Hey y'all

I'm a fourth-year debater from Vestavia Hills High School.

Case: Make sure your case has impacts. It is hard for me to vote on an argument that doesn't tell me how or which population is affected by their impacts. However, make sure you also have warrants. Even if your case has big numbers, I will not evaluate any of your impacts if you don't give me any explanations as to how you get there. Don't worry if your case does not get to 4 minutes; I still evaluate all arguments presented in that timeframe.

Speaking: Speak clearly. For me, you can go a little bit fast and I will still be able to understand your argument. However, I will indicate for you to slow down if you are going too fast. Most importantly, mumbling is gonna negatively affect your speaker points and make it a lot harder to understand. Send speech docs if you plan on spreading. Email is aaryaaluri143@gmail.com

Prog: By all means go ahead and do it. Just beware that my experience with progressive args is pretty limited to theory. I'll evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

Rebuttal: Prioritize offense over defense. In 1st rebuttal, do not go back onto your case unless it is an absolute necessity and you believe you have no other way to fill the 4 minutes. Weighing is not a necessity in 1st rebuttal but it would be good if you started weighing early in round. Weighing should be in 2nd rebuttal. No talking between teammates in rebuttal or any speech for that matter. 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense that 1st rebuttal brings. 2nd rebuttal would be good to collapse but it is not required for me. Defense is not sticky.

Weighing: WEIGHING IS NECESSARY. I must know why your argument is more important than theirs to be able to vote for you. Additionally, weighing can't be one-sided. You must weigh COMPARING your impact to theirs as opposed to just restating their impact. It can start in rebuttal but IT MUST START IN SUMMARY.

Summary: 1st summary MUST COLLAPSE ON ONE ARGUMENT. Summary must also respond to all offense presented on ALL of their contentions. Summary must also have clean extensions of their case and turns in order for them to stay on my flow. 2nd summary is largely a reactive speech that must respond to the points brought up by 1st summary.

Final Focus: Largely resembles summary. NO NEW INFORMATION IN FINAL FOCUSES. Weighing, case extensions and turn extensions must be present.

Have fun with this activity. It gives back what you give it. You make connections the more you stay in the activity. I will do my best to ease your nerves and help y'all grow in this adventure.

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

important -

i wrote this when i was mostly judging pf, but i'm open to any types of arguments in policy. i pretty much exclusively read Ks when i debated, but i've voted on t-fw, politics disads, and all kinds of other boring arguments in the past too. more policy stuff is at the bottom, but ask questions before the round starts if you have any.

email me docs: griffinamos2@gmail.com

i debated for 4 years at cosby high school from 2016-2020 and did policy, ld, and pf. i also did apda a bit at william & mary. i've judged everything from local pf to NFA LD nats.

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn too

don't misgender someone, your speaks will get tanked and you'll pretty much auto lose if they make an argument about it

**ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR LOCALS - I'm only going to vote on the arguments in your last speech. Don't expect to win on a contention from your constructive if you just say "Oh and extend contention 1" - tell me the whole story and do comparative weighing.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are sus

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability)

what types of arguments do i like?

i will vote on anything that isn't problematic and i don't hack for any particular type of argument - i'm comfortable evaluating theory, kritiks, or any type of progressive argument because that is what my background is in.

the substance based debates i find myself enjoying the most generally incorporate some form of structural violence framing, i won't hack for or against it, that's just what the most interesting rounds to me look like. i find myself enjoying rounds where teams collapse on turns in the latter half too, this seems to happen pretty rarely in pf

the kritikal arguments i'm most familiar with are queer-pess, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and afro-pess but i think you should always explain every kritikal argument as if i'm a lay judge because i think kritiks in pf are too often run against teams that don't understand the arguments.

the theory arguments i find myself agreeing with the most are disclosure, any type of gendered language bad, paraphrasing bad, and trigger warning theory - again i won't hack for or against any of these, i'm just as willing to vote on disclosure bad as i am disclosure good - the exception for this is trigger warning theory, if you trigger someone and they make it clear they don't feel safe, i will drop you, end the round early, and give you the lowest speaks i can w/o having to justify it to tab.

i'll also begrudgingly vote on frivolous theory or trix if they're won - i'm super open to impact turns based on this type of argumentation though and feel like most of them tend to be true

technical stuff?

defense is sticky - i've been asked to include that turns are not defense

frontline in second rebuttal

don't read offensive overviews or disads in second rebuttal

i won't vote on a piece of offense unless it is in summary, and final focus - that includes the warranting for it, not just a blippy extension

theory?

read disclosure theory its just a true argument

i don't care if you read theory in shell format or more simply - all that's important is that all the crucial parts of the argument are there in some capacity - that means i want some interpretation on how you think debate should look, how the other team violates this, the reasons that debate should look this way, and why i should drop the other team for it

if you're going to read theory that is just like i should drop someone because they break x rule (maybe like "this tournament says u can't read counterplans so drop them for reading one"), you need to justify why the rule is good or following rules in general is good. just the fact that it is a rule is not persuasive to me, i don't care

defaults:

no rvis

competing interps

drop the arg

policy

mostly read Ks on aff and my 1ncs tended to be like a K, some dumb argument like the sorites paradox, some form of theory, and just dumping impact and link turns on case

open cross is chill, flex prep and using cross as prep are cool too

i hate the trend of just reading a string of cards on case in 1ncs. i love uncarded, but warranted arguments on case. solid warranting that comes from you is just as persuasive, if not more so, than warranting from some random card you stole from the wiki or camp files.

please stop going for every argument in your 2NR. respond to offense on arguments you're going to kick and then just give me a really persuasive story for why whatever you're collapsing on wins.

I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Broke to dubs at TOC '21.

Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.

Screaming "Smith 18" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.

I don't flow cross - if something important is said during cross, make sure to bring it up in a later speech.

Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).

No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).

Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)

TLDR: I like smart narrative tech debates. But you do you!

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and my email is zarachapple (at) gmail.com. I debated PF for Dalton (C)Y from 2017-2020, ran Beyond Resolved, coached for PFA, and now I study Public Policy and Sociology.

Don't be bigoted, don't be mean, respect pronouns + use content warnings. If I make this round/tournament safer or more accessible, please reach out, and I'll do what I can!

.·:*¨༺ ༻¨*:·.

Debate is a game and that game is Jenga. Collapse!

Procedure: Preflow, track your prep, and don't skip cross. I'll disclose decisions/speaks/comments as the tournament allows and give feedback, but don't post-round me.

Getting Good Speaks: Signpost everything, especially weighing/off case args. Implicate weighing/responses to your opponent's case. Crossfire shows how well you know your own arguments. I strongly prefer analytical responses that go after the structure of your opponent's arguments to prep-outs and card dumps.

Speed: Check with all teams/judges. My limit is ~220 WPM and I won't flow arguments I didn't hear.

Evidence: Your evidence probably isn't as good as you make it, but I won't evaluate issues with things I'm not asked to look for. Good analytics >>> unwarranted evidence. I'm chill with paraphrasing when it explains something more efficiently.

Theory: I am familiar with and will evaluate theory. I have high standards for reasonability, and argumentation still matters. Please don't make me intervene on vibes because your theory arguments aren't extended, warranted, and/or implicated. Theory isn't an RVI unless you make args otherwise.

Ks/Progressive Arguments: I really believe most policymaking approaches are problematic, so I welcome these arguments, and I'm familiar with most authors read in PF. That said, I have more experience judging LARP rounds, and I see their educational value too. PF's structure isn't conducive to Ks so I understand if you just explain the role of your argument, but I would encourage you to focus on strong links and alternatives.

Misc: I'm a Cancer Sun, Scorpio Moon, Pisces Rising. I judge nothing like Ben.

Good luck, and have fun!

Heyo I debated for Stuyvesant High School for a little bit, if you have any questions feel free to ask!

I haven't judged in over a year so I'll probably be evaluating each round like a parent. That being said, a lot of the stuff below still applies.

General Stuff:

- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new frontlines in second summary.

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.

- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.

- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.

Things I Like:

-Weighing is super important for everyone and I'm no different. It helps me evaluate the round more easily and it prevents me from making a terrible decision which will probably make you unhappy. With that being said, you probably should meet these standards if you want me to buy your weighing.
A. It has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.

B. Please metaweigh. This makes my job much easier, since I definitely don't want to have to intervene when it comes to things like urgency versus magnitude. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.

C. It should be started as early as rebuttal. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).

- Consistency between summary and final focus (Ik this is kind of overused). A lot of teams like to use the extra minute of summary to do a lot of stuff but I'd prefer if summary collapses on the things that final focus would go for and spends most of the time on weighing instead of unnecessary frontlining or defense. (If you know what I mean)

Things I Don't Like:

- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round, but I will still evaluate them.
With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.

- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.

- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.

- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I'm extremely confused by all forms of progressive argumentation so I'm probably not the best person to read these arguments to. That being said, I am open to evaluating these kinds of arguments if they are explained very well. Although I'm open to these arguments, please don't read Theory on novices or those who are unfamiliar with it.

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive the lowest possible speaks and the L. If possible I will also talk to tab, as such behavior should not be permitted at any tournament.

Third year out from Bronx Science debated all four years and was pretty successful (bids, broke at TOC). I don't know much about very tech argumentation (Ks, theory), but feel free to run them (just explain them well). I am very compelled by comparative and uniqueness weighing and detailed warranting!!! All offense should be responded to in the next speech and turns (esp if ur going for them) should be fully extended with warranting and weighing. I will not vote off blippy extensions.

I’m a varsity public forum debater at Bronx science. (Big things only)

I’m flow, but I don’t pay attention in cross so don’t bother bringing up any of your arguments there. Please be respectful to your opponents. If you say anything sexist or racist during the round you can expect very low speaker points.

I WILL NOT pick you up if you do not weigh. Try to start weighing at the top of rebuttal and extend it through your crystallization speeches.

I will bump your speaks if u bring me coffee.

A little bit about me: I debated at the Bronx High School of Science for 4 years, where I was one of the captains of the PF team and broke at Gold TOC in my junior year. I am now a junior at Princeton University on their debate team as well. I consider myself a relatively flow debater, and so I will also be judging on the flow.

TL; DR

I am a pretty standard flow judge; if you debate well, both in terms of the technical aspect and persuasion aspect, that will make me happy. To take from my partner Tenzin Dadak's paradigm, the only equation you need to know is: Warrant + Weigh = Win

For the email chain and any questions, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.

Extended:

The way I evaluate every round is pretty simple- I look to weighing/framing first, and whoever I think is winning the weighing, I look to their arguments first. Then, if I think that there is a plausible risk of offense on that argument, I vote for that team- I don't even look at the other side of the flow. It's that simple, so it should inform you on what to prioritize in the round to get my ballot.

More things to do to secure my ballot:

1. Collapse. Too many times teams spread themselves too thin by trying to argue that they are winning every argument in the round, which makes it even more difficult to just win one; towards the later speeches, please whittle the round down to one or two major pieces of offense/voters for me.

2. Extend offense and frontline in summary and final focus. Pretty simple- if you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument still holds true even after their rebuttal, the likelihood is that I will not vote on it.

3. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. Warranting, for me, is the most interesting part of debate because that is where your logical reasoning and understanding of the world comes into play- just asserting a statement to be true or just reading a statistic is nowhere near enough to make me believe your arguments. Please explain the reasoning behind each step of the argument- even though there are massive time constraints in final focus, please still include it in a condensed form.

4. WEIGH. This is probably one of the most under-appreciated aspects of debate, and to become a great debater, you need to be able to compare your arguments to your opponents and explain why yours are more important to consider in the round. Just saying "We outweigh on scope because we affect more people" is not fully fleshed out weighing; you need to give more reasoning and also compare the clashing weighing mechanisms in the round. Weighing makes my job easier, and will probably lead to you being more content with my decision.

Miscellaneous:

1. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION: Personally, I believe that a lot of progressive argumentation does not have a place in PF, and will always prefer topical arguments over Ks and theory UNLESS there is clear abuse. As for my position on some norms, I lean very strongly paraphrasing good, slightly lean towards disclosure not necessary, lean RVIs good, and default reasonability. I do not know much about this type of debate, so please slow down and explain it thoroughly if you do choose to run it in front of me, and I will treat it as any other argument. Trigger warnings are a necessity, and if I feel as though you are running this just to win an easy ballot against a team that obviously does not know how to respond, I will drop you- progressive argumentation is supposed to correct the flaws that are in this activity, NOT to be weaponized.

2. I base speaker points on your speaking skills and presentation AND on how technically sound you debate. Because of this, if the tournament allows me to, I will give a low-points win. I will start at 28.

3. Please don't be overly aggressive or mean in round; light-hearted humor is wonderful, but be wary of the line where it crosses over from being funny to disrespectful. Oh and also, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That will automatically make me drop you- I have no tolerance for people who make the round an unsafe space to debate.

4. I am tech>truth, but not entirely. I will vote on any argument if it is well-warranted and well-executed in round, but as the argument becomes more outlandish, my threshold for a good response goes down and I am more likely to believe simple logical responses.

5. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.

6. Please signpost- tell me which argument you are talking about, where in the argument you are, etc. This just makes it easier for me to flow the round.

7. Speed is fine, but don't go excessively fast (this means no spreading!!!)- if I need you to slow down then I will say "clear".

8. About crossfires- I fall in the category of people who really enjoy listening to cross, but anything important that comes out of cross that you think is necessary for me to take note of has to be put into a speech, else it will not affect my decision.

9. Please make the round enjoyable; then we can all have fun and that would make it a great time. This activity is meant to be both fun and competitive- please try to make it so.

10. ABOUT TURNS: Since everyone is turning to the idea of dumping turns on all arguments without any proper warranting, this section is now warranted. I despise blippy turns, so unless you spend >10 seconds on one turn AND extend an impact on that turn in that same speech OR weigh your turn in that very same speech that you read the turn in, I will think of it as blippy and I will be very sympathetic to the other team's responses. Other team, please point out that they are blowing up a blip. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR SECOND REBUTTAL TURNS. Tread lightly.

FOR NOVICES:

I do not expect too much from y'all; I remember when I was a novice myself I certainly would not oblige to what I have mentioned above. That being said, here is some of the clear stuff that would make the round better and make me happy:

1. Signpost in every speech- this is a good practice generally, and allows you to stay organized and me to understand what you're saying.

2. Give voters in the back half of the round- it is not enough to tell me why the opponents should not win; you need to explain why you win and why I should vote for you.

3. Warrant and Weigh- Give me the reasoning behind your evidence and why your arguments logically are sound, and then compare their importance to those of the opponents.

If y'all got through all of that, then y'all are some real ones. If you want any speaker point boosts, call the pro's contentions as PROtentions (+0.5 speaker points). Thank you for reading this- if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts, and I will be happy to answer them. If you want to reach me, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

I'm a Varsity LD debater in my senior year at The Bronx High School of Science

Novice LD Paradigm

- Have fun

- Check with your opponent before running progressive arguments

- Signpost

- Extend your arguments explicitly or I won't evaluate them

- CLASH

- I'll try to average 28 speaks

- If there is considerable skill difference, don't be a dick

JVLD Paradigm

General Stuff

- I'll really vote off of anything

- Signpost

- I really like Overviews it makes it easier to vote

- If your running some obscure philosophy be sure to explain it

- You can be aggressive but if there is a considerable skill difference between you and your opponent don't be a dick

- If you say something offensive or derogatory I will drop you and give you a 25 for speaks

- I'll try to average speaks of 28

- Don't BS in CX (What's an a priori?)

Framework

- Try to win under your framework and your opponent's framework

K's

- K's are my favorite argument to run

- Please have a clear ROB or ROJ or I won't know how to vote off of it

Theory

- I default to allowing RVI's, competing interpretations over reasonability, and drop the debater over drop the argument

- I will vote off of any interpretation but will dock your speaks if you run frivolous theory eg. Brackets

LARP

- Gross

- I'll vote off of it but it's still gross

Performance

- I don't run performance but I love listening to it run by other people if it's done well

- Try to respond to using TVAs

- I'll increase your speaks if you engage with the performance

No Debate.

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

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

Update for Online Tourneys

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

Most important part of my paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

Speed:

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

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

Theory/Progressive args:

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

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

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

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

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

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

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

Cross:

it doesn't matter

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

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

Framework:

I default util.

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

Evidence disputes:

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

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

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

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

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

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

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

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

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

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

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

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

Weighing:

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

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

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

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

Other:

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

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

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

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

Do crazy sh1t fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

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

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

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

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

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

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

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

Ardrey Kell '20 | UNC Chapel Hill '24

Email: goskonda24a@ad.unc.edu

Contact me if you have any questions with the email above

***Note for online rounds: Online debates are really weird and the possibility of someone's internet cutting out or their audio lagging is really high. In order to keep the round going smoothly, I strongly suggest that you send over speech docs for each speech and disclose your cases either on the wiki or putting it on the email chain. That way even if there is a technical issue during a speech we don't have to backtrack.

General

I was the captain of the Ardrey Kell High School Public Forum team. I competed in PF for 4 years and had some decent success on circuit.

Speed wasn't an issue as a debater but judging is a whole different story, so slow down just a little bit, especially if it's a new topic. I'm fine with spreading as long as you provide speech docs (otherwise I won't flow).

Provide warrants for everything you read. Explain why something happens, instead of just claiming that it happens.

Signpost signpost signpost!

Flow stuff

-Debate is a game. I am tech>truth and will flow any argument, as long as you articulate them well and your link chains actually make sense.

-I like framework debates, but in order to win off of framework you need to extend it in every speech of the round. If no framework is given, I default cost-benefit.

-No new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns (you can kick out of them strategically, but don't bs). Weighing in rebuttal is lit.

-If an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true.

-Summary and final focus have to be consistent. You can re-explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round in FF. 1st FF can do a little bit extra weighing and new backlines to responses made in 2nd summary given that the first speaking team has a disadvantage in the round but no new link extensions that weren't in summary.

-My favorite protein is weigh protein (if you don't understand you're either gonna lose the round or you spend time prepping for debate so much that you don't have time to go to the gym)

-If you don't extend a link in summary, it's game over for you. Link extensions should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Weighing should also be extended in every speech. You can't link in with weighing if you're not winning your link.

-Extending something doesn't mean saying "extend the Smith evidence that goes conceded". Extend what the evidence says as well as the warranting/implication

-Summary doesnt have to extend conceded defense unless it's turns or TD. Turns without warranting and implications aren't turns at all so I'm not gonna evaluate them if you don't flush them out.

-2nd FF can't have any new link ins or weighing. Extend it from summary

At the end of the day, I will vote off of the most important argument in the round. If it is well-articulated and weighed, chances are you probably won it.

Progressive Argumentation

I'm going to be honest here. I understand and support the fact that progressive argumentation is key for checking back abuse of norms and create inclusivity in the debate sphere. However, I ran substance for most of my career and I am not an expert at progressive argumentation. That being said, I will evaluate theory and some basic level Ks if they are really really well explained. My threshold for evaluating progressive args is high so the simpler your arguments are, the better. I'd still much rather judge a normal substance debate, but if there is a violation that you absolutely have the need to call out, then go for it. Don't run frivolous arguments.

-CIs>reasonability

-I slightly lean to no RVIs but I'm pretty taboo about it

-No K-affs, Plans/CPs, tricks, etc (I have no idea what these are)

Miscellaneous

-I'm not going to call for cards after round unless you make an effort to indict one and I am told to call for it.

-I will be flowing the entire round except for crossfire, so if something important in cross pops up, I'm not going to consider it unless it's mentioned in speech.

-If you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, ableist, or show any other kind of discrimination you will be dropped automatically with the lowest speaks possible.

-You can paraphrase your cards as long as the content is what it actually says. If you do get caught lying about your cards, you will get an L with really low speaks

-Any Weeknd or Drake reference = 30 speaks

At the end of the day, whether you're on the bid round or you're riding the bubble, make sure you have fun. I get bored very easily debating or judging so make the round entertaining and light hearted. If you're funny, I'll bump your speaks and will like you but don't force it or come off as rude.

If you have any questions that I may not have answered in this paradigm, you can contact me using the info I put at the top.

Good luck!

Here are a couple of preferences I have:

Relax and have fun in the round; after all, speech and debate events are fun activities.

Clarity is an essential skill since I have to understand your arguments to vote for them.

Further explanations with analogies are appreciated because they help me understand the argument a bit better.

I'm a pretty slow writer, so don't go too fast in the round.

Your argument must make sense for me to vote off of it, even if your opponent does not respond to it.

And finally, Jokes are appreciated, since they make the round much more enjoyable to me, but don't feel pressured into making one.

These are just what I find enjoyable in debate. It is not mandatory to do any of these things.

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as danny's

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

I debated for Durham Academy for four years.

I believe that rounds should be a safe space. Please let me know if there’s anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in round. I will not tolerate discriminatory and/or exclusive behavior.

My ballot breaks down simply—I look first at weighing, then whether or not a team is winning links into the best weighed argument. Weighing MUST have a warrant. Buzzword weighing mechanisms like scope only really make sense if both teams are reading the same impact. If you do not weigh, I will probably intervene. This means that I will vote on a well-weighed argument with a messy link OVER a conceded argument with no weighing on it.

The entire argument must be well warranted and extended for me to vote off of it, and anything in final focus must be in summary.

I do not know how to evaluate theory or Ks. I have no experience running or judging either, but I will always do my best to fairly judge the round. If there’s an egregious abuse, paragraph theory is fine.

I’ll only call for evidence if I’m explicitly told to call for it AND I feel that I need it to make my decision.

I really struggle to follow spreading. I flow by hand. If you’re going over 260 wpm, I’ll probably start to miss stuff.

If you’re reading an argument about a sensitive topic, a trigger warning is mandatory.

I presume first and I don’t shake hands. Feel free to flip without me, please preflow before the round, and especially for online debate, please set up the email chain before the round starts. If evidence takes more than 2-3 minutes to pull up/things are moving way too slow, I'll strike cards from my flow.

In general, I buy logical analytics over unwarranted evidence. I think frontlining in second rebuttal is strategic. I think weighing should start early. I like when teams collapse. I don’t like random new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. My threshold for a response probably goes down the more absurd/confusing an argument is. However, please debate how you are most comfortable. I will do my best to accommodate the round. If you have a specific question about my preferences, please ask - I probably do have an opinion but won't force you to adapt to it.

Ignore the end of Ben Oestericher's paradigm.

Feel free to ask any clarification questions before the round!

Howdy!!

*update for 2021 season~i'm on CST so i'll be 12-13 hours ahead of EST. take this into account if you wanna spread or do something weird idk*

I debated for Lake Highland Prep for 5 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior year.

tldr; warrant, weigh, i don't shake hands, make me laugh, NO 3FF's, yes you can flip before i get there

~I evaluate arguments on the flow!

~I am a tabula rasa judge; which is fancy for I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. buttt if an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. i do not like progressive debate, sorry not sorry, i won't evaluate theory/K's or whatever. if there is a serious abuse just say it in your speech for a couple of sentences,,,warrant it, explain the abuse, and i will evaluate. you don't need to make a whole shell about it or whatever theory is idk.

~Speed is fine but don't spread please!

~If there is no offense in the round, I presume ~first speaker~ by default, not neg. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

~I go on twitter during cross lol but if it's that important say it in speech

~I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

~No new evidence in second summary (it's fine in first summary). The only exception is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine!

~Defense doesn't have to be in first summary, but i encourage it if it's important. First summary must extend turns/any offense! (This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal) Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense!!

~I think calling for ev after round is pretty interventionist lol,,, but if you really reallyyyy need me to see it i guess i'll look at it

~keep your own prep

~I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language. oh and being rude/sexist/racist/homophobic etc.

~If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, read a trigger warning please!! debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

~It's so boring and awk when card exchanges take a long time, they should take no longer than 2 minutes. If it takes too long I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time.

~Please remember to check the pronouns provided by tab!! This is so everyone is comfortable in the round and to prevent misgendering. (mine are she/her/hers)

~Have a Big Time Rush! after all, debate should be fun! wear what you want, sit or stand, idrc! please lmk if there's anything i can do to make you more comfortable in round. Oh! and if you are funny + nice, I'll give you very generous speaks, unless you're a really bad speaker

if you have questions, message me on facebook & i'll probably respond in time!

Shoutout to Max Wu bc most of this is from his paradigm!!

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | Umich '25

Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.

Before the round, tell me your favorite song and I will play it like a baseball walk up song before your speeches.

--- PF ----

I think I'm a pretty standard flow judge. I'll evaluate anything, and you should do whatever you do best in the round. That said, here are some preferences I have:

Speed is totally fine. I'll be able to flow mostly anything, unless you're spreading 3081 paraphrased blips per second. I will not flow off a speech doc, I can't read.

The second rebuttal should frontline the first, but I won't drop you for not doing it. If the second rebuttal doesn't frontline, then the first final focus should pull the defense from the first rebuttal. Don't go over defense that doesn't have a response in 1st summary that's wasting time.

More progressive things: Theory is fine but not encouraged. I do not want to evaluate a paraphrasing or disclosure round, it's just not very fun. If you win, you win, but don't expect good speaks. My bias is that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is good, but that won't impact the round. I'm probably one of the best K judges you will get in PF. Tricks are truly horrible things, but if you win it you win it.

Post-rounding is encouraged. Please ask questions during my RFD, it helps me focus feedback. If you think I made the wrong decision, feel free to tell me that and reason with me. I'm not very smart, so it's very possible I'm wrong. If you believe my decision was wrong, punch me in the face.

--- Policy ---

Note: Basically nothing in the PF Paradigm applies, don't read it.

I only started doing policy in college, and have watched single-digit high school policy rounds. You should treat me as if I know literally nothing about the topic (because I don't know very much about the topic). It'd also help me make a better decision if you went a little bit slower than top speed.

I'd be comfortable judging either a policy round or a K round, but I'd probably be better at evaluating policy rounds. I'll vote on absolutely anything so long as there are warrants and you are explaining things well.

Tech over truth within reason - it matters to me that you are making good arguments. Those arguments can be as bizarre as you please, so long as you're explaining and warranting things well.

Impact calculus that's somewhat specific to the impacts being read would probably be good. The less I use my brain, the happier you will be. (I'm not very smart)

All things considered, I'd rather the aff have a plan, but who am I to tell you how to debate. I'll be generally sympathetic to framework arguments but don't let my preferences impact your strategy too much.

Please face me during speeches, I feel really uncomfortable when teams don't do this.

Have fun with it and be nice to each other.

when you say "turn," if you spin around, smash your head on the desk, throw your computer against the wall and run out of the room, i will give you 28 speaks.

hi! i debated pf and parli for princeton high school (2018-22). i now coach for flintridge and compete in british parli for usc

lmk if you have any questions on facebook or email me at liuanna@usc.edu

tldr normal flow judge who is lazy and doesn't like intervening

my preferences:

honestly, analytics/logic > evidence. i'm super disinclined to vote off an arg if i don't understand it even if you throw a billion stats at me. i'll probably believe anything if it's warranted enough though. this also means i have a really high threshold for extensions in summary & ff so always overexplain please

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range or send a speech doc (but this will make me really sad i hate flowing off speech docs just read a shorter case pleaseee). i can flow faster if im forced but then i might miss things which will make us both sad. also i don't flow author/source names so when u extend don't just say "extend amadeo" tell me what amadeo said

bare minimum for second rebuttal is responding to turns, you also should frontline anything you want to go for (yay sticky defense)

i don't listen to cross, i won't look at cards unless you tell me i have to, i'm not gonna time anything so y'all keep track, idc what you wear to round

if you have questions about my decision please ask me! i'm always down to help clear anything up

don't be any of the -ists, if you do i drop you with the lowest speaks possible

progressive args:

disclaimer: i was an east coast pf debater 2 years ago who only ran trad, run at your own risk

i am willing to buy anything but ONLY IF

1- you warrant everything (i mean literally everything, from your links or standards to especially rotb!!) and you warrant it well, i have a very high threshold for this

2- you speak slow because if i have to flow off of a speech doc because you want to read 14 tricks instead of 7 i will actually start sobbing right there on the spot and then not be able to flow due to the tears blurring my vision

basically explain it to me like i'm a lay judge

Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending McGill. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.

Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!

Also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3

Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc

Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.

Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:

1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case (People seem to forget to do this often). Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.

2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.

Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters

Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)

If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing

3. SIGNPOST

i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.

4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.

As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.

5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.

Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)

6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat

IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation

You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?

ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS

I believe that prog args are a way to change the debate space and make it a better place for us. This means a) I'm really uncomfortable voting off "friv theory", especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so if it feels like your theory is an EZ path to the ballot to trip up an opponent, I'll usually try not to evaluate it as much as other arguments. basically, the more friv the theory is, the more u need to make sure ur opponents are ok with it. i know that sounds super objective, i'm sorry, but rounds where high level varsity teams who have the privilege of going to camp and resources run theory on teams who don't have those resources are unfair and make me uncomfortable. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID - b) if there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of something u think is important and you explain that in your theory, progressive args are fine with me. I never ran Ks/ theory as a debater, but I get how they work and can evaluate them, just explain them well ofc. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.

i dont like tricks much

I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them, but u have to warrant why im evaluating them ofc. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.

Other notes

I think every debater should watch this video.

If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.

Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.

I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise

Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.

Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.

Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.

I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.

I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.

I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.

calling me "judge" is annoying

Please send me a speech doc @ esmeslongley@gmail.com if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.

I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.

Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!

Fun stuff

I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you

- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")

- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)

- Reference Beyond Resolved

- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.

- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh decently with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal

- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine

- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ kate bush (I LOVE HERRRR)

- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.

- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case

- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.

I will take off speaks (-.1) for

- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)

- If our star signs are incompatible

- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.

I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

Taken from Tommy Barone:

I am a senior at Regis High School who has competed with moderate success (a few bids, a lot of elims) in PF (and infrequently in LD) on the National Circuit.

TLDR: I want a civil, unmuddled, honest, inoffensive, and accessible round with comprehensive weighing, persuasive warranting, and sufficient empirics to bear out the argumentation. Make your best effort to follow through on that wish and you're in good shape (but don't feel compelled to abandon your style in so doing; I will adapt as best I can)!

Basic judging philosophy: I view flow norms of debate as useful and ascribe to them only insofar as they are most paradigmatically conducive to rigorous analysis and thorough argumentative engagement. Debate in whatever fashion you believe best meets those two criteria, but I believe that a warrant-focused debate with lots of good comparative analysis and an overarching narrative does so most effectively (and does not require superfluous speed or overuse of jargon).

Long, non-exhaustive, and entirely unstructured set of preferences:

Warrant warrant warrant. I couldn't care less about your evidence if it's not warranted.

Tell me to call evidence and I will; misconstrue it and you're getting horrible speaks.

Spewing debate jargon isn't a rhetorical technique. If it's misused or excessive it's reductive to the intellectual level of the round and it will guarantee you bad speaks.

Weigh early, often, and in a way that interacts with your opponent's weighing. Saying buzz words like "scope" or "magnitude" isn't really compelling if I don't know how your arguments actually interact.

Collapse on your best offense and build a coherent narrative that adequately frontlines major responses. Beyond being poor strategy that massively dilutes your weighing (I'm not going to think multiple pieces of offense important!), I think it's borderline abusive and torpedoes the overall quality of the round because it creates a super reductive burden on the other side to extend and implicate adequate responses for 2+ arguments.

It's fine to read a lot of responses in rebuttal, but if they're not sufficiently explained/implicated or warrantless, I'm going to have trouble evaluating them even if they make it to the end of the round. In final focus and summary, try to collapse on just a few responses and implicate them well.

I'm truly fine flowing fairly fast PF speech, but I will be very annoyed if you don't enunciate and signpost well in so doing.

If you're going to run a turn, please implicate the overall effect thereof. So many people read a "turn" that actually just recognizes one negative effect of something and concludes that it must therefore be net negative. Effects are almost always multidirectional, so, unless you're implicating why something is net your way, I'm probably going to presume that the net effect is whatever the original offense was, or I'll at least avoid voting on the issue. Regardless, unless the turn is well weighed and impacted, I'm really not inclined to vote for it.

In second rebuttal, ideally frontline everything you're going to go for in the back-half speeches. I think it's problematic to only respond to turns in second rebuttal because that leaves first final focus responding anew, which I think creates an unfavorable time skew. I understand this puts pressure on second rebuttal, but you can deal with that by collapsing early (which I would actually appreciate regardless--it makes the weighing nicer). That being said, I won't regard defense as conceded if not frontlined in second rebuttal, I'll probably just dock speaks (note: turns DO need to be frontlined in second rebuttal).

Both summaries need to have defense, offense, and weighing (definitely with a focus on the latter two).

If you read off of your computer for the entire round from prewritten text, you're getting very low speaks because that isn't what debate is.

If you say something was conceded, it better be conceded. Probably my biggest pet peeve in debate is when people say a very clearly responded-to argument was dropped, and I will definitely drop speaks substantially for doing so.

You will lose the round with awful speaks if you run arguments that are inaccessible or argue in an inaccessible way (theory, Ks, spreading, anything from LD/policy). The only theory I'd even consider evaluating would be in response to a genuinely very abusive in-round strategy (examples include: spreading, second rebuttal disads, absurd response dumping, turn dumping).

I will be so mad if your style of argumentation is about muddling up the round with high volumes of non-responsive information.

I am the weakest possible version of tech over truth. The only time I'll vote on a flagrantly untrue argument is if it's totally conceded. While I think good critical-thinkers should always be able to deal with outrageous arguments, running them wastes a team's time, throws them off, and is rarely intellectually honest.

If you run disads, I literally might just not evaluate them because I think they're so abusive (in second rebuttal, I absolutely won't). If you run a disad and call it a turn, I'll be furious (an M4A example: neg differential pricing is not a turn on aff access).

In general, I tend to think that a super turn-heavy strategy by the first-speaking team fringes on abusive and is really reductive to the intellectual quality of the round, so, while I won't intervene because of it, I will a) have a lower standard for how much frontlining needs to be done in second rebuttal and b) have a higher standard for the quality of the extension/weighing of the turn.

For email chains: manna@bxscience.edu

Hii all! I am a pretty standard flow judge.

Warrant + weigh = win. (thank you Tenzin Dadak)

Please don't try to go for everything in the round.

I don't really care about cross, I might not pay attention during it.

Debate is supposed to be fun, enjoy it!

If you have any questions feel free to let me know :)

Ps. If it is the first round of the day I am probably a bit groggy so keep that in mind

He/Him

email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu

lots of circuit experience (gtoc and more)

ask me anything before round!

tldr: run whatever, explain it, win!

disclosure is good (I mean for my decision, ofc)

• Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. I was forced by my partner to love impact turns (do what you will with that). More on progressive stuff below.

• Pleeeease read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (saves u from theory)

• for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in speech. for example, if I'm running solving domestic violence in my case, which some people could be uncomfortable debating about since that's an issue personal to them, I would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)

• Tell me if you're in the bubble and I'll give you 30s

• If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I'm fine with a nice, chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority!

Speeches

• Paraphrasing is chill, just don't lie about evidence. HOWEVER, I’m open to cut-card theory–I won’t intervene with my personal ideologies.

• I'm fine with any speed, I don’t want to limit you as the judge. However, notify me before your speech so I know what to expect! I'll let you know if I need a doc or not.

• Enunciate even if you're spreading, don't try to slur words to get more stuff out pls.

Rebuttal

• You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

• Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.

Summary/FF

• Must extend your link, impact, and clear warrant!!! (idc about author names I don't flow them)

Framework

• Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times, teams will just read a blip at the top of case saying “The fw for this debate should be how x will help in the future”

• I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)

Progressive

• ngl idk much about prog

• I was not a theory debater

judge simp bad!

Add me to the email chain: josephineobrien922@gmail.com

Note for Glenbrooks

Hi LDers! I will be judging you. That being said, I have only ever debated in PF and I am a PF judge. That means that I cannot judge advanced theory or spreading. If you don't read my paradigm and run a progressive argument and leave me sitting there attempting to flow and wondering what the heck is going on, that's on you! That being said, I've always loved LD and I'm excited to judge y'all. Most everything else in my paradigm still applies to you, so read through it.

Background:

Hi! I'm Josephine (she/her/hers). I debated for four years for Hunter and graduated in 2021 — I'm taking a gap year before I start college at Columbia University with a dual BA at Sciences Po. I was my team's captain as a senior and, although I took a step back from debating due to virtual tournaments/college apps, I'm familiar with current circuit norms and argumentation. You can treat me as a flow judge, but that doesn't mean that you should tell me to "just extend" an argument or spread.

tldr:

You can win my ballot with the two Ws: Warranting and Weighing. Be nice.

General Guidance:

• Please signpost and weigh. I'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. If you want my ballot, weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more!

• I'm okay with moderate speed. If I can’t make out what you are saying I’ll say “clear” twice.

• I am tech over truth, but if you are racist/sexist/etc i will drop you with low speaks. That also means that you NEED to use content warnings if you're discussing a sensitive topic. And, this should go without saying, but respect pronouns.

• Speaks start at a 28 and go up/down from there.

• Please, please, please warrant — tell me WHY what you're saying is true, even if so-and-so from the Brooking Institute says it's true!

• Don't be mean in cross — that doesn't make it a fun round for anyone.

• PF: Write my ballot for me in the final focus! everything in FF should be in summary. All offense for me to vote needs to be in the second half of the round.

• You need to extend a clear link chain with warrants and impacts if you want me to vote on it. You would be surprised how many teams neglect to do this.

• If you want me to vote on a turn, it needs to be given the same care and attention as case offense. What that means: your links need to be extended, you need a clear and warranted impact, and you need to weigh that impact. I will not vote on a turn that is nebulous or not implicated. That being said, I have nothing against voting off a turn (I personally loved running turns) — just run it well.

• I will raise my hand once you're at time and stop flowing after a ~5 second buffer

• I love cool and innovative strategies — run them in front of me!

• I’m fine with theory if it checks back for actual abuse BUT I am not too familiar with progressive arguments (I personally never ran them). Therefore, if you’re trying something progressive, run it in paragraph form, don’t spread, and explain it clearly.

• LD: if neither side has offense at the end of the round i will presume neg, but please don't make me presume anything (please extend!). PF: I'll presume first-speaking team.

• Wear whatever makes you comfy.

• Try to make me laugh! I show all my emotions on my face so you will know if you say something funny.

Zoë Kaufmann legit taught me everything I know about debate so if you want to learn more about my philosophy, you can check out her paradigm here. You can assume that anything in it also goes for me.

Have fun! And if you ever want to chat about debate or life, feel free to reach out via email, Facebook Messenger, or Instagram (@j0sephinefrancis). I know as well as anyone that debate can be stressful and scary but I am here for you and so proud of all of you! Instead of spending your last few minutes before your round stress-prepping, watch this!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwcJsBYL3o

Hello! I’m Ben and I debated for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. The biggest of shoutouts goes to Mr. Huth and the whole Bronx Science team. I am probably best viewed as a pretty traditional flow judge. If you want the details:

I don’t believe that defense needs to be in first summary to answer any argument that was not frontlined in second rebuttal. If it was frontlined, then you need to answer it in summary. Turns should be extended in first summary if you want me to evaluate them as offense. Don’t extend through ink.

You do NOT have to frontline defense in second rebuttal. I personally rarely did so and I often believe it is unstrategic to do so. That being said, take whatever strategy you believe is most strategic for your team in the round.

Weighing is very important to me. I think it is important to weigh early (preferably rebuttal but no later than summary) and have consistent weighing throughout the round. Try to explain your weighing instead of just repeating it. Saying you outweigh on scope, timeframe, magnitude, etc without explaining why doesn’t mean anything. I look to weighing first when I evaluate my ballot -- if you are winning the weighing I will look to your arguments first. I personally believe that probability is often the strongest form of weighing as no matter how large your impacts -- if you don’t win your links they can’t materialize. Focus on winning your links and explaining how you access them better than your opponents. I am a technical judge but I care a lot about truth value, and my threshold for a response to a high-magnitude low-probability argument is pretty low.

If you don’t weigh, I will be forced to intervene which is very sad.

I default to looking at impacts globally. I will drop America First framing in a heartbeat.

I care about your overall cohesion in your speeches. Having a single narrative that you defend over the course of the round is more persuasive to me than a set of many arguments that change with each speech.

I believe that theory is only justified in instances of significant abuse where there is no other mechanism to check back against the abuse. I will try my best to evaluate any argument presented to me on the flow, but I am not good at evaluating progressive argumentation including theory and Ks. I am inclined to believe that they are bad for Public Forum, but that’s just my opinion. I always want the round to be a safe space for all debaters.

I can handle speed. I debated fast and I can handle fast debate. That being said, don’t sacrifice quality for quantity and don’t speak so quickly that your words are not clear. Don’t spread.

I will only call for evidence if I believe it is both a) important to my overall decision in the round and b) was cast into doubt by the opposing team.

Don’t shake my hand. Virtually or in person. Yes, virtual handshakes are a thing.

You will get 30 speaker points if you find an earthworm (or any worm for that matter) and place it on the head of Adriana Kim at a tournament. Please show me photographic proof before the round.

Good luck :) Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round.

Updated for 2023-2024 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Titles: Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Meta-thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

Hey! I'm one of the captains of PF at Bronx Science. my email: reynoldsk@bxscience.edu

My preferences:

Be respectful to each other. If you are not I will drop you.

I'm a pretty standard flow judge, tech > truth.

I don't care what happens in crossfire as long as it's not offensive or abusive. I will be on my phone in crossfire, so if something important happens, bring it up in an actual speech or I won't know that it happened.

Weigh, pleaseeee! If you don't weigh your arguments it will be very difficult to win.

Obviously evidence is good, but I will always prefer clearly warranted arguments that are cleanly + consistently explained over a bunch of card names being thrown in my face with no explanation and being told it wins you the round. It won't. Warrant your arguments.

2nd rebuttal and 1st summary has to frontline. Any defense on your case that you don't respond to is true for the rest of the round.

For novices: If you have any time left at end of 1st rebuttal, please, PLEASE, do not tell me you are going to "go over your case again." I know your case! Try weighing your case's impacts against theirs instead! Don't reread it to me!

Summary and final focus should be very similar, although I think FF needs to weigh more.

Please please please do everything you can to avoid progressive arguments. I will never automatically drop a team for running theory, but I feel like I do not understand progressive debate enough to evaluate it, and if I am confused in round about your progressive arguments, I will not hesitate to resort to voting on substance. If you do feel like there was such a bad abuse within round that it is absolutely necessary to run, you must make it as clear as possible to me.

Do not spread.

If you want more specifics on how I will vote, go to Ayanava Ganguly's paradigm-- I am too lazy to copy and paste his and he is much more eloquent than I am.

And most of all please make this round fun and not a headache! Any way you can make me laugh is appreciated :)

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

Siva Sambasivam

<< if you can explain the meaning of the two coins above, I'll start your speaks at a 29 (unless u do smth problematic in round) >>

siva.m.sambasivam@gmail.com

Saratoga High '20; started circuit debate my junior year - I qualified to TOC, NCFL, NSDAs, and California States, and reached the TOC autoqual level at both NCFLs and Nats, my junior and senior year respectively. I now privately coach a few teams around the circuit, and run the Delta Debate Academy. My teams have won TOC and t5'd NSDA Nats, so I should be able to keep up with whatever type of panel you have.

Debate is a game, play to win.

Debate is an educational activity, play fair.

TLDR: Tech > Truth, please warrant args and do comparative analysis, I’ll vote for anything. I can handle pretty much whatever you wanna throw at me, I think I'm a pretty good judge. except if you are Zach Yusaf - only two times I've ever squirreled were against him, so if you're hitting Hackley, free ballot for you :))

Most importantly, I appreciate debaters that are technically sound, but debate without ignoring the persuasive element of the activity - i.e. don't spam args in the back-half knowing that I'll be ABLE to sort through the flow, because I'd rather have my decision be simple.

Also, please make the round pleasant - nothing I hate more than spending time on a weekend watching kids get mad at each other. It's just debate; not that deep.

Standing Conflicts: F.C. B.A.L.L. Prep Group (Foothill AD, Centennial BN, Brentwood HM, Bergen KC, Anderson BC, La Salle GN, Lynbrook RG) + Seven Lakes LW

For 2021 TOC:

• You should be disclosed at TOC - speaks boost if you do. That said, my threshold for any theory (disclosure or paraphrase) is super high here, because I really don't want to drop a team at TOC on theory.
• Getting a 29+ from me at this tournament is super easy: 1. don't take more than 1:30 to pull up any given card your opponent calls for, 2. don't steal prep (I know this one is tough for PF teams), 3. don't interrupt someone in cross.
• For online debate: Please send docs for case and rebuttal if you are going fast or reading something that's not stock - my zoom/NSDA campus cuts out often. Feel free to turn off export options or unshare me right after, I have no desire to take your prep, I just don't want to mess up a decision because someone cut out.
• If y'all are cool with this, let's skip grand cross and take it as 1:30 of prep. Gcx begs people to interrupt each other and bring up new responses or new wEiGHiNg to arguments. You can have it if you want - but know I'll probably be listening to Juice or Cudi rather than the yelling match going on.

------

What has four letters,

Never has five letters,

Occasionally has twelve letters, and

Sometimes has nine letters.

------

Now the juicy stuff:

• I will only intervene under two conditions: 1. If a team is skewed out of the round technically or accessibility is compromised. Keep debate safe and fun - read trigger warnings, send docs, etc (more on this below). 2. There is absolutely 0 weighing done - then I'll do my own impact calc because I really don't want to presume.
• If you haven't had me before: As a debater, my favorite judges on the circuit were Cale McCrary, Riley Shahar, John Nahas, Cara Day and Conrad Palor - This would have been my ideal 5 judge panel, and a lot of my paradigm is based on theirs, so I'll evaluate rounds most similarly to them.
• It's my job to adapt to you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible and feel free to ask paradigm questions before round.
• Postround as hard as you feel like. I’ll continue the conversation for as long as you want (even after the tournament), unless I think it’s going in circles.
• Second rebuttal must frontline turns and respond to weighing, if you wish to contest them. Otherwise, they are conceded, with full strength of link. Don't try some wand-waving in summary, it's a waste of your time. First summary only needs to respond to arguments that second rebuttal interacted with. (If second rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, you can backline it in first final focus). I'm willing to buy arguments that second rebuttal needs to FL everything.
• I will ALWAYS disclose my decision and give an RFD, whether the tournaments bans it or not (pls don't snitch on me). I used to hate it when I didn't get a decision/feedback, especially from flow judges, because it prevented me from making mid-tournament adjustments. I think not getting judges' feedback gives a significant advantage to schools who can have coaches watch the round, and I want to level the playing field. Feel free to message me on facebook during or after the topic if you have any questions or want feedback/advice.
• The only time I expect disclosure is if you read a pre-fiat argument with discourse as an impact. If you don't, it's not an auto-L, but disclosing is a way to show me that you are not commodifying my ballot. This also means I'm inclined to buy disclosure theory in this type of situation - I hate people running arguments like these just for ballots. I think it's great if you actually care, though, because debate can be used to bring awareness and force people to research/understand arguments they previously wouldn't have.

Come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done pls unless you have a paradigm question

| LINE BY LINE | SIGNPOST | EXTEND ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | HAVE FUN |

-General-

• Please extend your link story with warrants in the back half - one exception: if a certain part of your argument is conceded, I don't NEED that part. For example, if you read in case a warrant for nuclear war -> extinction, I don't need that warrant extended in the back-half if it's conceded. Remember, if it is conceded, I don't NEED this, but I'd prefer it. If your entire arg is conceded, I still need at the least the link and impact. Debate is about efficiently and persuasively articulating arguments - if you don't do that in the back-half I'll be hesitant to vote for you, and your speaks will take a hit.
• Cool with anyone speaking in cross, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved, ESPECIALLY in rounds with pre-fiat and apriori arguments.
• Please send a speech doc if it's either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. As my old coach would say: I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it won't help you when I get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS. I think speed is good for the activity, just try your best not to be exclusionary.
• Speaker Point boost for disclosing - I think disclosing is good but I also have a very high threshold for disclosure theory and paraphrase theory because I don't believe teams should be *forced* to disclose. That said, I do believe it is a good practice and it does put you at a disadvantage, so let me know before constructive that you disclose, and I'll add 1 pt to speaks.
• TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
• For the second speaking team, no new final focus analysis is allowed unless it is responsive to new first final focus arguments.
• If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

• DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of y’all accidentally do this anyway cause people don’t read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. However, let’s make sure these are all warranted and implicated. Remember, warrants make arguments, implications make responses. Also don't just read disads, sprinkle in some analytics. Like, if your rebuttal is “oN ThEiR CaSe - iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn FoUr Is..." then please abstain. I already said I’m cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in constructive. Let's make rebuttal somewhat responsive.
• Hidden arguments are fine as long as they have warrants.
• Summary - this is BY FAR the most important speech in the round. I know other judges are willing to do this, even some of the best, but I will not vote for a team with a second speaker that ghost extends stuff into final focus. I won’t do that. Please extend your arguments well in summary. I also find the warrants for defense and turns go away by summary for a lot of teams - my rule about not voting for unwarranted arguments still applies to these. Even if you are winning 5 pieces of conceded terminal defense, if a warrant isn't extended, then I won't buy any of the defense.
• sTrEnGtH oF LiNk meta weighing is the new "clarity of impact". I won't vote for it absent a very well developed warrant. Even if you do warrant it, I think it's stupid. This is pretty much a "trick" read by techy teams to skew another team out of the round. If someone reads it on you - here are 4 responses: 1. It destroys education because it encourages people to avoid impact calculus, which is key to real-world policymaking, 2. It also encourages people to extend tons of blippy defense through ink because frontlines are rarely terminal, as opposed to interacting with arguments, which is key to in-depth education, and 3. It discourages warranted link comparison, like historical precedent or uniqueness comparison, which is more applicable to the real world, and 4. If you win your argument, you also have 100 percent strength of link. Read these 4 responses and it'll probably take out the SoL metaweighing, if not serve as an independent reason to drop your opponents for setting bad norms (if you make this implication, obviously). I would absolutely love a team to drop if you win any of these. However, if you don't read these responses, I won't have any sympathy for you, because you should be reading paradigms before round.

-Weighing-

There are two ways I can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isn’t needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. With that:

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH. Comparative and INTERACTIVE weighing specifically.

Carded weighing and framing are great. Meta weighing is awesome. Link comparison is even better.

• Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Do impact calc, and actually responsive impact calc (not just scope, magnitude, reversibility, timeframe, etc). While I do appreciate this traditional weighing, I would obviously prefer interactive and comparative analysis - i.e. link-ins, pre-reqs, short-circuits. I'm inclined to reward good internal link debate.
• Just a piece of advice: disguise link turns here (i.e. if you are winning an Econ argument and you’ve conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war and why it outweighs on probability for example). This is also a great way to get back in the round if you drop something big. But also don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” - there’s a difference and I’ll catch it.
• Weighing that is not responded to in the next speech is conceded - that doesn’t mean you can’t do more analysis on it (i.e. linking into that weighing or reading a pre-req) but if the actual warrant on any weighing is dropped, it is conceded.
• "Probability" is not weighing on the impact level. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything you say is "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal. The only time that I’ll evaluate probability weighing is if it’s new comparative analysis done on the link level between multiple arguments that could not have come in rebuttal.
• Clarity of impact is not weighing unless you warrant why it is weighing (and there are ways to do this, ask me in round if you want) - but just saying that you have a number and your opponents don’t is a stupid way to look at debate, and encourages zero interaction and zero comparative analysis - I’m never going to vote on it absent a warrant. If you make a claim that your opponents don’t have impact contextualization, then sure, I’m more likely to vote for you, but pls pls pls don’t let cLaRiTy oF iMpAcT be your “weighing” in the round. Same thing with "uniqueness" weighing.

• Do meta weighing and link weighing - if two teams both have links into an impact (which should happen in high-level rounds) - do link comparison. (Strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability). In my career I always HATED when judges intervened with their own thoughts about which warrant or link “made sense” - I’ve had this happen in super late elimination rounds at bid tournaments. If I’m in this scenario I will 100 percent not intervene - it is your fault for not giving me reasons for why your warrant is better even if everyone can agree it “makes more sense” - So, if everyone has extended warrants into the same argument and there is no terminal defense from either side, I’ll default to (in order):

  • Which argument has less mitigatory defense (Strength of Link)
  • If there's any empirics read on the argument
  • Whoever is winning the uniqueness picture (since that makes it more likely that your link has a larger magnitude and greater SoL)
  • I’ll prefer a carded link over an analytical link turn
  • Remember, these are all easy ways to compare links, along with evidence comparison, that should be said in round, but if nobody says anything, this is how I’ll evaluate competing links.

-Theory-

TLDR: Default RVIs and reasonability, don't skew teams out of round with this

• I really hate teams being exclusionary with theory but here are my bright lines so there is something that is concrete -
• If a team is qualified to the GOLD TOC, they should be able to handle theory shells.
• If you are at a Round Robin, the same goes.
• If you are one round past the bid level at a tournament (i.e. sems at a quarters bid) go for it.
• Otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't read theory, but if you must: go slow, no jargon, and paragraph form.
• If reading theory against a team that can handle it structure it properly and go as fast as you want. I’m cool with meta-theory. Do weighing between the shells.
• As a side note, if I’m on a panel, please only read your shell if all the judges can handle it. I hate teams reading theory and then getting the benefit of doubt from the judges that don’t know what they are doing. This also means I’m inclined to vote on a shell saying you can only read theory if judges all expressly say they can evaluate it.
• I default to RVIs unless told otherwise. Also, because theory is not a common argument, I default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. I will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was. I'm more than down to default competing interps, but please (1) explain what they are for your opponents and (2) give me a WARRANT as to why.

• THIS is IMPORTANT - If you read no RVI’s - I do NOT believe winning no RVIs turn your shell into no-risk offense. I've heard from people that this is a hot button issue in policy as well right now, and because theory is still relatively new to PF, norms for theory debates are still being set. My stance on this is pretty simple - I've had theory debates (especially back when I didn't understand theory as well) where the warrants for an RVI never actually held up to what the judges considered an "RVI". For example:

  • I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.
  • (Chilling effect could be responsive, but you need to explain why) You can also read defense to your own shell/standards to get out of it, I think conditionality is fine.

Basically, theory is always more exclusionary than substance, so if we use jargon, let's not conflate what that jargon means.

If responding to theory/you’re reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isn't an excuse to undercover it though.

-Tricks/K’s-

• Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read and debated basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I won't change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. Once again, if you are hitting a team that doesn't understand it, please be extra slow. I just say I prefer util because I'm less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.
• I’m definitely chill with forms of epistemological/deontological weighing, I think these aren't read well by teams and are often underutilized.
• Tricks - just don't. If you are thinking about reading tricks with me in the back, you'll probably win substance anyway, so just do that, please. If you REALLY want to, tell your opponents 30 minutes before the round, and disclose the tricks if they ask.

-Speaks-

• Speaks are subjective - If you are funny, chill and disclose - you’ll prolly get good speaks.
• To give you a gauge on what I like - My favorite debaters stylistically were Matt Salah, Max Wu, Gabe Grodan, and Ezra Khorman.
• Be calm and slow, or dominant and assertive, I don't care - I'm happy to give great speaks to both if you execute properly.
• I know I have implicit biases, so I’ll do my best to counteract them while giving speaks.
• 30 speaks shell: Please don't read this. I think it’s read by predominately male teams and it further hurts womxn, gm’s, and minorities in the activity. As I said, I’ll try to prevent any action on my implicit biases but I won’t vote for this argument, because I do think this fosters exclusionary practices.

-Other-

Formal clothes are stupid - pull up in whatever you want. Make the round chill.

CX: I don’t listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

I don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

-Two quick things-

I know you want to win and debate can get super heated and competitive. Trust me, I was never known for being nice in round. But at the end of the day, even if you can’t see it now, you are going to value this activity for the connections you’ve made and the people you meet, not for the nice trophy you get with a horse on top of it. Instead of making enemies, try to be chill and create friendships with the people you debate.

I know lots of schools don’t have many resources or coaching. If you are in this boat - feel free to ask me for help/advice after round, or even after the tournament. I dealt with this for a while and I know, it sucks. We’ll never fully fix the inequities in debate but the least that I can do is try my best. :)

If you’ve gotten this far in my paradigm, I have quite a bit of respect for you. I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate, so I love people that read paradigms in their entirety. Let me know that you made it here before round, just pm me in the zoom chat, and you'll get a speaks boost.

I debated for Bronx Science for (almost) four years, and I'm now at NYU Tisch studying Drama. I'm a technical judge, but lay debate is perfectly fine for me! For more specifics:

For starters, disclose your case and speech docs to me at sarmad@bxscience.edu. I have autism, processing info can be hard, so please send me stuff to make my job easier. Please send your case as soon as you get your pairing.

- First rebuttal can extend into final focus. If something was frontlined, though, I expect to hear defense on it.

- I love probability weighing, and I'm inclined to have a low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts.

- I care about truth value, don't run something objectively false and think I'll buy it when it's extended just because I'm tech. Tech > truth as a practice is intellectually dishonest and I think that judges need to stop valuing it.

- Please have a narrative.

- The only progressive stuff I can handle is theory in the case of abuse. You must disclose that you're going to read it.

Keep my flow clean. I shouldn't have to do any work in making a decision. Be organized in your speeches.

- Collapse!!!

- Warrant + Weigh = Win (Ty Tenzin <3)

- I HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, ANTISEMITIC, ISLAMOPHOBIC, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLEIST, OR WHITE FEMINIST. RUNNING THESE ARGUMENTS WILL RESULT IN 20 SPEAKS AND AN AUTOMATIC LOSS. DEBATE IS NOT A SPACE FOR THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR, NOR SHOULD IT BE.

- I hate America First frameworks, I will drop you or give you low speaks if you run them, with some exceptions.

- I pay attention in cross, but don't flow it.

- I don't look at cards unless you ask me to.

I will always make an effort to give an oral RFD, but will write it down if pressed for time. Feel free to ask questions, but don't argue with me.

hi! i'm a senior at hunter and i do pf :-)

i'm putting this at the top because it's the most important: please warrant and weigh! good warrants >> evidence, evidence + analytics >> evidence. i don't want to intervene, so weighing is important.

i'm tech > truth, but don't use that as an excuse to make outlandish or incorrect claims.

extend your offense (including warrants and impacts) through summary and final focus.

i will not be paying attention in cross, so please bring it up in the round if it's important; let me know if you want to skip cross for prep, i'm happy to do that if both teams agree.

not super well-versed in progressive argumentation but will do my best to evaluate it; make sure your opponent is comfortable with it & run it in an accessible way.

don't read anything racist/sexist/otherwise offensive — i will drop you and give you low speaks.

have fun and feel free to email me (sandhyasethuraman@hunterschools.org) if you have any questions!

I'm a senior at Regis High School. I've debated pf for 3 years now on the national circuit, so I can handle speed and will have at least basic background knowledge on the resolution. No experience in anything else, so don't go above 250 wpm unless you want to give me a speech doc. I will vote off the flow and nothing else. Truth over tech. I also much prefer a warranted analytic to unwarranted evidence. In PF, evidence has become extremely overrated and I hate unwarranted evidence response dumping in rebuttal. Clash on warrants creates better debate, and I'd much rather hear your warranted reasoning in round than the reasoning of some random blogger for CNN or Lawfare.

PF

PF Debate should be fun and accessible, so do things your way and respect your opponent's preferences. I just have two suggestions and two rules that will increase/dictate the likelihood of you getting my ballot:

Suggestions

1. Weigh early and often. Good weighing in rebuttal provides many an advantage. Be careful with jargon when weighing (scope, magnitude). Explaining how your arguments interact with your opponent's is much more compelling.

2. Collapse and provide a clear narrative. Go for your strongest link(s) in summary and FF; I need not hear your entire case again.

Rules

1. Excessive extension through ink is going to get you dropped.

2. If you run theory, you are probably getting dropped. I think it is good to have at least one form of debate that is limited to topical clash from an educational perspective. The only theory I'll consider voting off is in response to in-round abuse

Other quick things:

- I like when second rebuttal frontlines

- Summaries with defense, offense, and weighing are good but focus on the latter two

dsmith21@regis.org with questions and complaints

I'm a senior at Regis High School. I've debated pf for 3 years now on the national circuit, so I can handle speed and will have at least basic background knowledge on the resolution. No experience in anything else, so don't go above 250 wpm unless you want to give me a speech doc. I will vote off the flow and nothing else. Truth over tech. I also much prefer a warranted analytic to unwarranted evidence. In PF, evidence has become extremely overrated and I hate unwarranted evidence response dumping in rebuttal. Clash on warrants creates better debate, and I'd much rather hear your warranted reasoning in round than the reasoning of some random blogger for CNN or Lawfare.

PF

PF Debate should be fun and accessible, so do things your way and respect your opponent's preferences. I just have two suggestions and two rules that will increase/dictate the likelihood of you getting my ballot:

Suggestions

1. Weigh early and often. Good weighing in rebuttal provides many an advantage. Be careful with jargon when weighing (scope, magnitude). Explaining how your arguments interact with your opponent's is much more compelling.

2. Collapse and provide a clear narrative. Go for your strongest link(s) in summary and FF; I need not hear your entire case again.

Rules

1. Excessive extension through ink is going to get you dropped.

2. If you run theory, you are probably getting dropped. I think it is good to have at least one form of debate that is limited to topical clash from an educational perspective. The only theory I'll consider voting off is in response to in-round abuse

Other quick things:

- I like when second rebuttal frontlines

- Summaries with defense, offense, and weighing are good but focus on the latter two

dsmith21@regis.org with questions and complaints

I’m an experienced public forum debater, and I have debated throughout high school.

I am mainly a tabula rasa judge, but if something is outrightly false (ex. If you tell me apples are black), I will flow the argument, but I will not vote off of it. (So I'm mostly tech > truth)

I believe that public forum is for the public. That being said, I’m likely to vote for teams who

Don't spread (though this has more of an effect on speaker points - I can handle moderately fast argumentation)

Use rhetoric (don't just give me logos)

Phrase arguments in your own words (Don't just give me what the card says. Give me warrants and explain why that card is important)

Make clear rebuttals (Signpost and respond to arguments clearly)

Weigh (Don't just give me "we save more lives than them!" Warrant your impacts as well!)

For further questions, email me at asunkari07@gmail.com

check tyler katz

Please be on time for check-in. Also if you're interested in college debate, I'd love to talk to you about Samford debate!!

If you have any questions about things not on my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me.

Email: joeytarnowski@gmail.com

he/him

Background

Policy debate at Samford (class of 24), qualified to NDT 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

4 years of LD in high school

Judging

Don't say/run things that are egregiously offensive, i.e. racism/sexism/etc. good, death good, etc.

I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also appreciated.

I do a lot of work on both the policy and critical side of debate in college. I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some implementation of the resolution, the specifics of what that may mean is flexible, but choosing to mostly or entirely jettison the resolution is not the best strategy in front of me. I think Ks on the neg are most successful when forwarding a nuanced indict of some underlying assumptions/mechanisms of the aff, and that affs are typically most successful in reasons why the neg is not able to explain key portions of the aff and leveraging that against the K's explanation of the world.

I'm generally more neg leaning on CP theory debates and typically default heavily to reasonability and rejecting the argument, but I think especially egregious practices can make me swing more toward the middle on issues like condo (i.e. 2NC CPs out of straight turns or kicking planks on CPs with a ton of planks that do a ton of different things). Love a good impact turn debate, hate a stale impact turn debate. Otherwise I don't have any especially notable preferences when it comes to policy arguments, impact calc at the top is always good, evidence comparison is great, etc.

I'm an ok judge for T but am not the biggest fan of it as a throwaway strategy that only occupies a small portion of the neg block. Significant time investment in evidence comparison is much more important to me here and often is a make-or-break.

Note for LD: I would not consider myself a good judge for "tricks". If you regularly do things like hide blippy theory arguments or rely on obfuscating tactics to win debates, I am probably not the best judge for you.

Local/Lay Debate

First and most importantly, I am excited to be judging you and glad you are a part of this activity!

I will disclose my decision and give any feedback I can as long as it is not explicitly prohibited by the tournament, and strongly believe the process of disclosure/feedback/asking questions is one of the most important parts of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions about my decision, ask for advice, clarification, etc. or email me and I will always be happy to help in whatever ways I can (assuming you aren't blatantly rude).

I did a lot of lay debate in high school, it was probably 80% or more of what I did, so I can really appreciate a slower debate. My advice for you is to do what you do best and are most comfortable with, don't feel like you have to spread or read positions you are unfamiliar with because of my policy background, as I started out and have spent almost half of my debate career doing slow, traditional debate. Some other things you should know:

1] One of the most important aspects of my judging is that I think the bar for explanation is generally too low for most debates. If you want to win an argument, you shouldn't just explain what your argument is, but the reasoning behind WHY it's true, as well as what the implication is for that argument being true.

2] Please make sure you have and can show me the full text of any evidence you read. I may not need to reference any evidence after the round, but if I do I would prefer you have it readily available. I would heavily prefer this is made easier by setting up an email chain with me and your opponent where all evidence read in-round is exchanged, both for the purposes of transparency and quality of things like evidence comparison.

3] I often find framework debates in lay LD have little direction or warrants. This is especially true when both sides have a similar or identical framework, and I think those debates would often be drastically improved by the neg just conceding framework and the rest of the debate focusing just on substance.

I also really appreciate folks who have a clear understanding of things like evidence comparison and strategy, I feel most people overlook the ability to make smart strategic decisions and leverage evidence comparison in lay debate. Knowing your evidence and author qualifications and effectively utilizing them are powerful strategic tools, as well as making smart strategic concessions in other parts of the debate to get things like a strong time tradeoff on other important parts of the debate.

PF debater for four years for BASIS Scottsdale.

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

Please time yourselves.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

Updated for NYCFL Grand Tournament

I was a public forum debater for Bronx Science for 4 years and am currently taking a gap year before attending Washington University in St. Louis as a psychology and sociology major. I was a relatively flow debater, so I will be a flow judge. I'm not super well-informed on the topic, I haven't judged any tournaments on the topic. I don't really have any argument preferences going into the round--I have familiarized myself with the topic but am by no means an expert. That being said, please don't read untrue arguments -- I'm typically tech > truth however if an argument is blatantly false or VERY improbable I won't vote for it. Obviously, on this topic, a lot of the impacts aren't the most probable (nuclear war, extinction, etc.) but try to make them as convincing as possible by flowing through the warranting to FF instead of just saying "vote for us because we save X lives from preventing an all-out nuclear war.

Speech Specific Preferences:

Rebuttal:

- Don't read offensive "second-cases" in rebuttal -- meaning don't come up and read another contention disguised as an overview

- 2nd rebuttal should read frontlines

Summary:

- Consolidate the round -- WEIGH!!!

- Please don't read new arguments/responses in 2nd summary -- it's a bit abusive for the 1st speaking team

- 1st summary needs to respond to turns read in 2nd rebuttal

- Defense is sticky (meaning defense that isn't responded to by the other team gets flowed through the round). However, if you think that the defense is really important to my decision, I would repeat it in FF so it's fresh in my mind.

Final Focus:

- Give me voter points in final focus, I don't want to have to do a lot of work for you on the flow

- This should be a given, but NO NEW arguments in final focus (unless for some reason you're 1st speaking team and your opponent introduced a new argument/response in 2nd summary

- Yes defense is sticky, but if the defense is important (ex. if your opponents go for that contention) remind me of it in FF

Weighing:

- If you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument is still true even after their rebuttal/summary, I'm going to have a hard time voting for that argument

- PLEASE warrant your weighing -- you shouldn't just be saying "we weigh on scope because we save 900 million lives)

General Preferences:

- Please be well-spoken and respectful, I will lower your speaks if you are rude/talk over each other in crossfire. In the new world of virtual debates, please don't call your partner to talk/prep during other during your opponent's speeches (I only mention it because it's happened in my rounds before). Debate should be a safe and educational space.

- Signpost please and I don't mind if you want to give an off-time roadmap

- I expect extensions to include extensions of the link, warranting, and impact, not just a card name or contention title.

- If you think it's important that I look at a specific piece of evidence, tell me to call for it - don't misrepresent your evidence.

- If conflicting evidence is presented on the same issue and neither team tells me how to evaluate them against each other, which to prefer, etc. I will have to intervene when making my decision and analyze the evidence for myself.

- I'm pretty good on speed but just let me know how fast you plan to be speaking before the round. Anything above 250wpm I generally need a speech doc for.

If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible just let me know! If you have any questions about my RFD, feel free to email me at alexandraweiss02@gmail.com.

Have fun!

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

don’t be mean :(

i did pf at bronx. i now go to uchicago

general round wise:

- i'm flow, but not super techy. i will know your jargon, but give you an exasperated look if you use too much of it.

- i have the fine motor skills of an elementary schooler. This means i cannot write or type super fast, so I do not flow things like card names. If you extend just a card name I will be confused (so please avoid saying stuff like "extend Johnson '15" with no clarification of what Johnson says).

- if you try to run some progressive tomfoolery, i will be hesitant to vote for you. By no means does this guarantee a loss, but you are putting yourself at a disadvantage cause I am from the northeast and my eyes will probably glaze over if you say the word theory.

- on evidence: tech> truth. by using sketchy cards you are running a risk. if you indict evidence, you gotta warrant your indictment. if evidence is indicted in the round and a team extends it into ff, i will wanna see it before my rfd (if i forget this feel free to remind me). but never fear! if you are using sketchy evidence ill only evaluate it with the warrant provided, so run it with the hope they dont call ya out too good.

- if you wanna email me stuff send it to zerof@uchicago.edu. I am not big on recreational literacy, so unless you ask me to read something in round I will not read it.