Hi! I am a PF debater and a flow judge. Tech>Truth I have debated throughout my high school years, so speed is free with me. ENUNCIATE if you are using speed. I won't write down what I don't understand.

It is your job to weigh in speeches, and it is my job to judge you based off of that. If you give me no weighing, I can't really do the comparative analysis for you- the debate becomes bland and I give a decision that you might not be satisfied with.

Try to frontline in second rebuttal- respond to important turns at least. Moreover, since summary is now 3 minutes, you HAVE to extend rebuttals and frontline and WEIGH in summary. If it is dropped, then it is dropped. Do not try to extend or respond to something you dropped, especially in final focus. I am not going to count it, so it is a waste of time.

You can run theory and K's, but I have no soft spot for it. If it is complicated, explain it well or I am not buying.

Give off-time roadmaps or signpost, where ever and whenever you can. It is much easier for me to follow your speech. If your speech is all over the place, do not expect me to follow it.

I am super hands off when judging, so I won't call for a piece of evidence unless you compel me to call for it.

Please add me to your email chain, or evidence sharing doc using this email: yingying.fang.debate@gmail.com

Warrant your evidence! Don't just give me an empiric without any explanation! I value good analytics over cards, but cards obviously help a lot too.

I don't count prep for calling cards, but I do when reading them.

MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN YOU ARE USING PREP. Since everything is online, don't be sneaky! I can tell if something is off, and I will not be nice if I catch you in the act.

Collapse! Please narrow your speeches into the clashes and core arguments of the round. Drop unnecessary arguments and be strategic! If not, the debate can be become muddled and stronger arguments don't have the time to shine.

Time yourselves! I will give a 5-10 second leeway, but I will stop writing any new points after that period. To signal speeches past-time, you will be able to see my timer in the air, or a hand gesture pointing to my wrist.

I am more lenient towards new and younger debaters; don't worry too much about rules at this stage and just build basics! Always make sure to check feedback!

My facial expressions are very obvious, so if I look confused, then I probably am. Look to me in the round to see if I am following you.

I enjoy a bit of humor in speeches, especially puns, but don't be rude in or out of the round. I will deduct speaks for any derogatory language or discrimination of ANY kind; the world is already very melancholy, so be happy and kind debaters!

Just do your best! :))

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

i don't flow cross

time yourself

gl

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.