I competed in policy on the national circuit in high school. After college, I coached policy for a high school circuit team. I have been coaching PF for the last three years. I think everything that happens in a debate round is fair game for debate. I'll evaluate the round how you tell me to. I do not want to do work for you on the flow. Please impact out your args and explain why your framing matters most.

Hi! I'm Anita (she/her), a freshman at Northwestern University. I recently graduated from National Cathedral School in Washington D.C., where I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm definitely not a lay judge but i'm also not super comfortable with speed/prog. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know! My email is anitali2002@yahoo.com.

Please keep track of prep! Also I don't flow card names so if you say "extend Bob," i'm not gonna know what you're referring to.

Some things I like:

· Second Rebuttal has to frontline everything you're collapsing on and address all turns your opponents put on your case or concede to the delink.

· Weighing is super important! Weighing needs to be comparative (don’t just tell me why your impacts are important, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s impacts). Please start weighing in summary. No new weighing in Second FF.

· Please signpost + give off time road maps! Tell me what you're responding to.

· Please explain your arguments! Don’t just read statistics and then expect that to stand on itself, explain to me why that statistic is true. (warrants are important!)

· If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be in speech and extended across all speeches

· In second half, tell me what you're winning off of, whyyou’re winning, and tell me why I should be voting for you!

. 1st summary is the last speech where I will accept new arguments. New weighing and cross-apps are still okay after tho. New implications? I'll think about it.

. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!

Theories/Ks

· I don’t really understand Ks and Theories well so if you do run one please explain it well and in a manageable speed.

· If I feel like you’re running theory/ a weird overview/underview just to get a easy win, the chance of me voting for it is pretty low, especially if your opponents point out that it's abusive and explain why. But if you’re running theory because your opponents are actually being abusive, I can vote for it.

Behavior

· There’s a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. If I see you being overly aggressive, especially during cross, I’ll take off speaks and I’ll comment on it in my RFD. Also it can decrease your chances of winning.

· If you’re speaking quickly and make sure you ask your opponents if that's okay. I will try to flow to the best of my ability but I will most likely end up missing stuff. Having a speech doc is not an excuse to speak as fast as you want. I will only look at your speech doc for the duration of the speech.

.I'll only look at a card if you tell me to look at it.

. If you incorporate a tiktok dance or kpop choreo into a speech, I will increase your speaks up to 3 points.

. If you can guess my BTS bias or Blackpink bias, I will boost your speaks (prob only like 0.5 max lol)

hi!

i'm christina (she/her) and debated for wootton pf. ask me for clarification before the round starts. 

VBIPHL: Do not read progressive arguments against teams that clearly cannot engage with them in order to win. My ballot/your speaks will be reflective of your poor decision and you will be upset with the result that I input. 

misc:

1. i'll evaluate any argument you can think of, however, in the case where the safety of a debater is compromised in the room (be it any -ist argument or a lack of TW on a sensitive topic) i will intervene. tab has the option to specify pronouns for a reason, misgendering is not ok.

2. speed is ok but sacrificing clarity is not ok. 

3. probably won't call for ev, imo a bit interventionist unless someone explicitly asks me to and the round is unresolvable.

4. i have a very bad poker face so if i dont/do like something you'll know.

5. i am most receptive to substance and i will do my best to judge as technically as i can.

round:

1. second rebuttal must frontline turns - conceded turns/contentions in rebuttal have 100% strength of link.

2. DAs/ADVs/offensive OVs are fine in second rebuttal to an extent but i have a higher threshold for contextualization/warranting/weighing/etc.

3. DLs must be conceded in the following speech (either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary) but also must be explained.

4. defense is not sticky 4 first summary. 

5. i appreciate good extensions. i do not care about card names. extend warrants with case. 

weighing:

1. weighing ideally should start in rebuttal. i'm not evaluating new weighing in final focus, including first final.

2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist. 

3. metaweigh/comparative weighing -- if there is none i'll probably prioritize pre-reqs/link-ins/co-ops -- if there is none of that i will just count how many weighing mechanisms there are. 

prog: 

i will do my best to judge to your standards. i dislike progressive debate so please only read it if there is justifiable abuse in the round (paraphrasing/disclosure dont count). 

1. general defaults (no RVIs, CI > reasonability, drop arg over debater, only if teams don't tell me what to do).

2. do not read theory against teams who clearly cannot engage with it (novices) i can tell and my ballot/your speaks will reflect that >:(.

4. little to no exp w K's, therefore K lit needs to be accessible -- you should also be extending K's/shells more rigorously than case bc it may be harder for me/others to grasp initially (especially if they are not topical).

5. no tricks.

i'm most receptive to substance but i'll do my best to evaluate whatever you read.

debate in a way that makes you happy and comfortable, post-rounding is fine, good luck!

Current freshman at Georgetown, debated four years for Winston Churchill.

Standard tech judge, simple preferences:

• Please don't spread or speak too fast. I would very much prefer quality over quantity.
• Please weigh! Weighing helps determine my ballot 99% of the time, so if neither team weighs, I'll have to intervene, which is almost never a good thing. Doesn't have to start in rebuttal, but at least in summary.
• Extend your arguments properly including uniqueness, link, and impact. It's going to be very hard for me to vote on arguments that aren't extended with all 3.
• Warrant and implicate your arguments. Don't just make claims and then read an impact.

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated for 6 years in highschool and college. I was also involved in a lot of speech events (e.g. extemp, impromptu , and oratory), which I understand is becoming something of a rarity in the current circuit : (

Things I appreciate:

A. Solid, current evidence coupled with logical analysis. I find it frustrating when debaters try to squeeze massive impacts out of lukewarm evidence. I wish debaters would go for higher probability, lower magnitude impacts. It’s okay if you claim global war as an impact, I am just inclined to find it a steep hill to conquer.

B. I really appreciate good manners in debate.

C. If this is an online tournament, please turn your camera on and try to look as presentable as possible. I think it devalues the experience if we can't see each other. I promise I'll also turn my camera on and shave my pandemic beard!!

Things I don't appreciate

A. Protracted arguments about a studies' methodology or an author's credibility. If there is a critical issue with a key piece of evidence, please just make the issue clear in a speech or CF. I’ll be sure to call the evidence and do my best to read it thoroughly.

B. RE: Progressive Arguments:

- CPs: I am not open to counter plans at all. I don't think the time constraints of PF make them a viable option.

- Theory/topicality: I am open to evaluating very short, efficient shells if their intent is to get me to preclude an argument or framework. I very rarely consider any violation or theoretical implication to be a voting issue.

- Kritiks: Of all of the progressive type arguments, I find myself most willing to listen to a very thoughtful kritik. My only request is that if you choose to run a K, plan on being able to fill ample time talking about the K and don't kick it in rebuttal. If you send a K, collapse on the K.

C. Rudeness/shadiness: Please be professional and courteous to one another. Please promptly provide evidence to your opponents if requested and do not attempt to verbally contextualize evidence as you are handing it over.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that reading a paradigm ever gave me tactical insight as a debater, but I hope you find this useful. I love debate and I love that you are invested enough in the proactively to read paradigms. Good luck!

1. debate how you want EXCEPT probability weighing is fake unless it uses defense from rebuttal, or some argument about how to calculate probability, or some reason why it should be applied- just needs some justification- it becomes a new response in summary if not

2. if you are nice to your opponents I will likely give you 30's- if I have to presume I'll give it to whatever side is nicer to the other (no exceptions)

Tech (like a few years ago, i’m more tired now and may miss some things)

weighing in second rebuttal

be respectful

no K’s please

Hi! Current junior pf debater. Good luck!

lindseywu05@gmail.com (email chains/card doc and speech docs)

Nocember:

sorry I have like no crypto knowledge so unless u define crypto-related jargon, use at ur own risk

General:

- tab ras

- signpost!!!!!!!!!!!! & roadmaps (if idk where u r I'm prob not gonna flow correctly sorry)

- COMPARATIVE weighing

- tech>truth

- speed is meh but if spreading (>250 wpm) I need a speech doc before speech

- generally would like cases sent to me so I can make sure I catch the numbers correctly

- idc if u collapse, the strategy is urs but there's a risk of under contextualizing/weaker narrative if u go for a ton of args

- 10 sec grace period

- pls don't be rude, this is debate I know you want to win, so if you do... don't be rude

- pls do not scream, I will dock ur speaks

- I DO NOT TOLERATE sexism/racism/homophobia/anything that compromises someone's safety etc.

- MUST READ A TRIGGER WARNING + GOOGLE FORM OPT-OUT OPTION

Speeches:

- second rebuttal should frontline turns at a minimum

- sticky defense <3 (I still want to hear some of the best pieces of defense tho)

- all offense u want me to evaluate should be in summary (offense should be mirrored in summary to ff)

- no new args/responses/analytics in ff

Theory:

- I evaluate all theory and I pretty much love theory EXCEPT any frivolous theory (i.e. 30 speaks)

Ks:

- uh idrk how to evaluate so yea no thx

How to get 30 speaks:

- if ur RLY good (ofc)

- if ur rly funny

lmk if u have any questions!

full paradigm

General:

- make warrants. an argument is not an argument without a warrant, and I will only vote on arguments. dropped ink only goes through for me if that ink is actually an argument.

- comparative warrants/weighing pls

- collapse

- tech over truth (caveat: "tech" != blippy)

Specific:

- I'm not experienced with evaluating theory/kritiks; read at your own discretion

- frontlining in second rebuttal: I require you to frontline offense but defense is up to you

- defense is not sticky

- I will call for evidence if I'm curious/if the other team asked me to/if the debate's otherwise irresolvable.

- warrant + evidence > warrant > evidence

- goes without saying but I will not tolerate sexism, racism, ableism, or any other form of discrimination. I will tank your speaks or drop you

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook, email me (kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com), or ask me before the round.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. If some form of abuse or violence occurs in round and I don't immediately react, please feel free to FB PM me or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com. [I say this because as a cis het woman, I may not be able to pick up on certain types of violence and I believe debaters should determine their level of safety and/or comfort

General Stuff:

- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could trigger someone

- use people's pronouns or gender neutral language in the case pronouns aren't disclosed

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary abusive

- Be nice

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. Feel free to FB message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary. First summary should frontline turns

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision

Progressive Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round or you feel unsafe, please feel free to use these forms of argumentation. Just explain your argument well. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!