant your evidence)

Don’t run anything bigoted (sexist, racist, etc.), I’ll just drop you.

Now onto my preferences/what to know:

I vote purely off the flow (unless bigoted arguments are run). I first evaluate who won the debate over how to evaluate arguments (aka the winning framework) and then I evaluate the arguments under that framework.

Weighing is super important and ultimately rounds can be won even when they seem lost because you just explain why your impact wins. Always weigh please. Btw weighing is not just throwing words out there about “magnitude”, it’s explaining why your impacts are more important than the opponents. I don’t care if you outweigh on one thing if the opponents outweigh on another and I don’t know which one to prioritize

Speed is generally ok, again I’m kinda out of practice so please don’t go too fast, I’ll somehow denote if you’re going too fast whether that’s messaging in a zoom chat to “clear” or saying it (I’ll clarify what exactly I’d do before the round). In addition, if you’re sending speech docs because you’re going fast, that’s fine just please loop me in on that so I don’t miss what you’re saying!

In terms of theory/progressive argumentation, I’m not super familiar and I think sometimes they get run to try and pull a fast one on teams who don’t know how to respond but I do understand that of course they can be necessary to check back for abuses. Basically, make sure your opponents are familiar with how it’s run and if they’re not, pls run it in paragraph format or another format that allows for better understanding!

On evidence, read it if you want. I generally think that evidence can be good but just because some expert says something doesn’t mean it’s true. This means that if your key piece of evidence is “(EXPERT) says (TAKING PRO OR CON ACTION ON TOPIC) means (BAD OR GOOD THING)”, you need to explain WHY the expert believes that. This also means that if you can explain logically why something is true without evidence, that’s totally chill. But in terms of ethics, If I’m told to call for a card I’ll call for it. I may ask to see a card just cause I’m interested but the only cards I will evaluate in my decision will be ones that were asked to be called for. In addition, if you make an egregious evidence abuse in evidence called for I’ll probably just drop your argument (as the evidence is probably what it’s resting on anyways).

Finally, I don’t flow cross if something is conceded or something like that in cross it doesn’t count basically unless u bring it up the next speech. And don’t be a dick in cross. Please.

Ultimately, have fun! I really wish I’d remembered this one in debate more but our debates are meant to be fun that’s part of why we do this activity. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about Debate, WashU, College Mock Trial, LoL, MLB the Show Diamond Dynasty, or really anything else!

Also, as you are debaters, you may appreciate literature, here are the topics I've taken college courses on, if you want lit from them just let me know and I'm happy to send some articles/books your way:

- Intro to Racial Inequality in the US

- Wages and Salaries in the US

- The Holocaust and its Representation in Media

- Intro to PolSci

- The Politics of Black Criminality and Popular Protest

- Intro to Macro (ngl I took this Pass/Fail and this was a textbook so I can tell u the textbook but I don't really have that much from this)

- Monumental AntiRacism

No Debate.

Firstly, If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it (this includes not flowing/being a lay judge lol I am g-d tier mom judge and won't intervene)

Here is how you should read my paradigm: at the top of each section is the most important stuff. If you only have a few mins read that. reading below those parts will provide a more in-depth take into my judging philosophy.

Update for Online Tourneys

I rlly can't follow like REAL spreading but I can take 99% of PF speed. I'll clear u if i need it. also ask questions if u have them and I'll answer as honestly as possible!

Most important part of my paradigm:

If you make or buy me a chicken parm or mac and cheese, I will get you prep on a topic or coach you for a round or something. I rlly like chicken parm and mac and cheese....

My name is Sam and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA. Was a meh first speaker and got carried imo. Now I'm a member of the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta.

TLDR: Normal circuit tech judge who likes warrants and logic and needs you to collapse on args

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before round or my RFD after round. (thx @Kate Selig for this idea: I'd rather you postround me than tell everyone I'm a bad judge )

Also, ask questions before the round starts! I might have thoughts on the topic you'll wanna hear. tbh also might not cuz I'm kinda dumb

Speed:

u can go fast, but don't like SPREAD SPREAD plz plz. i will try to keep up and clear u if need be.

I can flow it but only if you articulate well enough. 300 wpm and up I need a speech doc. The faster you go the more work I have to do and I'm lazy. I will always flow ur speed, but chances are if you feel the need to go too fast, then your time allocation was bad/you made bad strategic decisions. Also like fr just cuz u can go fast doesn't mean u should. Speed kills

Theory/Progressive args:

read whatever you want. i ran a cap k during medicare for all and loved it lol. I'd rather you not read random theory args just bc you want to win. if you're doing that, ASK YOUR OPPONENTS/DISCLOSE BEFORE ROUND. its rlly sh1tty if you don't. i can't emphasize it enough, reading theory on novices or people that don't understand what's going on = :(

don't run theory if u wanna get high speaks (or win bc i VERY much prefer substance)tbh --> i judged a team who read disclosure against an international team that clearly didn't understand how to debate it and it angered me to my soul. that's just really not cool. don't be mean. :(

but like if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it just like not happily

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

d-d-d-d-disclosure theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very (like actually completely 50-50) tab ras about disclosure, i do not think it is good or bad, just that it exists.

p-p-p-p-paraphrase theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very slightly biased (55-45) for paraphrasing good but its not hard to win paraphrasing bad.

all other theory/k stuff: if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

Cross:

it doesn't matter

Its useless to me. If you want to use an answer your opponent gives in cross, then say it in a speech. Don't be rude. Hug your opponent for a 30.

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to stand up and yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and your partner each get 30's. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get 26's for interrupting cross.

Framework:

I default util.

Explain it well and how I'm supposed to evaluate offense under it. the more complex, the more explaining u need. Framework debates aren't my absolute favorite but hey, you do you!!

Evidence disputes:

read ev if u want. don't miscut but i won't drop u for it.

I value all evidence equally unless you weigh it, which you should. You should ALWAYS tell me why I need to value your evidence more. also, evidence doesn't matter nearly as much as logical warranting. also like in general i won't call for cards unless ur like "sam call for this card" in speech. I think that calling for ev in any other circumstance is intervening.

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

You will get better speaks if: You make jokes. You give good speeches and make good strategic decisions. You aren't a dick. You make me laugh. I am extremely generous and tend to give out 29's routinely. I will give you a 30 if you are exceptional. *Send me a speech doc for an extra .3 speaks (sgoldstone514@gmail.com). Also extra .3 speaks for collapsing (if u do it correctly and it makes me happy) in 2nd rebutal. I guess I'm receptive to 30s theory but like it shouldn't be hard to get a 29.5 from me. I good example of really good strategy is what Jason Luo did in first final focus of TOC finals. also i will give speaks relative to the round and the level of competitors in the debate.

Here is an itemized list of my favorite speakers in no particular order:

- Rahul Shah (his voice is soothing and he's so damn cute)

- Claudia Leduc (gives summary without looking at the flow at all, hella impressive)

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

collapse in 2nd rebuttal. at least frontline offense and stuff. anything not frontlined is conceded.

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

I like roadmaps. I don't need defense in first summary. Don't extend too much in Summary, thats my biggest pet peeve FOR JESUS' (or any g-d u may or may not believe in, but if u wanna win the round do this lol) SAKE: COLLAPSE. When extending the argument you're going for, please extend the uniqueness, link, and impact in both speeches. An incomplete/ghost extension would a) make me sad and b) possibly lose you the round.

Please impact out turns in summary (although its better if this is done in rebuttal) if you plan on going for them. It is 100% okay to just go for a dropped turn. Also, u can go either line by line or give voters/do what you usually do. Don't extend through ink lol. Defense isn't rlly sticky it (unless u make an arg that it is in speech) but I'm less inclined to vote for a team that doesn't frontline at all even if their opponents don't extend defense.

Weighing:

Please weigh, and give me good analysis. It makes my job 1000x easier.

Earlier you weigh, the better. Weighing is very helpful in rebuttal, but NEEDED for me to vote in Summary and FF. With the new 3 min summaries, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to weigh in summary. No new weighing in 2nd FF, new weighing in 1st FF is unfavorable but if it's the only weighing in the round and they don't respond to it then like eh. If both teams win their weighing and cases and there is no meta weighing then I will vote for the team whose weighing was introduced earlier in the round (prereq/link ins weighing doesn't apply here bc if one case is a prereq to another then u vote for the prereq/link in). Does this favor the 1st speaking team? No, you can weigh (and do other fun things) in 2nd constructive. Unrelated but remember to weigh turns over contentions. If nobody weighs then i honestly won't know what to do. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args. jUsT mAk3 mY lyfE eAs1eR!!!

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

I vote on the weighed args first but if nobody weighs then i be big sad, but I'll vote on cleanest/clearest path to the ballot. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args and the paths are both clear/clean. If there is no offense in the round then I flip a coin to decide who picks up cuz choosing any other way is interventionist, but feel free to make warranted arguments abt defaulting to one side or speaking order. I will always disclose after the round and give an RFD. also PS lmfao u need to win the link into the impact that u weighed.

Other:

I will reward you for taking risks like collapsing on only a turn. Please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. I hate dumb analogies, chances are, even if you think you're funny, you're not. Don’t call me judge, that’s weird. If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

for every link into tourism you read, +.5 speaks lol.

i will never ever ever make any comments abt what you're wearing or how you speak. if a judge ever does, that's pretty messedup. i don't care if u show up in designer clothes or sweats. i enjoyed debating in sweats, it's comfy.

in outs, if i'm on a panel that's 2 other lays, u can tell me to judge it like a lay round and i will. (this means voting for the team that better establishes a narrative and is more convincing lol)

Do crazy sh1t fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

tbh unpopular opinion but evidence is dumb, debate should be logical. obvi like use evidence if u want but warrants/analytics are perfecto. I genuinely think that debate would be better if it was just logical warranting, evidence is bad. (obviously evidence matters but: warrant + authors name vs. just warrant? meh p equal unless u give me good reasoning to prefer the evidence. unless the evidence is like a fact like "x has increased y 200%" is obviously better than a reason why x doesn't increase y)

If at any point you believe that you have won the round with no way for the opponents to win, you can call a TKO, if you are correct it will be an auto W with 30s, but if you are incorrect it is a loss with 25s.

Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lol.

Above all, just have fun! Debate can get stressful so just try to breathe, chill and relax in round.

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

plz remind me of how many speaks you should win based all the crazy stuff in here lol i'll forget what i put here

Hi all,

I’ve been debating PF since 9th grade, so I’m well-versed in the activity.

In terms of preferences:

1. Please signpost so I can follow your speeches
2. Please collapse on 1-2 arguments (quality > quantity)
3. Please weigh your impacts, and compare weighing mechanisms
4. If a card is called for, please have your evidence ready — don’t take too long to pull up cards in round
5. Preflow before round
6. Have fun!

I debated for four years in pf (and two tournaments in policy). Here's what you need to know about my judging:

Please preflow before getting to round.

Warrants > evidence, always

You are not going to win my ballot by saying your opponents dropped some random card. If your opponents drop a solid warrant that is another story.

I don't intervene

That being said, before you run some squirly argument:

- the less true an argument is the lower my threshold for a response and the higher my threshold for a frontline (For example MAD is enough of a response to most nuke war arguments in my book, and proving MAD wouldn't apply is a very high burden of proof)

- Regardless of the quality of the argument, I will not vote off an argument that I cannot explain back to you. If I don't understand your argument, that is not intervention, that is you not doing the necessary work as a debater.

I do not call for cards unless specifically asked to

- If your argument relies entirely on a piece of evidence, you obviously have not done enough warranting. I will default to the team that warrants the best if I need to.

- Make responses to the substance of their argument not their evidence.

- If their evidence is very badly cut or misleading you can tell me to call for it, but if their argument is well warranted I will still vote for it. If you want me to vote against them because of their evidence you have to tell me that. Otherwise you can evidence challenge.

I will pay limited attention in cross

- you have to say everything in a speech if you want me to consider it in my decision

I don't like sticky D: that being said I will consider it if the response was not frontlined in rebuttal. If it was frontlined, it has to be in summary for me to consider it.

- I'm also not going to buy any sneaky extensions through grand cross, if you drop your impact or link in summary, you lose.

Respond to turns in 2nd rebuttal

Please weigh, you should make my decision for me.

- Weighing in rebuttal will boost your speaks

Ask me questions, I love talking through arguments and helping debaters, but it becomes problematic when its less of "how can I get better" and more "you should have voted this way for this reason."

UPDATED AUGUST 2020

2020-2021 Season

Ana Kevorkian

ana@silverbulletbriefs.com for email chains during round or questions afterward :)

I recently graduated from Chagrin Falls High School in Chagrin Falls, OH and am currently on a gap year from college. I competed on the local circuit in Ohio for 3 years and the national circuit for 2, exclusively in Public Forum. I am also a co-founder of Silver Bullet Briefs, so I remain engaged with the debate community and am informed regarding the current PF topics.

TLDR: Explain your arguments and engage with your opponent in good faith. I believe that debate should be an educational experience, where each person leaves the round a bit smarter than they came in. I don’t think debate should be an hour long screaming match where each team attempts to speak faster, louder, and with bigger words than the other.

If you have any questions at all about this paradigm, whether it is something that I left out or something that is unclear, please ask me prior to the round beginning. Once again, debate should be an educational experience, and I believe that extends to learning the more technical aspects of debate. I have tried to leave out as much jargon as possible, but please ask if things are unclear.

I can handle a fair amount of speed, but please do not spread. I am a fast typer, but, if you speak at an unreasonable pace, I cannot promise that I will be able to capture all of your speech. I believe that, in Public Forum, debaters should cater towards a lay audience. Treat me as though I am an educated person, but not an expert on the topic, because I intend to judge from that perspective. Thus, you will win or lose the round based upon what happens in the round. If you argue something that I know to be incorrect, I will likely note that in my RFD, but it will only be a voting issue if your opponent calls you out on it. However, the burden on your opponents in terms of response will be lower if your link chain is confusing, muddled, or simply untrue. There are good-faith arguments to be made on both sides; don’t abandon the truth in an attempt to catch your opponents off guard.

I expect debaters to be respectful and professional. Be a good person.

I will vote off of the flow. Generally, this coincides with the team which does a better job of persuading me. It is not a question of which side of my flow has more cards written down, but the impact of the arguments you win and how you weigh them. I will track the round closely. If you do not respond to a contention of your opponent, you will lose the argument, and if your opponents successfully weigh that argument against yours, you will likely lose the round. If an argument is not weighed, it will be dropped.

I expect all rounds to collapse down to a few key arguments. Extending everything is as valuable as extending nothing. You do not have time to regurgitate everything that happened in the round in second half speeches. Please don’t try.

In my view, weighing is the most important aspect of a Public Forum debate round. Accordingly, I would like to see it as early as possible. If you turn an argument, be sure to weigh your turn against the original argument. Additionally, be sure that your weighing is comparative -- tell me specifically why your argument is not only important, but more important than what your opponent is arguing. In that vein, if your opponent and you choose two different weighing mechanisms, please explain why I should value yours.

Evidence is critical, but I can only vote off of it if it is clearly explained and extended. Tell me why your evidence makes sense. In Summary, structure the round for me as a judge. Tell me what I should look for. Tell me how your arguments interact with theirs. Build the worlds for me.

There are two situations in which I will call for evidence at the end of the round:

1. I am asked to by one or both teams

2. Two teams have distinctly different explanations of what the evidence says. This situation is extremely irritating for me as a judge and should be avoided at all costs.

Extend your arguments throughout the round. If it isn’t extended, I will assume it is dropped (assuming your opponent rebutted). If you are extending an argument that went unresponded to, you can simply say that. If an argument is refuted, you must frontline (respond to their rebuttal) if you wish to extend the argument. Please do not attempt to change your arguments in Final Focus, especially if you are the second speaking team. I will call you out for that and will not vote on anything that I don’t feel your opponent had a fair opportunity to respond to.

Cross-fire is not an opportunity to give another speech. You should be interacting and exchanging ideas with your opponent. I will recognize an evasive response or an attempt to change the subject. Please do not speak over your opponent excessively.

I enjoy progressive argumentation when it’s used in the way it was intended to. If you’re running an argument to shape the discourse around an important issue, I applaud you and will value your argument just as much as any other. If you’re running this type of argument in an attempt to confuse or intimidate your opponent, I will be irritated. I will still, obviously, flow your argument and evaluate the round fairly, but know that I will be less likely to vote off of an argument that inhibits the educational gains of debate. Debaters are smart -- you know the difference.

I will consider arguments raised in grand crossfire if reasonable in the flow of the round because your opponent can respond in grand cross and final focus. I will not consider new evidence or arguments raised in either final focus.

The best speakers may not always win. The team with the best reasoned arguments, offering the greatest reasonably extended impacts will prevail on my ballot.

Good luck!

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit. Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.
2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal; no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

Ex-PF Debater at Hawken School. Johns Hopkins BME '25.

Flow? Weigh.

He/Him

oliverhniu@gmail.com

Update for Ridge 2022:

I competed in Public Forum for four years at Millard North HS, graduated in 2019, and coached at NDF/VBI/on the circuit pre-Covid. I’m basically retired now and Ridge will be my first time judging in about two years. Therefore, assume I have very limited topic knowledge and am unfamiliar with any recent norms.

Here's a few preferences:

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I won't do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Ks. I will caution that these arguments were not super common when I competed so please be thorough in your explanations and make your path to the ballot clear. If I don't understand your argument well, I will default against it.

Evidence Challenges:

Unless the tournament says otherwise, in the event of a dispute about evidence, I will pause the round and ask the accusing team if they wish to stake the round on their claim. I will then determine if there was a violation of evidence ethics and vote accordingly.

Background: PF debater for 6 years (7th grade-senior year), but the last two years were during the pandemic, so I mostly judged. Currently a junior in college and have been judging pretty consistently since graduating. Flow-leaning but its been a couple of years since I've actively debated, so treat me like an 85% flow judge 15% lay.

Logistics: You can share evidence however you decide, but if it's an email chain include me: zramirez@bowdoin.edu (I won't actively check evidence sent unless there is a clear dispute/I feel that it is relevant to my decision). Please let me know if you need any accommodations before the round begins. I prioritize debater safety and comfort, so any kind of bigotry/disrespect/discrimination/ad hominem attacks will not be accepted. I use neutral pronouns/will use your name, unless you share your pronouns w/ me before the round begins (which I prefer, but up to your own discretion). I don't mind if you speak fast but keep in mind that speed is difficult sometimes virtually and if you are going too fast I might miss some things on the flow. I also usually dont flow cross so if you want me to write something from cross down mention it in a speech

General things that I find important in a round:

• Weigh (compare)! And giving weighing frameworks earlier in the round
• Extend warrants through all your speeches
• Signposting (you don't need an off-time roadmap just lmk what you're doing as you do it)

Typical flow judge, captain at Newton South

Narrative and weighing are good ways to get me to like you.

By the end of the round, I want each side to pick one link and one impact to focus on. Do not try to extend the entire round, just the most important points.

If you do anything mean or that makes the debate space less inclusive I will drop your speaks and, depending on the severity, drop you.

No frivolous theory

Speaker points will be boosted if

- you say PROtention instead of contention when referring to the pro's contentions

- you make me laugh in cross

- you signpost instead of off time road maps

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

4 years of PF experience at Hawken School, Gates Mills, OH. State semis senior year & broke at nats. Currently on mock trial at MiamiU.

I have a few general preferences for rounds:

1. Final focus must be consistent with summary. Don't add any new info in FF. You can clarify analysis and explain your link/warrants but I will not be voting on any new warrants or impacts. Parallelism >>>

2. Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary. 2nd summary is fine but other speeches are preferred.

3. Don't just say "extend our framework" or "extend our offense." Also explain it. Along these lines, don't just extend the name of cards. The content is what matters at the end of the round.

4. I'm fine with most speeds, but if you're going to spread, give me a speech doc. I don't flow crossfire, so if your opponent concedes an important point, bring it up in the next speech. Be assertive in cross, but be polite to your opponents. Make sure you provide strong impacts and weigh them. Tech >>> truth.

5. Logic > Evidence. I will always buy warranted analysis over an empiric.

6. Collapse. It makes the round so much easier to evaluate.

I don't flow CX, so if your opponent makes a critical concession, bring it up in the next speech. Being assertive is great, but don't be rude. Preferably don't run theory/K's because I don't have much experience evaluating them (and if you do run it, it should be for a clear violation and not just for a win).

Just convince me to the best of your ability that I should vote for you. Have fun! Try out new strategies, run interesting arguments, and feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Weigh