Sophomore at Princeton debating British Parliamentary and did 4 years of PF in HS.

fawazahmad@princeton.edu if you have any questions.

Overarching things:

Tech>Truth: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are bs so I evaluate the round solely on what's presented in the round regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. But remember the more sophisticated your argument gets the lower threshold I have on evaluating responses.

Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. Introducing a framework in second summary is FAR too late. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF it should be included in summary. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Progressive args: I don't have that much experience with progressive arguments. I don't like theory debates but will tolerate them. Run these types of arguments with caution. If you run them with me explain them really well in round.

Misc:

-I will not flow cross. If something important happened in cross mention it in speech.

- When time stops, I will stop flowing. Anything said over the time limit will not factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; don't spread. If you plan on speaking fast please send a speech doc. If I can't understand you I'll say clear and after 3 times I'll stop flowing.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense

- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
-There's nothing more I hate than long speeches in cross.

-Please be nice people in round and don't run arguments that are harmful to a group of people

GLHF

I'm a polisci major at Temple University. I debated on the circuit in public forum for JR Masterman for 4 years and I’ve dabbled in speech and parli.

This paradigm is just a guideline, not a ruleset. If you’re new to debate or just don’t know something on here, don’t worry, I think of myself as pretty nice and I try to evaluate every round with the context of the competition in mind.

----Big warning: If I'm judging you in person I (may) have a resting bored face when I judge! This doesn't mean I don't like the argument, sorry about that----

The most important thing to me is that everyone feels comfortable in round.

I will drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism etc..

Please read trigger warnings.

I don’t care what you wear.

Time yourself please.

Speed:

I can handle some spreading, but please slow down if your opponents cannot. If you’re spreading please send speech docs to me and your opponents. “Pf fast” is totally acceptable and comfortable.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are rather arbitrary and so I tend to be generous, if you genuinely make an effort in round and are not offensive don’t worry about them.

Round Strategy:

I like when teams frontline 2nd Rebuttal. I value a good collapse and good narrative later in the round. Weigh early and often. Defense in both Summarys, weigh at the latest in summary.

Cross:

Be nice, (optionally) be funny. If anything important happens bring it up later in a speech. If both teams agree to flex prep you may.

Progressive Argumentation:

My circuit was fairly traditional, however I have exposure to theory and K debate in PF, and will vote on it. CI > Reasonability. I'll probably buy RVIs but they should be either hella warranted or specific to the shell. The more frivolous the theory the less likely I’m gonna buy it. I still don’t really know what trix are but if you think you can persuade me to vote on it feel free.

Evidence/Evaluation:

If you can’t produce a card in a timely manner I’ll assume it doesn’t exist. I’ll call for cards after round, but only if debaters in round instruct me to or if it’s necessary for me to vote. Tech > Truth, but honestly the less based in reality your arguments get the more likely I am to buy answers to them. WARRANT WARRANT WARRANT please.

Signpost and Roadmap please.

I presume neg

If you have any questions, concerns or if you wanna add me to a doc chain my email is lucasabowerman@gmail.com

Hey y'all. I'm Danielle (she/her). I'm a first-year out who primarily competed/coached PF at a small public HS in NJ (Freehold Township), but I had a couple of WSD stints with my state's team from 2019-2022. 

TLDR: Run whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to do mental gymnastics to vote for you. Collapse in the later speeches, be organized, weigh, have a clear narrative, and don't be insufferable in the process. 

I'm willing to evaluate whatever you want me to, but I mostly have experience with trad debate.

Speed is fine as long as you slow down on the taglines and send a speech doc.

I don't tolerate toxic energy in the debate space. If you're being exclusionary or problematic, I'll drop you no matter what. 

More niche preferences: 

I'm not the biggest evidence ethics purist. I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as it doesn't completely deviate from the article's original intent. 

I don't care too much about extending card names as much as I care about you extending the analysis. I'd much rather see a detailed, implicated, analytical response than hear "Extend the Smith'17 card." 

If you're mavving, I'll give you 5 mins of prep.

Shadow Extensions aren't real

I don't care what happens in cross. If you want it to impact my ballot, extend it into a real speech. 

Best of luck! I know these tournaments can be super stressful, but please remember to drink water, eat, and have fun. :)

I have primarily debate PF. I debated for Lambert High School for 2 years, and I have overall 3 years of PF experience.

Add me on the email chain jasonme02@gmail.com

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning (Trigger Warning). Be prepared to give an alternative case if a team does opt-out. Trigger warnings are extremely serious.

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. However Cross is very underrated. Try and get concessions and try to clarify arguments.

Weighing:

- Weighing Impacts is crucial, if you don't weigh I'll have no idea why I am caring about the argument. If u take weighing to the next level, i.e comparative and link weighing more likely to pick up ballots.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't end up weighing them, then I have no idea which piece of offense I should prefer)

- Just saying Strength of link/impact weighing is not weighing

- I have a high threshold for counting Link-ins as weighing but it can be beneficial to try and use a link as an external piece of the offense.

Tech

- Defense is key to muddle arguments as well as cast doubt. extending defense is Summary should be a good strat, but you don't have to extend defense.

[Not Orginal]

- Any type of theory is good with me and is probably becoming more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. I will default to reasonability. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.] Please also weigh your standards it goings to make evaulting theory shells easier especially in a high-tech round.

- No CPs

- Weighing in first FF is okay ig? [This shouldn't happen], but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- Tech>truth, the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. Collapsing can make extensions cleaner.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round. [Note: if you read presumption please tell me why and give me a warrent on why it is true]

- Frameworks are fine. I think they are important in the round, if you drop the framework in rebuttal I will consider it dropped.

- Don't spread, if you do end send a speech doc. I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is can exclude so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks. However, if you send speech docs and the other team is fine with it then go ahead.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

truth > tech

pf ≠ policy or ld so keep it that way

If you run theory make sure its a specific interp, not just "disclose on the wiki" -- what wiki?

Have fun, cross 100% matters and don't ask to skip for 'prep' instead.

..and have fun! I understand competition is important, but the connections you make and the lessons you learn are more valuable than a W or L on your long list of rounds. If I sound rude during an RFD I promise it's not intentional and I will do better -- just let me know. My goal is to help you learn from the round regardless of whether or not you win.

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

Background

Hi!

I’m Rowan (he/him)- judge, Rowan, supreme overlord, and señor are all acceptable. Mr. Gray is my dad.

I started my career in PF for two years- first year was mostly on the local circuit and second year was mostly on the national. I had some moderate success, qualled to TOC, got some speaker awards. I ran mostly stock args but also ran a Jewish humor performance aff and prepared a Queer rage aff. However, since I ended my career in LD think of me as an LD judge. Most of the opinions I had about PF have changed since LD enlightened me.

I switched to LD my senior year where I was more successful- I full qualled and got some speaker awards, semid a tournament, and went 6-0 once. I was a K debater, focusing on East Asian litbases (specifically Daoism and Buddhism) but I also ran some cap and Quakerism (think baudrillard + oatmeal).

I’m down for pretty much any debate in any event. I’ve heard pretty much every argument and I know enough about debate to be able to evaluate most things.

People who have shaped the way I think about debate- Vishal Sivamani, Sean Wallace, James Song, Lukas Krause, Holden Budkowski, Anish Iyyavoo, Marshall Thompson, Bill Batterman, Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Jannat Verma

Guide to this paradigm

The first section applies to any event I judge. After that is my LD paradigm and finally is my PF paradigm.

General

Speed

I’ll clear you if I can’t understand you- after 3 clears I stop flowing. That said, I did nat circ LD so you can go pretty fast.

Send speech docs- always. If you don’t do it in LD I'll nuke your speaks.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategy. The better and more well-executed your strategy is the higher speaks you’ll get. Here’s a few things that will modify that.

If you’re being a jerk, I’ll nuke your speaks

If you don't cut your cards, I'll nuke your speaks

In irl rounds if you bring me food I’ll boost everyone’s speaks by 0.5

If ur a pfer that discloses on the wiki- lmk and I’ll give you 0.5

Content Warning Policy

Content warnings should be given for graphic explicit depictions of violence and/or self harm– ie the kind of performances some antiblackness/queer theory affs use.

IF you don’t provide a CW to these things I will nuke your speaks and if your opponent reaches out to me and tells me that you’ve made them uncomfortable I will drop you with zero speaks (if this is you please reach out through contact information, I’ll keep everything anonymous)

I genuinely think it’s kinda funny that PFers are running theory on people saying the words ‘sex trafficking’. That said, if you wanna exploit my tolerance for questionable arguments and have an opponent who’s so incompetent that they lose on the flow then feel free.

Misc

I disclose every time, even when the tournament bars me from doing so.

Please post round me. I want you to understand my decision and if it was a bad decision I want to understand why it was bad.

If I screw you because I overestimate or underestimate my judging capabilities, please contact me after the round or postround me to change my paradigm

Flex prep is always good

L20s

Any bigotry at all

If you straight up lie about what your evidence says *not misinterpret, lie

Contact Info

Hit me up on facebook with any questions and add me to the email chain

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011539506658

rowan.a.gray@gmail.com

LD Paradigm

My pref sheet is a mixture of how competent I am and how much I like the arguments

These Ks-(cap/setcol/sec/edelman/apess/semiocap/psych/mollow/racial capitalism/weheliye/buddhism/daoism)/Deleuzian Stuffs/Performance- 1

Larp/Theory/Other Ks-2

Actual Phil- 4/5

Trix-S

My favorite debates to watch are KvK but please don’t change your style if that isn’t you. I’d much rather watch a decent larp round than a bad KvK round

Defaults: comparative world, reasonability, no rvis, presume neg

I'm impartial on T vs k affs. Hard to say whether I err one side or the other since t debates vs different affs can and should be very different

PF Paradigm

This event is kinda cringe lol- please try to make the rounds interesting for me or I might fall asleep

Anything you don’t frontline in second rebuttal is conceded

No new rebuttals in 1s

No new rebuttals or frontlines in 2s

Defense isn’t sticky now that summary is 3 minutes

I’ll give you 1 minute to find a card, after which I won’t evaluate it

Hi,

I am a flow judge, however, I do appreciate the big picture throughout the debate but specifically through the last 2 speeches on both sides because that, overall, clears things up and helps me decide what to vote on.

My Debate Experience-

• South Forsyth HS Sophomore

• PF Nat Circ Debate with 5 years of experience including multiple national tournaments

Please add prakharg2805@gmail.com to the email chain if there is one created for the round.

Things to watch out for-

What I instantly drop you for (Debate is a safe space)- Cheating (card clipping, stealing prep, somehow hacking into the opponent's computer, etc.) NO BEING MEAN (no racism, homophobia, bullying, profanity, etc.)

What I vote off of- Moving on, I usually vote off of arguments in Summary. Whatever you present to me before the round I usually only flow it. The things before the summary have to be clearly extended in the summary and FF for me to vote for them. I am always trying to vote off of technical arguments made throughout the debate however whatever is not extended don't expect me to evaluate that. If you make a bogus/ bizarre argument I will not take it into account at all.

Rebuttal- 2nd rebuttal is obligated to frontline At least half if not all of the responses made in 1st rebuttal. If there are no frontlines present then I consider them dropped and easy for 1st Summary to extend without much warranting needed. I don't want to hear like 30 responses to your opponents' case because my hands start hurting and that's bad for both teams since then I can get fewer things to vote off of during summary and FF. I also do not like it when you only extend defense so also try to have at least some offense on their case if not a lot.

Extensions- I also do not like spreading but if you do it I won't drop you. If you drop an argument then you still have to answer all the turns on that argument for me to consider it dropped, if all the turns aren't answered then the opponents can still extend those. I do not care if you run a Kritik but I care if you form it in an abusive form. I am going to drop you automatically.

Final Focus- Try to clear up the big picture. I have usually made my decision by summary based on frontlines and extensions but I will still listen and if there is something big that was mentioned in summary and you blow it up I count that since it still counts according to PF rules.

Crossfire- Don't think crossfire doesn't matter in my decision. If I think that the round was a wash then I will look at every cross so I am paying attention to these as well. I do sometimes write down notes during cross if any important arguments are mentioned that were mentioned through the debate. Try to do a good job defending your argument and attacking your opponents' argument at the same time and with good warranting.

Weighing- A lot of judges care about weighing but I am not one of those. I don't like very long weighing and complicated weighing. If you do weigh make it clear and short so I can easily flow it. If you do weigh I also want it to start from Rebuttal whether be 1st or 2nd. If it starts, in summary, I consider it late and if the round comes down to weighing then I will look at it. Whichever side has the better weighing and was easier for me to flow I will vote for that side.

Cards- I will call for cards if need be. And sometimes I might just do it because I want to make sure your paraphrasing is correct and not taken out of context.

Evidence- Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the High School Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss for the round and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome-

• Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).

• Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.

• Taking more than 3 minutes to produce a piece of evidence. Failure to produce a card will not result in me “removing” a card from the flow. You will lose the round, because you have used “non-existent evidence.”

Speaking- Clarity = speed --> I want clarity and not a lot of blank time during speeches. If I don't understand your argument, I don't buy it. If you see me drop my writing utensils through the debate during any of your speeches it means you are going way too fast and I will not evaluate what I can't understand or flow.

Specific Speaker Point evaluations-

<26 --> You need to work on speaking. Not going to give this to a lot of people unless your speaking was honestly bad. Please don't be offended.

<26.1 to 26.9 --> I don't think you were very knowledgeable on the topic. Your speaking skills could be improved.

<27 - 28.9 --> Did a decent amount of job holding onto your arguments during cross. Some amount of stuttering was present but was overall good. However, you did make some bad decisions throughout the round.

<29 - 29.9 --> Smart decisions made throughout the round. I liked your arguments. You were very knowledgeable about the topic. Your speaking could be improved a little bit to just get on the perfect level but overall was good.

30 --> You are very good at defending your arguments during the crossfire. You have no stuttering and/or blank spaces in your speeches. I like your arguments a lot and you are almost an expert on the topic meaning you researched a lot in my opinion.

Thanks,

Prakhar Gupta

Elkins '20 | UT '24 | UHL '27

Email: rhasib01@gmail.com

I don't have experience with this topic

I did PF for 4 years

2 gold bids 3 silver bids

Overall

- I cannot keep up with speed. I cannot keep up with speed. I cannot keep up with speed. The quality of the debate is better when its at a reasonable pace

- I dont want your speech doc

- Reading any progressive arguments (theory, tricks, Ks, etc) = L20. Please strike me if you plan on reading these types of arguments, I will not vote for you.

- Sit or stand I don't mind

- Assume I'm ready at all times unless I say otherwise

General

- Tech > Truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- If you do not sign post properly, I will miss a lot of your speech. This is VERY important.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE frontline first AND THEN extend the argument, otherwise it looks like ur extending through ink until you decide to frontline.

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read. a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Frontlining turns in second rebuttal are crucial, any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- I recommend collapsing starting 2nd rebuttal but it's up to you

- You don't have to extend at all in second rebuttal, just frontlining is cool with me

- Please do not read an offensive overview in second rebuttal

Summary Overall

- Do all extensions with author names and the warrant behind them

- If you want me to vote off case offense, you have to extend uniqueness - link - impact and then you should be good

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have an impact ie: if you extend a link turn you also have to extend the other teams impact

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is ok

- Defense is not sticky even in 1st summary, mb

Second summary

- You gotta extend defense

- Weighing has to start here if you want me to evaluate it in the round

Final focus

- Still extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing

- Mirroring your partners summary is key, don't extend anything that was not in summary

Cross

- Don't forget to time cross, happens way too much

- Cross is for yall more than it is for me

- I like cross makes the debate kind of interesting

- You can skip grand cross, up to you

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it's SUPER important for the decision or the other team tells me to call for it

- If you take forever pulling up evidence I will be very mad

Post Round

- I'll disclose unless tourney directors say otherwise

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

- If you still for some reason want to run something progressive and are doing it for an easy ballot because you know your opponents can't respond properly, L20

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions :)

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

I am pretty new to judging, but I've picked it up for the most part. And for those wondering, I am a flow judge, so I focus on the flow and the arguments extended and dropped.

Speaking: Ok, here is the deal. If you spread it may be somewhat hard to keep up, I'm ok with spreading to an extent(300 WPM max) (DON'T SPREAD AS IF YOU WERE DOING POLICY DEBATE).

I encourage enthusiasm rather than speaking monotone. Monotone results in you for speaker points being as high as 26. If you don't weigh your impacts, you won't be able to get higher than 28 speaker points.

<26 means you were offensive/rude

26.1-26.9 means you need improvement and/or probably dropped the case

27-27.9 means you probably missed things on the flow and might have made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round.

YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 28 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

28-28.9 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing.

29-29.5 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, and, more importantly, you break away from weighing in a vacuum to comparative weighing.

29.6-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy.

Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal is obliged to frontline all or most of the responses presented in first summary. Along with responding to their case.

2nd Rebuttal

Please frontline.

Summary: 1st summary should extend defense. The second summary only needs to frontline the defense extended in 1st summary and not the ones from first rebuttal.

Final Focus: Focus less on the flow, preferably focus on the big picture. You should collapse down into a few voters and thoroughly warrant them. Also, you need to make sure that YOU DON'T EXTEND ANYTHING THAT WAS DROPPED. If you choose to do so, I just won't evaluate the arg. in my rfd.

Weighing: Please weigh impacts!! It will increase your chances of winning and boost your speaks. Also, please do comparative weighing and don't continuously present your own impacts throughout your speeches. For example, they bring scope but we have the bigger scope because...

Crossfire: Be polite towards your opponents, being rude will drop your speaks. Although, I do encourage lots of clash on arguments.

Extra Info:

dropping your case is ok but please answer turn.

I prefer you don't read kritiks/ or any sort of crazy arguments. There is a border between unique args and outrageous ones.

Having cut cards ready is important to me. If I hear a piece of evidence that's either too good to be true or is heavily debated through the round I will call for it. If it can't be provided, the team that claimed to have the evidence will be docked significant speaker points and I will disregard all arguments that are dependent on the card. I also believe that card-organization speaks to team preparedness. Being able to present a called-for card quickly will increase your speaks. Taking too long will drop your speaks.

Be independent/responsible through the debate. Keep your own speech and prep time, let me know when you start/stop prep, don't go over the time limit, etc.

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

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

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

debate.ianmackeypiccolo@gmail.com

2 yea rs of policy at Fox chapel. I was a 2N, did ins on aff, and went for only policy arguments. 3 bids to the TOC my senior year if that's important to you. 

Tech > truth shall be the whole of the law. No argument is presumptively too dumb or unfair to answer it. 

I like impact turns and debates about counterplan competition. 

no out-of-round stuff.

Misgendering is a sufficient reason to reject a team and stop the round if requested.

Fairness is not intrinsically good.

No mercy for dropping framework tricks, even really bad ones like truth testing. 

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

PF

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

Hey! I'm Pranav. I debated PF for four years in high school and now I'm a sophomore in college.

email: pranav.mantri@columbia.edu

You can run whatever non-exclusionary arguments that you want. An ideal winning team writes the path to the ballot for me. I'm lazy. I never really hit/ran progressive arguments but if you explain what you are running it should be fine.

Don't go fast. If you really want to, send a speech doc but I'm not gonna spend any time reading it cuz then I'm doing work for you. I'm lazy.

Would appreciate fun cross fires. Back when I was a debater (less than a year ago) I always tried to make jokes or have fun because its one of the chill parts of debate. Dead air is bad. Say something.

Do what u want in first rebuttal but don't "rebuild [y]our case."

Frontline in second rebuttal or responses are conceded.

Defense is sticky and extension in final focus is unnecessary, but if you want to seal the deal I suggest at least reminding me that the dropped response is there.

Offense is not sticky lol. Ideal extensions are short summaries of the arguments you are going for (uniqueness-> warrant-> impact).

Impact numbers are unnecessary, but impacts are necessary. "No impact" defense isn't terminal on impacts that exist but are unquantified. Quantifying is overrated ballparks is where its at. Vagueness can be fun and unfun at the same time. Either way, if there is no weighing and I'm left with one quantified impact and one unquantified impact I will prolly j vote on the "more convincing argument." But don't let it get to this stage.

Rebuttal weighing=good speaks for team.

Winning weighing/framing ≠ winning round. Weighing is a whey for me to way-in your offense. If no offense, weighing don't matter. Probability analysis isn't weighing. If you tell me what it really is i'll give you +0.2 speaks.

Good debate ability = good speaks. Speaking style doesn't necessarily matter. I weigh smarts over delivery, but delivery matters too (i.e. stuttering w big brain debating would yield higher speaks than a soothing voice that is saying empty words).

Ways to get good speaks:

a. Say something funny/ make jokes in speech

b. Give me any food/drink

c. Not being a speechdoc debater cuz flows are cool.

d. Good Eminem reference (+0.5-1 speaks).

L Friv Theory

Nota Bene: As I said in my paradigm above, I have little to no experience with progressive argumentation, but I am willing to hear it. In fact, I'm excited to judge it because I think that that is the best way to vote. Avoid jargon and you should be fine.

This isn't to deter anyone from reading prog arguments. If you do so and you succeed and you educate me well, I'll give you 30 speaks.

If you are reading anything off topic definitely send it to my email.

Speed: 300 wpm MAX and then I lose you. Send a speechdoc to pranav.mantri@columbia.edu if you really are gonna go mega fast (300 wpm<=), but even so I evaluate off my flow and if I forget to write something down from the speechdoc that's your fault not mine.

2 clears then no flowing

Ask Questions before round.

• Add me to your email chain, saramoghadamn@gmail.com.
• Please time yourselves.
• Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
• (Pertaining to parli) I’m not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
• Be aware of your opponent's speed preferences and adjust accordingly when they call clear/speed. If you don't, I will take off speaker points.
• Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
• I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I won’t make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
• I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
• I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
• K’s should only be run when the other side believes it’s more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please don’t assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
• I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why it’s both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
• I really really like to see clash within a debate.
• Extend arguments!
• Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I don’t want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated.
• I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
• Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends.

Contacts:

Messenger: Aaryan Mukherjee

Email: aaryanm@umich.edu (prefer google docs for card sharing)

I've competed in PF debate for 4 years at Hamilton High. I know stuff, pinky promise. Contact me if you have any questions.

Key points:

1. Progressive stuff is fine, I'm just not too familiar with it. Please only run if there is legitimate abuse, otherwise, I will be hesitant to vote on it and don't run theory to take advantage of inexperienced teams.

2. Frontline in the second rebuttal. Not necessary but it'll make your case less messy and make me very happy.

3. Defense is sticky unless it's frontlined. This means first summary doesn't need to extend defense unless second rebuttal addresses it.

4. Please weigh, otherwise, I default to the strength of link.

5. Run whatever related to the topic.

6. I'm cool with speed but I expect a speech doc if you're gonna go fast.

7. Best signpost if you want me to flow :)

8. The only reason I'll call for evidence is if y'all tell me to call for it OR if something is super contested without clear resolution (but in general just tell me to call for evidence if you want me look at it).

Speaker point stuff (+ .5 points for every time you do one of the things below)

1. Naruto or NAV references in any speech, they gotta be good though.

2. Physically jump up and turn whenever you read a turn.

3. Stutter a lot.

4. Disclose (tell me if you disclose) :)

5. Skip Grandcross! We can replace it with a minute of shared prep.

Overall just have a good time!

Hi I'm Ananya! I debated LD in high school, so I understand the nuances and norms of the structure. Don't expect me to be an excellent judge for a highly nuanced technical debate. However, I will try my very best to evaluate any type of debate you'd like to have.

theory, Ks, etc are fine, just explain them very thoroughly. Spreading is fine and I'll call clear/slow if needed.

if u have further questions abt my judging preferences, feel free to ask before round or email me (ananyanatchukuri@gmail.com)

Hi I'm Roberto,

PF Freshman sophomore year, Congress and world schools jr year

I prefer simple arguments. 1-3 contentions, well explained. Quality>Quantity.

Weighing

I want to see you comparing your arguments (impacts, links, etc...) to those of your opponents. Tell me why your points matter more.

For example, if team A says "According to Forbes Apples are healthier than Oranges", and team B says "According to NYT Oranges are healthier than apples". Try to explain why one study outdoes the other.

Talking Speed

I can handle fast speeds just don't go overkill

Evidence

I like warranting but evidence to accompany that warranting doesn't hurt either.

Fun fact:

Trigger Warnings/Discrimination

Try to include trigger warnings if you are talking about sensitive issues.

I will make sure to judge you purely on what you say and not on your race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc... .

Have fun!

Tech > truth

The most important thing is to have fun. Debate is a learning experience and everything you learn from it is valuable. I will give as much constructive feedback as possible to help you out for the rest of your debate rounds.

Make sure to compare arguments and collapse (pick 1-2 arguments to mainly focus on in the second half of the round).

For any specifics, just ask me before the round starts!

Email: astorbredhead@gmail.com

Glenbrooks Update

If you want my ballot you need to effectively write my ballot for me. There are a few things that I mention in my paradigm that I love to see that people seem to forget about. Namely extending and weighing. You need to extend the warranting for whatever argument you are going for and extend the impact. If your opponent does not do this PLEASE point it out because in my opinion with 3 minute summaries you do not have offense unless you give some extensions. With that said, to avoid losing my ballot please signpost your extensions. Say to me "Judge please extend our first contention where we say ____ which leads to ___ which gives us our impact of ____". If only one team extends, as long as that team has some access to their argument they will probably win. This also goes for weighing. I as a judge do not want to intervene. Weighing is the easiest way for me to compare your arguments, so please weigh. If only one team weighs, as long as they have some access to their arg they are probably going to win because it doesn't matter how hard you are winning your argument if you do not tell me how to compare it to your opponents arg. In an ideal world both teams have a couple pieces of weighing by summary and then both do meta weighing in FF. Same thing goes for weighing in terms of signposting. Please directly tell me you are about to weigh and please tell me where to weigh it.

CSUF/LD UPDATE

I have not ever judged LD and really do not know much about it. Please treat me as a flay judge. You can read prog arguments in front of me, but realize that I likely do not really know how evaluate them. I can handle some speed, but definitely not a lot. If you have circuit and trad cases please read the trad ones. Even if you aren't going fast I would appreciate getting put on the email chain. Please let me know if you have any questions before the round.

TW - IMPORTANT (Specifically for PF)

If you are reading something that is potentially triggering please read a TW, and give your opponents the opportunity to opt out. If you read an argument that could obviously trigger someone like sexual assault without a TW I will be mad and not like you. I understand that some people may feel this is a stupid rule because they think that it is unreasonable to force debaters to have multiple cases, but I would say it is a lot worse to force someone to relive trauma.

Parli

I think Parli rounds are typically either really good, or quite disappointing, mainly because I think there is a big divide between teams that know how to prep, and teams that don't. Parli is not a debate about who has the best cards the way that Policy, PF, and LD are, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I as a judge don't value cards, I think that I have an obligation to. In my opinion the best cards to try and find in Parli by far are impact cards. You can use logic to make link chains, and you don't need evidence to define basic political facts, but you can't just assert that the electrical grid being damaged kills X many people. Having quantifiable impacts is such a huge help especially in the weighing side of the debate.

In terms of progressive debate, I am not opposed to it, but know that I am not the best judge for it.

I think weighing is incredibly important when you don't have cards, as such I think weighing should be like your main focus in Parli. You should probably start weighing as early as you can. I am also a huge sucker for meta weighing because I think that it is super under utilized, so if you do that I will be quite happy.

Although I don't think most Parli rounds should be judged on a strictly line by line level, that doesn't mean that you should abandon the flow. In fact chances are if you go line by line you are a lot more likely to get my ballot than if you don't.

A lot of my PF paradigm applies as well, so probably read that if you have time. Otherwise if you have any other questions just ask me.

PF

I did PF. I can flow moderately fast but don't go too fast. If you spread I will insta drop you (please be aware I define spreading very liberally so to be safe just go slower). I am definitely not opposed to hearing K's or theory debates, but please be aware that I do not have a lot of experience in that realm of debate and as such I am definitely not the best judge for it. With that said, please be aware that I come from a school that did not have any support for debate and as such, although I do recognize the positive change that can run from running progressive arguments (especially against other good teams who know how to handle those arguments), I also recognize the inherent inaccessibility that prog arguments possess. I mention this so you know that I support you running prog arguments, but also am subconsciously more likely to support and vote for the team not running those args.

You need to weigh, if only one team weighs I will default to them.

Extend warrants and not just authors.

2nd rebuttal should probably frontline, but prioritize turns. Defense is sticky in 1st summary.

For the most part I am only going to call for cards if either one of the debaters tells me to, or if the card seems kind of outrageous. If I call for a card just because it seems outrageous I will only check to see if it is blatantly fake, all other evidence analysis should be done by the debaters. Any other questions just ask me.

One last thing. PLEASE EXTEND. I have had to drop multiple teams now that were dominating the round simply because they only extended their impact. You need to extend the warranting. To be safe signpost your extending. Don't just frontline and extend somewhere in your frontlining. At some point in Summary or FF say to me now extend my whatever contention.

DROPPED DEFENSE DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXTENDED IN SUMMARY

But it does need to be in FF

Dropped offense must be extended.

SIGNPOST I want to know where I'm flowing your arguments. Jumpy responses confuse me. If I’m confused by your speech you are less likely to win.

WARRANT I need you to explain why your turn is a turn to extend it. Tell me, “extend the turn on their C2, where we tell you _______ according to _______.” I won't vote on a turn without warranting.

COLLAPSE Don't make the round about 10 different arguments. Narrow it down to something you can flesh out at the end of the debate. This has become a huge issue. If the other team doesn’t collapse and you do, I’ll be more likely to vote for you because I’ll have a better comprehension of your case.

WEIGH Tell me why I prefer your argument PLEASE! SEVERITY, REVERSIBILITY, MAGNITUDE, TIMEFRAME; USE IT. If you weigh and your opps don’t; guess what? You win. Weigh.

Things that will ding your speaks/get you dropped:

1. Bad evidence ethics. If you very blatantly misrep evidence then at best I will drop your points by 1. If your opponents call for your card and then tell me to read it and drop you for bad evidence, there's a chance I'll drop you for it. Bad evidence undermines education.

2. Sexism, racism, and general excessive rudeness with get you L20ed instantly.

When giving my rfd, I am not opposed to clarifications of the debate from both teams (like postround me, hard (this doesn’t mean you get to argue with me. I’m for postrounding to clarify my decision, not to continue the debate.)). Hopefully this clarifies the debate and prevents any team from feeling like they got screwed. A judge should be able to explain their decision. I'll ask questions if I think I'm missing something.

For the most part I will support anything you run, but just ask me about it before the round.

If are going to do an email chain please put me on it: astorbredhead@gmail.com (To be clear, although I want to be on the email chain for convenience sake just in case I need to look at a card, I do not plan on/want to have to be looking through your cards)

P.S. If something happens during the round that you don't feel comfortable talking about publicly (i.e. misgendering) send me a dm in zoom, an email, or any other way of conversation.

Hello! I debated for Princeton High School on the national circuit.

I never really liked super long paradigms so I’ll try to keep it brief.

Add me to your email chains cwshen@wharton.upenn.edu 

General Preferences

- Tech > truth but I think the best debaters are ones who build a narrative while still winning the flow. That means things like unwarranted responses or blippy extensions will make it much harder for me to vote for you.

- Please weigh! This is also more than just throwing out buzzwords like “scope” or “magnitude” – you should actually resolve the weighing debate.

- Collapse on 1-2 pieces of offense in the back half of the round. It makes the debate much more engaging and much easier to evaluate!

- Speed: I’m pretty good with speed but a speech doc is always appreciated. Please don’t spread on me.

- When extending arguments/evidence, you need to tell me what the argument/evidence says. Don’t just say “extend Peters ’19”. Tell me what Peters said.

- Signpost for my sanity

Progressive Stuff (Ks, theory, tricks, etc.)

** for NSD camp: debate substance, you're here to learn about the topic and I'll be very hesitant to vote on any prog

I’m familiar with progressive arguments but given that I’m an East Coast debater who literally only does PF, don’t be surprised if I'm not totally down with voting on your shoe theory. In most cases, I won't vote for it, but if you genuinely believe there is a real abuse and you impact it convincingly and in an accessible manner, you can give it a try.

Important Stuff: Above all, be nice! Any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in an L and the lowest amount of speaks I can give you. Competing in tournaments is hard and it’s always worse when you leave a round with a headache. Have fun!

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

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

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

Random Thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck, have fun!

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Contact: colewoody1022@gmail.com

P.S. Most of this Paradigm is taken from my teammate, Katherine Yue

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can flow your overall case and round, as long as you aren't spreading. Keep in mind that I may miss something, so never assume I'll make a connection that should've been made by either you or your partner in the round. For example, if your opponent concedes a response or drops an argument, let me know so I can make certain I have that written down, if you don't then it's a 50/50 on something that could potentially win you a round.

Constructive

-I'll evaluate any argument/response well explained the first time it is brought up and extended & weighed later on.

-Please don't spread. You can send a speech doc if you plan on it but I'll probably drop your speaks and not get half of it because flowing off a document kind of ruins the whole speech aspect of debate (but I'll try my best).

Crossfire

-I don't flow cross, but it can affect your speaks. Don't be overly aggressive, if you have to cut someone off do it nicely. Don't try and force your opponents into conceding something here. If an important point is brought up, bring it up in a speech, because I won't do it for you.

-Cross isn't a time to ask for evidence, do that during prep not CX.

-Don't leave empty space within cross, if your opponent doesn't have a question, then you should be prepared to continue poking holes in their case, don't waste what little time you have.

-Don't be afraid to have fun during cross, if you want to make jokes and laugh then go ahead, this time is meant to help you not me

Rebuttal

-Everything said in 1st rebuttal must be responded to in the following speech (2nd rebuttal) or I consider it conceded. Don't try to respond later/access something that was attacked. If your opponent drops attacks, tell me and extend it!

-Interact with your opponent's arguments directly! Everyone reads generic blocks, but if your responses interact directly with their evidence/specific link chain, I'll bump your speaks. I think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

Summary

-You should collapse! Extend offense & defense, weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttal.

-Don't bring up new things here unless front lining.

-Extend everything you want me to vote on! I'll only look to things said earlier in the round if there is nothing left for me to vote off at the end (unlikely).

Final focus

-I really like a review of your points and attacks that still stand, but I primarily want voters and weighing to happen in this speech. Everything extended should be from summary, including weighing.

-This is the most important speech, in my opinion, so make sure to drive through your voters for the round if you want to win.

Weighing

-Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true, and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant.

-Logical weighing (xyz will or won't happen/this is better long-term) is okay, if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing.

-If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

-Do not! weigh on arguments you have no access to.

Progressive arguments

-Since it's PF I'll only evaluate dis-ads and theory shells if a severe violation has occurred (i.e. the opponent discriminated against you on sexuality, race, etc. )

-I will not evaluate theory unless prior consent has been given by either party before the round has started (I need to hear both sides firmly agree, the absence of no doesn't mean yes)

-I prefer substance over everything

-I'm more of a trad judge, so try to keep that in mind when running progressive args

Other

-Please pre-flow before the round! It makes things run a lot faster in the long term.

-Give me the order before speeches (Off-the-clock roadmaps <3).

-I'll try to disclose every round and give an oral rfd (If allowed).

-I won't usually call for cards unless I'm told to or it's heavily weighed on. If a card I call for is misused I'll drop all arguments involving it. Paraphrased cases are okay, but cut and use evidence fairly.

-I firmly believe in tech>truth, so if something is false or you think I need to call for evidence, tell me, because I won't unless you give a valid reason as to why I should.

-Please ask questions/postround if you want, but be nice.

-I'll time every speech/prep but I expect you to as well. 10+ seconds overtime=lower speaks

-Voting for you should be easy, so weigh, extend, refute, do all the things you should in a typical round. If the round gets messy to the point where there is nothing I can vote on, I'll default to the first speaking team.

Speaks

-Everyone's speaks start at 28, I'll drop/raise as the round progresses.

-Follow the paradigm!

-Read content warnings as needed

-Most importantly, be respectful, nice, & overall don't take things too seriously and you'll end with high speaks.

-Please make sure to either find something enjoyable or educational about your round

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

general

preflow before!

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

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

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

progressive

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

speeches

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

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

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

ps i <3 (nonbasic) taylor swift references

Hi!

I used to do PF at Northview High but I was maverick most of the time, and not that good... Unlucky. (Northview XZ)

I lowkey miss pre-covid debating. Judged a couple of online debates here and there outside of Tab, but it is what it is.

Alright, but I might do college pf, I'll see, but here's this:

TECH > truth

I don't flow crossfires, BUT they do go into your speaks.

not extended/weighed in summary? can't be in final focus. sorry.

I will disclose and give reasoning.

tl;dr don't be annoying and you should be fine.

email: emilyxzhang11@gmail.com