If you read an interesting case/off - or have unique and good weighing you will get good speaks

General:

Email:Add taha.amir575@gmail.com

Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues). I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round. Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.

General Thoughts on Debate:I think debate is a game and any argument and strategy is on the table as long as it is warranted. I will always be tech > truth. Although I prefer certain norms, nothing is absolute in the debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - just warrant it.

Speed:Speak as fast as you want, but always send a doc with all your evidence prior to your speech. Slow down on analytics. I was a pretty fast debater so if I can usually follow along.

Substance:You need to extend your arguments in the summary and final focus, but my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, so good, intricate weighing is the best way to win my ballot. I loved reading extinction impacts, and my favorite debates was doing smart link weighing in extinction v. extinction debates. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:

• Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.

• Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.

• Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.

• I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.

Theory:Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K/K Aff:My thoughts on the K/K Aff. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot. K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’

Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

Hello I have a lot of experience in PF debate and have visited travel tournaments before. I WILL FLOW THE ROUND and determine the winner based of the flow mostly but also the speaking ability. I am okay with circuit debate as long as your opponents are. I understand that your speech time is short but I do not like spreading or speaking fast, if I can’t hear an argument because of your speed I will not write it down and will be forgotten about. Also no k’s or anything like that. You are allowed to run them but the ballot won’t be in your favor if you do. I do pay attention to cross examinations so they are very important. I have debated all the topics for PF this year so I have experience in all of them. I want to have a good respectful and clean debate. Also you must check your opponents prep time if they take extra that’s on you. If you have a framework and bring it up on the debate and can relate your contentions to that then that is very good for you. In cross examination please make sure the questions get answered quickly so both sides get enough time to ask questions.

I have been debating PF for 4 years and I am very well versed in all matters of PF.

What I want to see:

- Do not read theory/progressive argumentation in PF. I like when debaters make arguments that are clear and easy for everyone to understand no matter what level they are. If you can lay out your arguments in a way that is easy to understand and more convincing, you will win.

- Talking fast is ok but I still need to be able to understand what you are saying. Sign posting helps with that a lot.

- I will not be disclosing decisions but I will give feedback if you ask for it.

- When it comes to evidence do not be shady. Do not manipulate cards in a way that totally changes what the card is saying. If something is suspicious feel free to call cards against each other but you better be able to prove what you are saying in a timely manner.

- How you present your cards is your choice but make sure I understand it is the same card if you say it multiple times. You also don’t have to have evidence in every speech (although it would probably help).

- The format of crossfire does not matter to me as long as both sides are civil/respectful and give the other side a fair/equal amount of time to speak.

- Please be respectful at all times in round to everyone in the room. Not being a professional is my #1 biggest pet peeve and you will not win no matter how good your arguments are if you are not a true professional in how you conduct yourself.

- No new offense in summaries. This is supposed to sum up what I have heard throughout the round so far.

- No new evidence in final focus. If you do bring up new evidence I will not consider it in my final decision.

- If you have framework, it should be extended in every speech to tell me why you are winning in the world you have constructed.

- You give me at least two ways to vote the round for you in summary and final. Make it clear and apparent why you have won the round.

- I will first evaluate any offense the first speaking team extended, then any the second speaking team extended, then I will look at the framework and weighing.

- I will adopt any speaker points policy for a tournament to make it fair, but if there is none:

25-27.4 is below average.

27.5 is the average PF debater.

27.6-30 is above average.

Final Random Notes:

- I absolutely love unique arguments. If you can bring up something I have never heard before (which I’m going to say now will be very difficult), you will definitely get extra points in my book as long as you can explain it clearly and well.
- Just go have fun! Debate to me isn’t so much survival, it’s supposed to be legitimately enjoyable. I’m really excited to be judging this tournament and I want to see everyone else enjoy it too.

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State thrice and TOC/NSDAs twice. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon. Do not put me on the email chain and please go at a very slow speed.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

Ask any questions to me if necessary (feel free to contact me at nilaygandhi@utexas.edu) , and remember to enjoy each round!

Hello! I will be a high-school debater in the coming fall, and I've done primarily PF for a little more than 3 years. In my 3 years in middle school, I have went to the MSTOC, MS Texas State, City Championships, and more. As a speaker, I have placed first in quite a few tournaments and continue to strive to do better as always.

(Additionally, for some reason Tabroom is not showing my past rounds that I have judged but I can assure you that I have judged numerous rounds both on this platform and IRL)

PF/BIG QUESTIONS:

In these two types of debate, I always expect consistent signposts and road maps. When you're speaking, I'm okay with spreading, but I expect it to be audible for both parties, and for you to enunciate the tag lines of your card/arguments. In crossfire, I am okay with people being aggressive, but make sure you let your opponent speak. Additionally, like most judges, I am okay with you linking back your case into the question, but crossfire is NOT rebuttal time.

If both sides drop an argument and you would like to bring it back up, please try to bring it back up in the next solo speech you have besides the final speech of course. When it comes to summary speeches I really need you both sides to look at the bigger picture to some degree. Additionally, as debaters vary as to where they start their weighing, I need to see it at some point in the debate before the final speech as well.

In summary, I expect collapsing! I really need to know what is the basis of your case and what it has truly come down to thus far.

I allow all ethical arguments to be made in the round as long as they have a large standing overall in the round. Additionally, I expect all your arguments to be warranted (again to a certain degree) as that can play a large stance for both the opponent and myself. Additionally, there should be absolutely NO COUNTERPLANS OR KRITIKS. PF and BQ just aren't designed to allow that argumentation and I will not evaluate those arguments at all. However, you can run theory, but it must have a large standing to do so.

For Speaker points, my rules are pretty simple. I don't think that HOW you speak has anything to do with speaker points. Instead, I judge based on the content that you produce.

30-29- Grounds well in the debate, strategically plays arguments, focuses on the bigger picture, and debunks the opponent's points.

29-28- Still does well in the round, focuses sometimes on minute arguments, has some trouble with regulating the opponent's claims.

28-26- Doesn't have a complete grasp of all argumentation and thus can't strategically play certain arguments, has trouble with debunking the opponent's points.

26-25- Simply doesn't understand the topic, can't prove/carry points out throughout the debate, consistently contradicts themselves throughout the round.

25-20- Intentional rude statements made towards the opponent(s), judge, or just blatantly racist, sexist, or discriminatory statements about something or someone.

LD

For LD, my requests are quite simple. I, of course, am okay with spreading but I need you to be able to go at a still audible pace. No more than 310 WPM. This way, no side can blame the other for not being able to understand arguments. Secondly, I want DEFINITIONS. For LD there are so many progressive cases that there has to be some underlying basis on both sides. Thus I need definitions from both parties. If not, whichever side provides one, I will be forced to agree with their definition.

For LD, like all other forms of debate that I judge, I expect everything to be warranted (to some degree). The important factor for being a judge is to be 3rd party and unbiased. While I can, "Buy", arguments, I can't just assume what you mean and try to bridge a gap. There has to be warranting to some extent.

For Speaker points, my rules are pretty simple. I don't think that HOW you speak has anything to do with speaker points. Instead, I judge based on the content that you produce.

30-29- Grounds well in the debate, strategically plays arguments, focuses on the bigger picture, and debunks the opponent's points.

29-28- Still does well in the round, focuses sometimes on minute arguments, has some trouble with regulating the opponent's claims.

28-26- Doesn't have a complete grasp of all argumentation and thus can't strategically play certain arguments, has trouble with debunking the opponent's points.

26-25- Simply doesn't understand the topic, can't prove/carry points out throughout the debate, consistently contradicts themselves throughout the round.

25-20- Intentional rude statements made towards the opponent(s), judge, or just blatantly racist, sexist, or discriminatory statements about something or someone.

Finally, as always, please be respectful to your opponents, have fun, and happy debating!

Experience: Been debating public forum for four years, starting from middle school.

If you're rushed for time just read the tl;dr, the bolded parts, and the miscellaneous section. tbh everything else should be things you know already.

tl;dr: speak clearly, refute everything, collapse and extend in summary, and weigh in final focus. Everybody should be respectful during the round. I don't flow crossfire so if something important is being said then bring it up in speech. Have fun during the round and remember that every round is a learning experience :)

Specifically on UBI - I did debate a tournament with it, but I barely prepped for it and haven't touched it in a while lol. It shouldn't affect you, but just for your knowledge, I'm basically someone who has basic understanding and knowledge of the topic, but won't understand any offhand references to well-known evidence cards or args.

More in depth:

Case/First Constructive

Please make sure your contentions and subpoints have clear taglines, so I know when to separate your points on my flow. Make sure that your warranting and your link chain is clear.

On framework - I don't care if you read it or not, just make sure that if you do then actually utilize it in the round. Framework debates are okay but don't let it drag on; the best thing would be to just show me that you win under both frameworks. Don't use abusive frameworks. If both sides concede a framework then I'll weigh under that, if a framework is brought up and conceded to but never talked about in the round again then I'll probably just ignore it.

If you're going to spread your case, please send me your speech doc so that I don't miss important parts of your case. If you don't feel the need to, then you don't have to send me your speech, but keep in mind that the faster you talk the less likely it is that I actually catch what you want me to catch in your speech. You have been warned. If I say clear, then slow down. 3 clears and I stop flowing.

Rebuttal

DAs are fine. Respond to everything in your opponent's case. 2nd rebuttal should frontline. It'd be nice if you clearly signposted overviews, de-links, and turns (as in, tell me it's an overview/de-link/turn). Again, if you're planning to spread I prefer you send a speech doc, else don't hold me accountable for things that you insisted you said but I wasn't able to get onto my flow. When referring to cards in your case (this goes for summary and final focus too), don't just say the author name and expect me to automatically remember what the card said. Give at least a brief reference or explanation to what the card actually said.

Summary

1st summary should frontline. No one should extend through ink. Both summaries should start setting up for weighing and final focus. Bring up your impacts!! I would prefer if you started to collapse here and emphasize the points that you're aiming to win on.

Final Focus

Be convincing. Tell me why you win, don't just tell me what points you have standing and what points your opponents have standing. Tell me why your points or evidence should be preferred over theirs. If you bring up a new argument or bring up something that wasn't extended during summary, then I won't count it and your speaker points will tank. The time for responding to arguments is over; tell me why you won the round with the arguments you've already made. Impact calc + weighing is crucial. Don't make me do the work for you.

Crossfire

Like I said, I don't flow crossfire. Crossfire should be a time for you to clear up any questions you have on your opponent's case and start preparing for rebuttals; don't actually read out this giant card you have and say "How do you respond to this?" I may or may not listen to crossfire, but it shouldn't matter if I do or not. This time is for you guys to interact with each other, not for you guys to convince the judge.

Off-Time Roadmaps

These are encouraged. Or you can just tell me where to start on my flow before your speech. This doesn't mean you don't have to signpost during your speech though. Please signpost.

Evidence

Please follow NSDA rules, author and date. Don't misrepresent evidence. I most likely won't call for evidence unless it's highly contested in the round, someone explicitly tells me to call for it, or something interesting was said and I want to check it out for myself. The last reason most likely won't affect the result, unless you were lying about what you said. In which case it probably will affect the result.

Ks, Theory, Tricks (or other prog args)

I'm not super familiar with these, but I have a basic understanding of them. It's okay to run Ks and theory as long as you're not abusive and you explain everything clearly and logically. Tricks I'd prefer you don't. No counterplans in public forum. Overall, I'd still prefer a substance debate. If you decide to run a progressive argument though, go for it; I think they're super interesting. Just make sure it's not frivolous, and keep in mind that it would probably be best if you treated me like a lay judge. Also keep in mind that despite my best efforts, I'll probably end up being more truth > tech with these.

Speaker Points

Personally, I think these are super subjective and I would advise you don't take them to heart. If you make me laugh, says something clever, or it's clear you're enjoying yourself in the round (please don't try to fake it though) then you'll probably get high speaks. If you say something offensive, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc etc, then I'll give you the lowest possible speaks. Being rude will also get you low speaks, no matter how good of a speaker you are.

Miscellaneous

I might time you, but I'd rather you time yourselves and your opponents. I generally will give 10 second grace periods. When taking prep announce the amount of prep you took to both me and your opponents to keep things fair.

In the event that the round is a complete wash, I'll probably give the ballot to the team that spoke better.

I lean towards tech > truth, so I'll weigh something even if it's stupid, but that won't stop me from roasting both you for saying it and your opponents for not calling you out on it. I'll try to be tabula rasa but obviously, I'm human and not completely impartial, so again, make sure you weigh for me or you might not like the result when I have to weigh myself.

If anyone has any questions about the round, wants personal advice/criticism, or wants to understand why I made the decision I made, I'd love to hear your thoughts, because I want to improve as a judge as well. Feel free to DM me!

I've been competing in debate since 6th grade and I mostly have only middle school debate experience but I've competed in many high school tournaments both novice and varsity before.

Speaks:

DON'T BE RUDE that will automatically give you a 25. I'm not very familiar with theory and ks and whatever so I probably won't get it. Other than that I'll be pretty generous with speaks just try your best. xtra speaks if u follow me on Instagram @queenhleen

Constructive:

All I really need in the constructive is organization, for example having things numbered. Please make sure you have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I don't get an impact I won't really see your point as relevant to the debate. Make sure all your arguments are clearly explained. If an argument isn't extended and weighed later in the debate, I won't evaluate it in my decision. Please try not to spread. If you do, please send the doc.

Rebuttal:

For second rebuttal, if you don't frontline I'll consider it conceded and I won't let you extend it later in the debate. PLEASE signpost if you don't I WILL get lost. Also, numbering your responses if you have more than one on an argument is very important if not I'll get lost.

Summary:

Just extend, warrant, collapse, and weigh. If something isn't extended in the summary I won't evaluate it. Signpost and number your responses and I'll be fine. Here I should be able to see which arguments you'll be going for and weighing off of.

FF:

Please don't bring up anything new and don't read any new evidence. Tell me WHY you win don't just say that you win this you win that, explain it. Extend weighing and tell me what to vote off of and why. WEIGHING IS REALLY IMPORTANT if you don't do it I'll have no reason to vote for you.

Crossfire:

I don't really pay attention to crossfire just tell me in your speech if your opponent conceded anything in the crossfire. Just stay respectful and crossfire should be fine.

Evidence:

Please use evidence! I won't call for it unless you ask me to and the evidence is brought up a lot.

HEEHEE

My ultimate judging philosophy is that debate is a game and I am the monopoly man so don't piss off the monopoly man.

I love puns and I hate racism

Don't spread because you aren't as hot sh!t as you think you are.

Don't run frivolous theory because the monopoly man hates stupid arguments

Tech>Truth

I don't fxck with offensive overviews

Signpost

No new evidence or new args in Final Focus

Good Kid Maad City is Top 1 Kendrick

Hi!

I have 5 years of debate experience. I have done PF, Policy, and Parli.

Do not spread.

Debate specific

PF: Define everything, give me a framework and weighing mechanism. Don't drop any important arguments. Give me clear voters and compare the world of AFF and NEG so I know what you want me to vote for.

Policy/Parli: I will entertain basically any argument, but I mostly look to STOCK issues first when making my decision. T and Solvency are the most important for me. I love theory too. If you are going to run very general K's, DA's and T's you MUST have a link to the AFF. I don't have a ton of experience in K's, so I might not be the best judge for you if you plan to run a K. That being said, if the thesis is not very clear and the links/reasons to prefer don't exist, I probably won't vote for you. If you don't perm a CP I will vote for the CP if I am led to believe it solves better. ALWAYS perm a CP.

I never did Congress or LD but I have watched a few rounds.

I don't flow CX but I think CX should have clash.

Good luck to everyone!

Elkins '20 | TAMU

Email: a9pratap@gmail.com

messenger is preferred

i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit

General

- Debate is a game. I consider myself to be tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact

- Speed: go as fast as you want but provide a speech doc and go slow on tags if you are faster than what is considered normal for the activity. I’ll yell clear once and allow anyone in the round to call it whenever. Just keep in mind the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something or lag behind so do it at your own risk.

- Signposting and weighing are essential

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

Progressive stuff

- I won’t say that I will not evaluate any any Ks, theory, or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these. The only exception is offensive overviews or DA’s in second rebuttal, don’t

Rebuttal

- I won’t require you to frontline in second rebuttal, anything not responded to is conceded

- Any defense that you concede to should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was read

o A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with tour argument not just “we concede to the delinks”

- Turns conceded in second rebuttal or first summary have a 100% probability and can only be beaten back by outweighing them

Summary/Final

- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.

- Case offense/ turns need to be extended by author name or source otherwise I will not extend it for you

o do- “extend jones who writes that extensions like these are good because they are easier to follow”

o don't do “remember we tell you extensions like these are good”

- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

- New evidence is only fine for frontlining in first summary, defense must be extended since they 3 mins

- For FF, a good friend told me it should include everything you tell your friends/teammates after the round is over. Write my ballot for me.

- Weighing must be made before final focus, the only type of new weighing allowed is responding to it from second summary, second summary is last chance to weigh. Personally I think link weighing is more convincing than impact weighing.

- I do not think weighing is essential in winning my ballot but it definitely helps

- For FF extensions I don’t have a high threshold, all I need is your explanation of your link story and its impact.

Other

- Evidence, I will only call for it if someone in the round explicitly tells me to. I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage. You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked (exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it)

- Speaks, I will reward them based on strategy and decorum

- Cross, it is binding and I will pay attention any crucial point has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it

Do not

- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading (includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices)

- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/xenophobic and all those ists

- Read a K-style argument dealing with identity when you aren’t a member of that group.

o i.e- dont read a fem K if you’re a male male team and ESPECIALLY dont read it on females if you’re a male male team, that is just trivializing the argument

- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other than that I agree with nilay raj and bryan with few stylistic differences

I have debating experience in novice and varsity circuits. I am relatively tech over truth. I don't mind spreading, but I would really appreciate a speech document (probably would drop speaks if I am not given one). If you're going to spread for rebuttal, I want a speech doc (or just don't spread cause I will probably give higher speaks if you don't, however, I wouldn't decrease speaks if you do). People can make mistakes on flows, so make sure to keep emphasizing what was extended and dropped in your and your opposition's speeches. Make your LINK CHAINS CLEAR!!! And make sure to warrant your arguments. Try to speak clearly especially if we are doing this virtually. I will rudely and aggressively interrupt you by saying/screaming CLEAR if I don't understand what you are saying!!!! I may or may not keep time, but I will be lenient if you go a little over time unless the opposition calls you out. If you go over 15 seconds overtime, I will start decreasing speaks.

Constructive- Try to speak at a steady pace, try not to use filler words! I don't like extremely slow speeches, so I prefer 230 or more words per minute.

Crossfires- I like assertive crossfires!!! I DO NOT FLOW CROSSFIRES!!! If something significant was mentioned during one, please bring it up in the next speech (also mention that it was stated in cross). I don't really care about grand cross. If both you and your opposition choose not to do it before the round, I will drop grand cross and give you an additional minute or two of prep (I may also boost speaks ;) for saving me some time).

Rebuttals- I would appreciate it if you go in the order of the contentions. Please provide a roadmap, you don't have to say off-the-clock roadmap though. DO NOT WEIRDLY ALTERNATE BETWEEN YOUR AND YOUR OPPOSITION'S CASE (I WILL CUT SPEAKS!!!), and if you signpost throughout the speech, I will BOOST SPEAKS! I want to see front lining from both sides!!! And I don't expect any, but I hope to see some weighing in rebuttal:) I will give both teams some sticky defense, but please try to respond to and extend everything.

1AR specifics- I am fine with DAs. I want to see front lining. ALSO, GIVE ME A ROADMAP IF YOU VALUE YOUR SPEAKS!!! :P

2AR specifics- I NEED A ROADMAP. The second speaking team is responsible for OFFENSE AND DEFENSE and I want an organized speech (follow your roadmap!!!!).

Summary- I WILL LOVE YOU IF YOU COLLAPSE!!!!! (Please specify which contention you're collapsing on). Also, collapsing is not the same thing as conceding (PLEASE DON'T CONFUSE THOSE!!! I WILL DROP SPEAKS!!!). WEIGH, RESPOND, AND EXTEND!!!! I will allow the first speaking team to bring in new evidence during summary if they are responding to opposition's responses to rebuttal. I DO NOT LIKE WHEN THE SECOND SPEAKING TEAM BRINGS UP NEW EVIDENCE DURING SUMMARY!!! DO NOT DO THAT, I WILL DOCK SPEAKS!!! Your opposition doesn't have any more speeches left to respond to your new evidence, so don't do it!!! I will consider this abusive!!! If you do it, and your opposition calls you out, I will boost their speaks!!! Collaboration between partners is crucial when transitioning from rebuttal to summary, so a smooth extension of your partner's rebuttal responses during summary will boost speaks.

Final Focus- WEIGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! TELL ME WHY YOU WIN THIS ROUND!!!! DO NOT BRING UP NEW EVIDENCE OR EVIDENCE YOU DIDN'T EXTEND!!!! I will not vote on new material or responses and only things extended through summary!!! WEIGHING is something I really look forward too!

Weighing- Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant!!!! (I like impact weighing). Logical weighing (XYZ will or won't happen/this is better longterm) is okay if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing when evaluating speaks. Logical weighing over statistical weighing won't really affect your ballot as long as logical weighing is actually logical!!! If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

Prep- I may or may not keep track of prep. If your opposition catches you going over prep, I will deduct your speaks and boost theirs. Again, you can earn an additional minute or two of prep if you guys get rid of grand cross. If I am keeping track of prep and you go over time by more than 5 seconds, I will deduct speaks. If you stop prep and then take an additional 10 seconds setting up time....just don't do that.

Cards and asking evidence- Don't take too long please and have everything formatted. Have the source links ready. I probably wouldn't call for evidence during a round unless your opposition prompts me too or if it's highly contested during the round. KNOW YOUR CASE AND WHERE YOUR EVIDENCE IS!!!

Progressive- I am not familiar with many progressive arguments and most likely won't know how to assess it. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU DON'T RUN THEM (Especially if you are novices!!!!!!!). I am okay with framework, disads, and counter plans. If you run anything else like tricks or theory, I am not comfortable with assessing them so you would be bringing my bad assessment upon yourself. I don't have enough experience with progressive arguments and may drop them or your speaks depending on how well I understand it. To stay safe, just don't run it. However, if you do, whatever (Just don't blame me for how it ends or feel bad if you get judge screwed).

Other- I will start of with 30 speaks for both sides and will assess those as the round progresses. Following my paradigm will ensure high speaks. Pre flow before rounds and don't forget to give content warnings as needed. I don't mind paraphrased cases but use evidence fairly. If you misuse evidence and get caught, YOUR SPEAKS WILL FACE A DETRIMENTAL DROP AND I WILL DROP YOUR ARGUMENT. Give me an order before speeches. I will disclose my decision after round (Usually) and give an RFD. If you have questions or choose to postround, that's okay. If you're post rounding, be assertive and confident in your reason because if it's a stupid reason, I will dock speaks. Finally, if the round gets extremely messy and I don't buy anyone's arguments, I will default to the first speaking team. Stay respectful and polite. There is a fine line between assertiveness and aggression. Also, if you really really want me to give you high speaks, quote Taylor Swift/Selena Gomez/Ariana Grande or DAY6 songs and if I catch it, I'll give you a 30 as long as you weren't rude/don't need unnecessary amounts of improvement:)

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!!!!!

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

hi ! i debated pf for 4 (ish) years at dulles, reach me whenever @ katherineyue@rice.edu

general

preflow before!

the best way to get me to vote for you is to spend your last speeches pointing things out to me (dropped response/extended arg/your link chain)

you can spread if you want but you still need to be clear, i won't flow + eval off docs if your speech is incomprehensible to me

especially in ld/policy prioritize making your arguments clear to me over more evidence + arguments if you want me to understand + really vote on something

progressive

i basically debated all substance, treat me as a flay judge & run progressive if you want but i probably won't understand it (theory/ks) unless there's a clear violation in round

speeches

i was a second speaker so i prioritize responses that interact with your opponent's arguments directly ! everyone reads generic blocks, i'll be more responsive to evidence & warranting/responses i haven't heard before. i think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

go line by line/in a intuitive order (ie your flow then opponents) + roadmap before, if i can't follow your responses/extensions logically i can't vote on it

don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, it doesn't mean anything if unwarranted, i tend to be preferential towards statistical/impact weighing over logical

ps i <3 (nonbasic) taylor swift references

Hello. I am a parent judge for Montgomery Blair. I don't have any debate experience, so please stay away from debate jargon. Speak slowly, and remember to be nice to each other!

I have additional comments for Kaden Chien.

My voting criteria is simple.

1. Signpost.

2. Use unusual imagery.

3. Employ the rule of three.

4. Slow down on numbers.

I will only evaluate your impact if you say:

1. “This is the biggest argument/impact in the round.”

2. Hyperbolic exciting language like “ballooning” the debt “devastating” the economy.

I will only take you seriously if you:

1. Turn on your camera.

2. Smile.

3. Make eye contact.

4. Speak slowly.

5. Tell a story.

6. Tell me what side you are on.

I will NOT flow final focus unless you begin the speech with:

1. “This has been a messy round, let’s clean it up.”

2. "This is a really easy decision."

3. "They made a fatal blunder."

4. "The MOST IMPORTANT POINT in this round is…"

5. “There is one word on your ballot. ____.”

6. “Don't let them mislead you."

7. "Don't fall for their trickery.”

8. “Don’t let them come up here and say…”

You will be dropped on the spot if you:

1. Don't win every argument in the debate. I am NOT a fan of collapsing.

2. Forget to extend a warrant or impact. This includes extending in rebuttal.

3. Say "you guys" or any gendered language.

4. Don't start or end your speech with a line of rhetoric

5. Read an off-time roadmap.

6. Alex Liu votes against you.

I will be taking off speaker points for every time you say any of the following phrases:

Filler words: "um", "uh", "like"

Unnecessary words: "literally", "basically", "essentially"

Bad debater phrases: "but then/second/third/etc.," "I/we (would) say/think/assume/tell you that...", "start off at the..."

Aggression is a voting issue.

I reserve the right to drop you anyways if I think it would be funny to do so.