Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

hi guys!

i debated pf through ms/hs, i'm now doing apda at gwu. i most likely will not know much about the topic, although i'll do some cursory research beforehand (expect me to probably have read the first three articles that come up after a google search).

i try to be tech>truth (although i'm not perfect) + i normally flow every round (except cross)

theory - i don't like disclosure theory, paraphrasing is fine as long as cut cards are available. any other theory I'll evaluate to the best of my ability, but was never a prog debater so take that as you will

default util weighing. please weigh <3

i can follow when you speak fast but if it's fast enough that you need a speech doc slow down

i don't need to be on the email chain please don't put me on it but if i have an evidence question i might call it

don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/anything in that vein. dropped with a 20.

wear whatever, don't call me judge, and swearing is fine (make the activity genuinely enjoyable and lighthearted)

stand for sum/ff and try to go off the cuff as much as possible for them.

you don't need an off-time roadmap. however, please read content warnings if they are necessary.

standard debate conventions apply - don't be overbearing in cross, frontline in 2nd rebuttal and 1st sum, etc.

extra speaks if you make me genuinely laugh or put a good reference to a taylor swift song in your speech or bring me food for in person tourneys :)

I have debated public forum for two years and I am currently a Junior at Bergen County Academies. I mostly coach now at Bergen County Debate Club. Include me in the email chain: ethdon21@bergen.org

Important things for me:

1. Weigh! Seriously, it will not be fun for anyone if neither team weighs as I will then have to do my own weighing which might be different from you want me to weigh. So please weigh in at least summary in final focus so I know how you want me to evaluate the round.

2. Second rebuttal should frontline but does not have to. If second rebuttal does not frontline, first summary does not have to extend defense.

3. In almost all scenarios, I am tech over truth so please have evidence for the claims you make.

4. Please do not be mean in cross. I will not be flowing cross so there is no need to be rude. If you want to extend something from cross, do it in your speeches.

5. Please do not just card dump in case or rebuttal, I want to see some analysis

6. Most PF speeds are good for me, but if you go too fast and I am not able to flow, then that is on you.

7. Signpost, it helps everyone.

8. I will try be the least interventionist as possible. I truly believe that the debaters should decide the debate at every step of the way. This means that I will not call cards at the end of the round unless I am told to do so or there is significant disagreement in the round. If I do call for a card, please have it ready for me in 1-2 minutes. I will force you to drop the card if it takes too long.

9. Have fun!

I have debated public forum for 4 years and was captain of my debate team at Paramus High School.

I am currently a senior in college at the Stevens Institute of Technology studying computer science & quantitative finance

Qualifications: 2 Public Forum Gold Bids (Princeton & UPenn), ToC qualified (2019), and 2x States Qualifier. Now I spend my time in debate through coaching

Both summaries must extend important defense, if you don't its not a huge issue, I'll probably have it on the flow.

Final focus should be offense centered / reiterations of your own frontlines and weighing on your part.

Idc what happens in cross, just be respectful

Rebuttal line by line / dropping a ton of responses is nice, just make sure the responses are well warranted / warranted in the first place. I hate blippy responses where I have to make the connection to the argument you're responding to, I won't do that for you. Any responses w/o warranting gets automatically dropped from my flow.

if you have any other questions, email cavingada@gmail.com

I'm a freshman at Fordham University studying finance and law. I've debated public forum for four years; it's now my third year coaching. In the past, I've received two gold bids.

Preferences:

- second speaker must frontline

- pls don't just read impacts. I care about the links getting you to that impact, regardless of how dramatic you make the impact sound

- summary must extend (don't just say extend, reexplain the arg)

- use voters in FF

- I don't flow cross but make cross fun and aggressive for speaker pts

- If you take too long to get a card, I deduct prep time and speaker pts 

don't stress, have fun!

email: cherygada@gmail.com

I debated 4 years (2019-2023) for BergenTech and got 10+ gold bids to the TOC

Email Chain: samgrindebate@gmail.com and sam.grinberg@emory.edu

TLDR

Tech > Truth

Debate is a game

I am comfortable w/ <250 wpm. Faster is fine but if I miss a warrant its on you

I expect docs for case and rebuttal, but I only flow what I hear

Big fan of post-rounding (ask in-round or email me)

Specific Stuff:

1AC/1NC:

This is your place to show off! I usually read 3-4 contentions +/- a couple subpoints in hs

If you have a wacky case you want to read in a tournament and are waiting for the right time to read it, do it! Creativity goes a long way in an event where 95% of teams read a grand total of 2 unique args per topic

If you plan to go for framing in the back half, it should be introduced the front half of the round. Stop reading "framing" in second summary. That being said, frameworks debates have started to grow on me and (if executed well) will make me happy

I refuse to flow off a doc, so if I don't hear it it's not on my flow. That being said, I would still like if you sent a doc (with all evidence) so we can speed up the round and not waste time calling every card

2AC/2NC:

Best speech in pf!

Tell me if you are starting on the aff or neg off-time

2nd rebuttal must answer all offense (or it's conceded) + any defense on an argument you plan to go for

"Sandbagging DAs" in second rebuttal is fine. The whole point of first rebuttal is to time crunch second rebuttal, so if you have time to read DAs then do it

1AR/1NR:

i am judging you

link missed in summary

now you lost the round

COLLAPSE! 1 min of weighing will get you a lot further than 1 min of extensions

My RFD sounds like this in 90% of rounds: Team 1 wins the weighing debate with X piece of weighing. I look to their case first. Despite some link muddling and mitigation read by Team 2, I vote for Team 1 on any chance of their case triggering.

2AR/2NR:

Final should mirror summary

Slow down! If you extended and weighed properly in summary you shouldnt have to go super fast

Evidence

Email Chain!!!!!!!

Bad evidence ethics = bad speaks and prob a loss

ZERO TOLERANCE if you are from a big school / are a top 50 team and are still doing this! FOR IVY RR; if I think you are miscutting/clipping cards you are getting an L and 20s. You are the teams that are responsible for shaping community norms.

You can paraphrase evidence if you want (I did all of freshman and sophmore year) but checking back abuse is really hard and I tend to agree with the idea of paraphrased evidence being analyzed as analytics so be warned

"DEBATER MATH" is my biggest fear. I wake up sweating in the middle of the night simply because it exists. If I call your impact evidence and I see a bunch of multiplication instead, I am multiplying your speaks by 0.5

Prog

Please feel free to reach out to me (email me, pass me a note, ask in round) about my understanding of a specific strategy you want to go for in round. I tried to make this section as specific as possible, but its impossible for you to understand my exact views without asking me. I will never punish you for trying something creative out, and I love hearing new things in round (as long as you do your best to explain it)

That being said, I really enjoy prog debate and messed around with it a bunch during my junior/senior year. In my career, I have read (and am pretty experinced with): T, Disclo, Para, TW, IVIs (usually evidence related), Academy, Cap, Set Col, and some metaphysics literature.

I would rank my understanding like this:

Theory > Reps Ks > Friv Theory > Identity Ks > Tricks

what is theory [----------------------------o-------] average college policy debater

what is a kritik [-----------------o------------------] average college policy debater

what are tricks [-------o----------------------------] average college policy debater

Theory Specifics:

Default RVIs, reasonability, and drop the argument. Dont kick a shell w/o winning no RVIs

K Specifics:

Discourse is a really bad alt (its not 2020 PF has evolved)

Perms dont really make sense in PF (since counterplans are banned) but if your opponents alt is a plan (which they usually are) (wait isnt that also not allowed?!?!?!) then I guess its fine? Everyone is just reading policy lit anyway so I am open to hearing perms and plan-ish alts as long as no one is giving me a reason I shouldnt.

Trick Specifics:

I wont vote for "the roto is lose" but if you drop in a silly warrant why I can only evaluate the aff or the first speaking team or something, thats fine.

If you win my ballot on tricks its a LPW

Speaks:

+ if you bring me crunch, sour patch (watermelon), twix, or peach snapple (is this legal?)

+ if you sneak in the phrase "no debate" in a speech

- if your name is Akil Kasubhai

Have Fun!

https://findtheinvisiblecow.com/

Debate coach at Bergen Debate Club for almost 10 years. Feel free to ask me debate-related questions at the end of the round--I always enjoy chatting about the topic, arguments, theory, and philosophy before moving on to the next round.

For new debaters: Have fun and try your best! I have an endless amount of patience for new debaters. Welcome to the world of debate!

PF Paradigm

Everything will be based on flow, so everything that is said is binding--you are responsible for all extensions including cross comments.

The following are not listed in order of importance, so please consider each element with equal merit.

Evidence:

- Add me to email chains: wkang.1221@gmail.com

- I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find and then use your prep time for the remainder of time it takes you to send the card. The round is easier when you start the round with a shared Google Doc or email chain to streamline the card-sharing process.

Speech Components:

- Signposting: Non-optional! This always adds to the clarity of any debate. Please don't just say "On my first contention"... full signposting includes what that first contention is. (I mention this because debaters usually begin signposting effectively and either forget/forgo/become lazier as the round moves forward and stop signposting clearly).

- Turns: Please extend your warrants (this does not mean to just re-read your cards)--contextualize your response. Additional reasoning/warranting never hurt anyone.

- Frontlines: Essential starting from 2nd rebuttal! Remember that everything holds in the flow. If you don't frontline, their response(s) against your speech holds until the end of the round.

- Defense: Likewise with weighing, please implicate your defense.

Weighing:

- Weigh as early as possible in the 2nd rebuttal/summary after any necessary frontlines and be explicit in voters during FF. Weigh as effectively as possible (in a clear manner) within the allotted time.

- Comparative weighing is essential. If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please comparatively weigh AND implicate your arguments so that I don't have to do it in my head for you.

- Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

- Please metaweigh!

- Merely because you've won a framework, does not mean that you've won the round--ensure that you outline/complete weighing during the Sum & FF.

Presentation:

- *Well-warranted argumentation is good, but analytical and nuanced argumentation of well-warranted arguments is even better.

- (Un)fortunately, as a long-time debate coach, I am a tech over truth judge (even if I know the topic/argument/evidence)--meaning that how well something is debated determines how much truth value I place upon it.

- If there is a loss of professionalism from either side, I will ensure to give 25s & a loss to the individual(s).

- Turning on questions is expected, but if any individual during any CF refuses to answer a single question (in a clear manner), I will consider it to be poor handling of the CF. Depending on the severity/consistency, this may result in lower speaks.

Two asides:

1) I will always disclose (unless the tournament rules prevent me from doing so). My RFDs tend to go through everything on the flow, but due to time constraints of presenting RFDs, I will go through them relatively quickly so that we can all move on to the next round--so, I tend to speak somewhat quickly. If at any point you are unclear about something I've said, please ask before I let you go. I try my best to be constructive, so I hope that you listen to the feedback rather than waiting for a win/loss (If you just want to hear win/loss then lmk and I can do that to save everyone time!) If we have time and it's not too late in the day, feel free to post-round me by asking questions.

2) Theories/Progressive arguments are fun but do not make them your end-all-be-all. You still have to be clearly topical, btw. If the opposition responds with reasonability args/inability to engage statements--I respect it and understand it as a once novice debater.

LD Paradigm

Everything will be based on the flow. (Would be much appreciated if you add me to the email chain at the start to supplement this element). Additionally, a clear analysis of your arguments will be pivotal to winning.

I've studied philosophy so feel free to present the technical stuff, theories, and Ks, but if you do so, it would be helpful if you took a brief moment to review the parts of the arguments that you wish to ensure I focus on in my flow. Theories of justice, moral philosophy (mainly regarding forgiveness), and contractualism are what I'm primarily comfortable with, in the absence of additional analysis. Regardless, feel free to run what you desire, so long as you adhere to the reviewing element mentioned prior.

Keep the following in mind:

- Critical Theory arguments need to genuinely add something to the round, not be an excuse to avoid topicality. I focus on topicality when discussing theory. I will most likely skew the debate in favor of whoever presents a case to which more components can prove to be topical. This is especially true for link chains — I need to see a link from the case and Ks to the topic.

- K debate is great when it serves to challenge existing power structures and/or address the marginalization of groups. Remember: if you are going to run theory, don't just read theory cards to confuse your opponent.

- Please don't make your whole case just by reading cards. Rereading your cards does not equate to analysis when asked to elaborate on a piece of evidence during a cross.

- If you are going to abbreviate anything, please state what you are abbreviating initially before just using the abbreviation to avoid unnecessary remarks between debaters.

email me with questions and send me cases/speechdocs, akilkasubhai@gmail.com

i am flow

tech~truth

senior in hs. debated for a while

if u care: won silver toc/made it to elims at gold toc

post-round me idc, it furthers education within debate.

have fun!

Updated for 2023 TOC

Conflicts: Newark Science.

I’m Amit Kukreja and I debated for Newark Science in Newark, NJ for four years.

If it helps, I debated on the local NJ Circuit, the national circuit, and was a member of the USA Debate Team. I did PF for a couple of tournaments my freshman/sophomore year. I went to the TOC in LD my junior and senior year. I competed in policy my senior year at one national circuit tournament and received a bid in policy to the TOC and won the NJ State championship in policy. I debated internationally in worlds format for Team USA my senior year. For the better part of three years, I mainly did LD, ending out in octos of TOC senior year.

So, I've been coaching for the past 7 years and my views on debate have changed dramatically from when I was in highschool. The number one thing to understand about me is that I truly do consider myself to be tabula-rasa, meaning you can read anything, I simply value the execution of the strategy that you read. The ONLY caveat I have here is tricks; please please do not read some one-line bs, the other side drops it, and then you get up and extend it and win. If you make an actual argument and it's dropped, I totally get it - but the "resolved apriori" will make me very sad. It's not that I won't vote off it, but my threshold for rejecting it will be so low that as long as the other side says "No. Just No." that will be enough for me. I want to see actual debates!

Okay, besides tricks - do whatever you want. I've coached a ton of kids the past 7 years in phil, policy, kritiks, etc. and really enjoy judging all types of debates. I love a one-off K strat just as much as a 4-off NC strat, to me it's about the strategy in which you deploy an argument and how it collapses by the end of the debate that influence me.

I love impact turn debates, solid counterplans, strong internal links on disads, core assumptions challenged within links for a kritik - all is game. I do really enjoy CX, if you can be dominant there and have some personality, speaks will benefit and I'll just be more engaged.

Feel free to ask if any questions!

Email: akukreja227@gmail.com

• Treat me like a parent judge
• used to do LD - so I understand some jargon 
• persuasion is everything 
• ask me questions about my paradigm before the round if confused 
• i like people are funny but humor is unique so don't attempt anything but I like it when people try 
• i wont stand for anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. 
• dont misgender someone 

Hey everyone, I'm a first year out from pf. I debated as Glen Rock OS until senior year and Glen Rock Bergen Tech GO in my senior year. If you care, I got some gold bids, qualified for the gold toc, etc.

add me to email chains: elijahonik@gmail.com

tl;dr: tech>truth. Debate is a game -- I will always vote off the flow and will never intervene. Read any argument you want at any speed (send docs)

-

General:

• Tech>truth always -- I will believe anything you tell me as long as the argument has a warrant
• I don't view speaks the same way. If you are rude, offensive (I'm a Jewish college student, I've seen plenty of this recently and I'm sick of it), or do anything to make the round worse, I am not afraid to wreck your speaks
• Speed is fine but sending speech docs for case and rebuttal is mandatory -- if you start spreading baudrillard and don't send a doc I am capping your speaks at 25
• Things I believe are good (will not intervene on these debates dw): paraphrasing bad, open source disclosure good, debater math bad, defense is not sticky
• Please always tell me which flow you're starting on (ex. "our case, weighing, their case"). I don't need a ted talk as your offtime roadmap but I don't want to scramble to find which argument you're responding to

Case:

• If I haven't said it enough, sends docs -- if you paraphrase (smh) you should send both what you read and the cards you cite
• Read absolutely anything in case -- advantages, disadvantages, framework, framing, theory, kritiks, a big impact turn, straight turns to their case, be creative. Don't forget people can make ground/time skew args abt half of that. Everything is up for debate
• No switching between speakers regardless of the argument being read -- speaking order is one of the few rules in the NSDA handbook. K affs are read in policy all the time with the first speaker reading the 1AC
• I won't teach myself your argument from a doc so if you're reading something pf isn't used to like a really complex k, slow down a little

Rebuttal:

• This is essentially another constructive speech (pretty much the 2AC/2NC), so again, read whatever you want -- straight turns, a new constructive argument, idc as long as a doc is sent. Docs should include all the cards you're reading
• Second rebuttal must respond to all offense and frontline everything you plan on extending in the backhalf except weighing. No new frontlines in second summary
• It's a good idea to start framing in second rebuttal rather than second summary but I won't intervene if you start framing later

Summary:

• No new offense (with the exception of arguments directly responding to the 2nd rebuttal like theory), no new frontlines in second summary, backlines are fine ofc
• Collapse please, it doesn't matter how fast you go you will disadvantage yourself if you go for too much in the backhalf (trust me I've been there). The best debaters have good round vision and choose the best path to the ballot and go all for it
• Good signposting here is of utmost importance -- if you confuse me here and I miss an extension, that does not bode well for you
• I have a very high burden for extensions. An offensive argument (not just an adv/disad, this includes turns and etc) must include uniqueness, link, internal link, impact for me to vote on it (idc abt author names just extend the warrant). You cannot just say "extend the Bradford '13 evidence" and expect to win (I wonder if anyone currently debating remembers the bradford evidence)
• I know every judge says this, every debater knows this, but no one internalizes it. ~ 80% or more tech rounds will come down to the weighing -- read a prereq or something. On that note, please please please implicate your weighing/meta-weigh. I have no idea if magnitude or probability is more important unless you tell me

Final Focus:

• Structure should ideally match the summary but I understand if strats change
• Burden for extensions are the same here, the whole argument must be extended
• As tech as I'd like to think I am, making ff a little more "why we win" rather than just line by line, it can't hurt. Still please line by line and extend everything ofc
• If no weighing has been done in the round, I'll flow some sort of weighing in the first ff but second ff has somewhat of an ability to respond

Cross/prep:

• Time your own and each other's prep, if they go a second over you can unmute and say "that's all your prep", I don't think that's rude at all
• I time flex prep based on how long it takes you to ask your question so if you opponent tries to waste your time by answering a yes/no question for 2 min, it won't hurt you -- on that note, flex prep questions should pretty much be only yes/no questions (did you kick this, etc)
• Open cross is fine ig but don't make me regret saying this
• As pointless as it is, you probably shouldn't skip grand cross
• This doesn't need to be said but I don't flow cross. That being said, concessions made in cross are binding as long as they're properly implicated in the following speech

Progressive arguments:

• General preferences in terms of comfortability of judging (read any arg I won't intervene): theory/framework>reps k>friv theory>k aff>tricks
• "I'm from a small school so I can't respond" is the worst response ever. I literally started my high school's team and still read plenty of prog args in hs. Any response is valid if properly implicated but seriously you can learn anything from pf videos, opencaselist, and google
• In hs, my main experience with progressive arguments was all the stock theory shells (every form of disclosure, round reports, paraphrasing, etc), framework, reps Ks (I read cap and set col), and a few procedurals/IVIs here and there -- do with that what you will but I'm happy to hear any argument
• If you are confused about any of this please email me before the round or ask questions before/after the round, time permitting I'm happy to help

Theory

• I default no RVI, competing interps, text of the interp but whoever wins the paradigm issues wins that
• Theory must be read the speech immediately after the violation, if it is read later, opponents read a counter-interp about it and you will probably win
• The exact wording of the interp (unless I'm otherwise convinced) must be extended in summary and ff if you go for it. Rebuttal does not need to extend anything, that's not pf norms
• If only one team reads/extends an interp they auto win (assuming theory is the highest level in that round). Reasonability still requires two competing interpretations
• Friv theory is funny and a viable win strat as long as there is a warrant

Kritiks

• I really enjoy good reps/epistemological kritikal debates
• If you win your link and framing you don't necessarily need an alt to win (if you win their advocacy is tainted by settler logic and you win settler logic is genocidal and that outweighs their case you win. You don't need to win a decolonization alternative)
• Alts in pf are tough, there's definitely no plans/counterplans so alternative advocacy is tricky but saying something like vote neg to refuse set col and reading that one alt card that says refusal is generative and destroys the structure is fine
• Discourse alts are horrible and belong in 2020 pf. Again, I won't intervene but this fell out of fashion a long time ago in policy and LD, it should in pf too. Also, if you read discourse and don't disclose (and your opponents point it out because I probably won't check the wiki) your speaks will be very bad. This is also maybe a perf con, make that argument if your opponents read a discourse arg and don't disclose
• I am not very well versed in k lit and your opponents probably aren't either (this is pf) so don't try to spread everyone out of the debate. I won't teach myself your k from the doc so making me understand is a good idea

Procedurals/IVIs

• These are sometimes useful when your opponents do something specific and reading a whole shell doesn't make sense. Let's say they clip one card, you can either evidence challenge or read an ivi saying they should lose for this particular card. Let's say they say something exclusionary, you can read an ivi saying they should lose for that. Make sure it still has what they did, why that's bad, and drop the debater
• Donot read disclosure, paraphrasing, etc as an ivi. If the argument is read as a shell read it as a shell don't be abusive. With that said, "Overview: the opponents' whole case is paraphrased which is just analytics based on what they want us to believe the author said so evaluate them as such" is fine

Tricks

• I have a very basic understanding of skep, lexical arguments, paradoxes, etc. I amnota tricks judge. Donot trust my ability to catch and comprehend your wack tricks
• If you read tricks, they must be very visibly clear on your doc, don't hide them. Also, they still need a warrant (I won't vote for "the roto is to lose" unless properly warranted)

I'm sure there's plenty I missed, please don't hesitate to email before the round or ask before the round starts if you have any questions. Assuming I have time, I like postrounding. Please argue with me, I'm happy to defend my decision. The last thing I want is for you to leave the round thinking you got screwed

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Have a good round.

I'm a sophmore at Bergen Country Academies and have been debating PF for a few years.

I am a tech judge but assume that I do not know the topic.

I will judge tech over truth unless what you are saying is entirely outrageous.

Include me on your email chain--- leasmo23@bergen.org

Make sure to signpost in summary and FF.

Be respectful in cross.

I can handle speed if you speak clearly.

You MUST weigh and tell me why your arguments are more important, if you do not do so, it will be very difficult to make a decision.

Have fun!

If u bring me food ill give u high speaks wink wink