Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Yes, I am a flow judge, but sometimes the round gets messy and I cannot always rely on my flows. So please point out everything. If there's a dropped response to your case, point that out. If you are extending your link chains, make it structured and clear.

Basic Info

Flow before the round begins. If you didn't already, I will give you about 5 minutes to preflow if you need it.

I like roadmaps, and I really admire the use of framework.

I am okay with you reading a paraphrased case.

I find it easy to vote if you weigh, refute well, and take FF to your advantage by making it clear on why i should vote for YOU.

Speaks

everyone's speaks start at 29, i'll drop/raise as the round progresses

Be respectful. One thing that I dislike is when y'all talk over your opponents too much during crossfire and not let them speak as much as you do.

TBH, I am okay with some aggressiveness but do NOT be disrespectful. If you do, expect 25 speaks.

Constructive

make your arguments understandable to someone with basic knowledge

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

DO not spread. If you do, I will lower your speaks.

crossfire

I don't really care for cross, and I do not flow this part of the debate. However, if an important point is brought up, bring it up in the following speeches.

Rebuttal

everything said in rebuttal must be responded to in the following speech 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

I personally like it if you collapse. Ensure that you're extending both offense and defense.

Weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttal

DO NOT bring up new stuff here unless front lining.

Extend, extend, EXTEND! Make it clear on why I should vote on you by weighing ( give good voters ).

Final Focus

I really like a review on your points and attacks that still stand, and focus on weighing and voters.

everything extended should be from summary, including weighing.

Link Chains and 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 run progressive arguments.

DO not run progressive arguments. If you do, expect your speaks to be 25s. I do not like counterplans, theory, disads, shells, k's, tricks, etc.

Please send speech docs to dullesdj@gmail.com and give me a roadmap before each speech and signpost please.

I'm a high school CXer, so I am a flow judge.

Overall:

Make debate a safe and educational space for each other. Don't be sexist/ableist/racist/etc, respect pronouns, and use content warnings. Feel free to email me (lauriceduan5@gmail.com) if you ever feel unsafe in the round.

Tech > truth!

I'm uncomfortable with my ability to properly evaluate any progressive arguments. If there are any violations in the round that hurt/exclude anyone, I will intervene as necessary.

General PF Info:

- I'm okay with fast PF speed but add me to speech docs if you speak fast

- Second rebuttal MUST answer any offensive arguments or it's conceded

- Defense is NOT sticky

- Offense must be extended through summary and FF for me to evaluate it (call your opponents out if they don’t)

- Weigh as early as possible and throughout the round - I won't look at new weighing in FF

- Don't just say that you're conceding de-links. Tell me what the de-links are and how that gets you out of turns. 

Other things:

- Don't have bad evid ethics

- Extend evidence by content rather than author names

- If you say time starts in 3, 2, 1, my time...starts...now...., or any variation of that, I will cringe internally a little, but if you debate better doing that, go for it. 

- If there's no offense at the end of the round, I presume status quo (NEG) on policy resolutions and first speaking team for others (if you want me to presume differently, tell me why)

Just have fun in round :)) Good luck and happy debating! P.S. if you want to boost speaks, make a Taylor Swift reference

she/her pronouns, PF debater, humor in round is GREATLY APPRECIATED (as in you'll automatically get 30 speaks if i laugh)

don't worry about speaks as long as you're not an absolute jerk in round, run theory on novices, spread, or do something extremely stupid.

i'm sorta picky about extensions, just make sure you get all your warranting and link chain in there and you should be good. if you don't extend through summary and bring it up in final focus i won't weigh it.

weigh please, i'm sure that's a given but you'd be surprised. metaweighing is always a big big plus.

on progressive argumentation: i'm pro progressive args, but be careful who you run it against, and please don't run theory just to win rounds. that being said, if theory is well executed i'll vote on it. you can run ks but be patient cus i'm not too knowledgeable there.

i prefer line by line summary/final focus but either is fine.

TLDR; I'm a PF debater, no to spreading, yes to prog args, please extend/weigh

Hi my name is Zoe Jones. I will be a senior at Austin High in the fall, 2020 permitting. I've done LD for two years now, before that i did a semester of congress followed by a semester of PF and i've done a few different individual events mainly exempt and OO.

For Judging LD:

I think debate is a space to argue the direct effects of a topic being implemented against the consequences of not having it.

Disclosure:

I understand the struggle that is the LD wiki, if you haven't disclosed there then so be it but make sure you get your speech doc to your opponent thirty minutes or more before the round starts or they can run disclosure theory on you. While i'd prefer the round to come down to effects of the resolution I will vote off of disclosure theory. When the aff shares the doc please send them back all the things you might possibly respond with (not the docs just the names of DAs and K and theories you might potentially run) This is just so they can be a little bit prepared and ready for the round. Please don't run something that is not on this list.

Trigger Warning:

Provide trigger warning for anything that might be triggering before round, please use common sense in this aspect. Debate is meant to be a safe space for all, if you fail to make it such the round will end early and I will report you to tab with an automatic loss. Also if you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in a round please let me know either privately messaging me or some other signal. Depending on the level of concern the round will either be terminated with an automatic win for the person who felt unsafe or both of you will receive a bye. If you take advantage of this and try to use it to win I guarantee you will regret it. This is for extreme cases only.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me again I prefer to follow along with the docs. If your opponent asks for a slower speed and you do not speak at a slower speed your speaks will most be lowered. In any speech but especially your rebuttals if you want something to get flowed slow down and say it in a very clear voice. I will flow off the doc as well but if you make a point that you really want to be flowed emphasis on it will definitely help.

Flowing:

I like to see the flow condense down to the major points of the round rather then contesting the things that hold no real grounds in the round. If there is an obviously conceded point hammer that in, but don't forget to bring it up in every speech you make. If you want something from Cross-X to be flowed make sure you say it in a speech because I will pay attention to Cross-X but I won't flow it. Sometimes flows get messy but proper signposting in and before your speeches will make it easier for me to make a concise and accurate ballot. Also a line by line in later speeches is very appreciated as it throughly attacks your opponents points and sets up the foundation of what you see as the major arguments of the round.

Preferences:

While I prefer morality arguments to theory and Kritiks debate is a space for debaters and not for judges and as such the debate should operate on a debaters terms. And as your judge I will accommodate to whatever style of debate you choose. While judge modification is a thing it should honestly be judges modifying to debaters because your job is already hard enough.

Theory:

Again I'm okay with any arguments you want to read. My theory is admittedly not the best but if I have to look stuff up after the round I will. But you should make everything you read understandable for everyone your opponent included. Please do not take advantage of something your opponent doesn't understand if they ask a question don't steamroll them or make it unnecessarily complicated. If your opponent doesn't understand something chances are your judge doesn't either. Because we aren't supposed to bring outside knowledge into the round making stuff understandable is crucial.

Kritiks:

Similar to theory, run them if you want but make it understandable and clear. Don't steamroll your opponent and clarify if they ask.

80,000 offs:

Don't read 80,000 offs. I know it's a strategy to swarm your opponent with so many things that they couldn't possibly accurately respond to all of them but its not cool. Especially when in the next speech you drop all but three of them and leave your opponent struggling to condense their flows. Basically I don't like any strategy that try's to force your opponent to flounder. And if you attempt one of these and your opponent is prepared and responds accurately then they're getting very high speaks.

Accidents:

People misspeak, accidents happen, all that fun stuff. If you say something wrong please clarify that within your speech time or during your prep time. I understand that the stress of a round can get to you and you can accidentally word something wrong or slip up over a point. This cannot be used to add an argument, get rid of an argument or anything along those lines. It is simply to reword a point that you may have tripped over because I don't want anxiety to be anyones downfall in debate. Confidence is key but confidence has to be gained through success.

Prep Time:

I'm fine with prep being open prep or closed prep. As long as both parties agree. So if you both are okay with open prep then go for it. Again I will not flow it but it can be useful for someone who needs clarification. Do not use that time to trip someone up, open prep is for clarifications not lines of questions, lines of questions are for Cross-X time. Also do not steal prep time, I know that is a widely known rule but it still happens all the time, your prep time ends when you're ready to send the doc out. You do not have to send the doc during prep time but if you take more then thirty seconds to send it after ending your prep time that is stealing prep and your speaks will be lowered. After the doc has been received check everyone is ready then begin your speech. Feel free to use other peoples prep time as well as you only have your 4 minutes but working while your opponent is prepping is good use of your time.

If you have any questions email me at coronacationtourney@gmail.com, yes I would like to be part of the email chain. Let's all have fun at this tournament okay? Anyways see y'all there.

Hey, I'm Sahithi I am a CX debater in high school.

*Add me to the email chain: | Sahi.kolla6@gmail.com |

If there is something wrong w/ your email, I'm open to using SpeechDrop. (make one and give me the link)

Overall, I want you to explain the arguments you are going for c l e a r l y and tell me why I should be voting for you. If you don't exactly know what you are saying, you probably shouldn't run that argument.

For PF...

constructive

- Make your arguments understandable to someone with basic knowledge over the topic (I not very familiar w/ the 2020-21 PF topic, so make sure you explain your arguments as you would to someone who is hearing it for the first time.)

- I will only evaluate arguments/responses that are well explained and extended/weighed later on through every one of your speeches

- Please don't spread. I prefer hearing concise arguments made over hearing someone ramble through cards. If you are reading cards, send me the speech doc through the email chain, but I'll probably drop your speaks because flowing off a document kind of ruins the whole speech aspect of debate. If you don't want your speaks to suffer, slow down when reading tags and make analytics so that I can flow off of what you say instead of having to read through the document.

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 respectfully. If your opponents can't answer the question 5 seconds after you've asked it, move on to the next question. If an important point is brought up, bring it up in a speech and reference the cross.

rebuttal

- Everything said in rebuttal must be responded to and extended from your previous speeches or I consider it conceded. Don't try to bring up an argument that wasn't extended since the beginning of the debate. If your opponent drops/doesn't respond to one of your arguments, point it out to me, extend it, and tell me why it matters!

- 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.) If your arguments are generic/not specifically built to respond to your opponent's arguments, I will take note of that.

summary

- You should collapse! extend offense & defense, weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttals

- Don't bring up new arguments here unless you're frontlining!

- 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 on your points and attacks that still stand, but if you want to focus on weighing and voters that fine as well. -- Everything extended should be from the summary, including weighing.

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 why yours are more significant. SHOW ME SOME IMPACT CALC!!

- Logical weighing (xyz will or won't happen/this is better longterm) 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. In general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

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

progressive things

- I'm completely fine with progressive arguments but make sure to explain it to me clearly. I'm fine with disads, counterplans, topicality and theory. I don't really understand kritiks and I probably won't evaluate them but if you run them, make sure you know what you are saying (don't just read cards for the sake of saying smth) and tell me why it matters.

other

- Preflow before the round

- Give me a roadmap before speeches and tell me where to flow which arguments. Signpost if you can.

- I'll try to disclose every round and give an oral rfd

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

- I'll time every speech/prep but I expect you to as well. If you want, ask me to signal every 30 seconds during your prep time. A few seconds overtime is fine but I'll drop speaks after 10+ seconds!

- Voting for you should be easy, so weigh, extend, refute, do all the things. If the round gets messy to the point where there is nothing I can vote on, I'll vote for the arguments I understand the best. Make sure to tell me what to vote for and why I should drop/not evaluate your opponent's arguments. Tell me why I should prioritize your arguments over theirs.

Speaks

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

- Follow the paradigm!

- Read content warnings as needed

- If I can't understand you, I will say "clear" during your speech

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

- If you spread to the point where I can't understand what you are saying anymore, I will drop speaks!

General Comments

Overall, debate is supposed to be a fun activity so don't take things too seriously, don't offend anybody, and if you don't end up winning the round, take notes during the RDF and make sure to ask the judge questions so that you can become a better debater :)

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

Contact

If you have any questions feel free to email me before the round. (my email is at the top of the paradigm)

4 years of pf, 6 years of debate. rmhs & pda

flay judge leaning flow. tech > truth

add me to email chains: graceliactive@gmail.com

i can handle some speed, but over 225 wpm im annoyed

if you want to win, you prob shouldn't run theory or ks bc i hate them

time yourself or we can do timing your opponents

signpost or i will literally stop flowing

judges are lazy, including me. write my ballot for me in your ff, it helps

good luck!

about

• hi, i'm ellen (ellen.liu007@gmail.com) !! she/her, captain @ potomac oak + poolesville'25
• i've been debating on the nat. circuit for ~4 years (qualled to toc, ranked 5th in the nation, & reached outrounds at upenn, harvard, stanford, etc.)
• turn your cams on.. that should be done without saying

prefs

• read/do whatever (as long as its not - ist)
• tech > truth
• please collapse
• signpost signpost signpost
• weigh (comparatively)!!
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline
• be interactive PLEASE.

prog

• i'm more familiar w theory compared to ks
• would prefer neither

speaks

• +1 speak if we finish the round early (please do not take forever to find your cards, preflowing, etc. -- you should be doing that before the round starts)
• +1 speak if you follow me on spotify

feel free to ask any questions !!

Don't call me Judge, please call me Kim. Lay but open to prog if you're willing to explain it to me. It'd be cool if you could slow down on analytics. Clear 3 times, then I'm nuking speaks.

Email me if you run into complications: 004nguyen.k@gmail.com

tl;dr: debated pf in high school; typical flow judge ^^
i like roadmaps and clear signpostings. for theories or k's to be evaluated, they must be explained very well. if you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. clean warranting is very important. defense is sticky.

add me to the chain: chloepineda@gmail.com

general:
- i value quality arguments over quantity of arguments. fewer, well-developed arguments will get you farther. therefore, I don't need gasp-level speed. warrant analysis is essential to a good debate and i need to be able to flow it. do not waste cx time asking which cards the speaker skipped. do not waste your speech time answering arguments they didn't read. do not miss the analytical arguments that your opponents included speech but not their doc (either because it was dope and off-the-dome or because they don't have to)

theory:
- i'm unlikely to go neg on t absent a clear violation and an abuse scenario. if your abuse scenario is underdeveloped, then a good clash elsewhere is key to an offensive t debate from the negative. t debates should be framed on both sides, and standards need to be impacted and weighed comparatively
- the 2NR should only go for one position/world. multiple, contradicting positions in the 2NR make the judge's decision difficult.

k’s:
- if you run a k, demonstrate that you've read the literature, know your authors and truly understand what you're advocating-- don't wait until the rebuttals to explain the critical theory behind your lx and alts
- tagline extensions of 1NC evidence will never win you the k debate. If the neg is not doing in-depth work on the link, the perm will likely solve it. framework, where necessary, should consist of the same aspects as a good theory or t debate.

cross/speaks:
- tag-team cx is generally unnecessary. if your partner needs help answering a question, a short interjection is fine. otherwise, tag-teaming should be avoided
- running a k on novice as varsity debaters is unnecessary and will only hurt your speaks. i consider myself a "tabula-rasa," but i will default to policy-maker if you don't provide me with a decisive way to evaluate the round
- make a reference to a new jeans song and i’ll give u full speaks :3

other:
show care and always aid in your opponents' understanding of the arguments and the world of debate as a whole; be authentic and vulnerable but know your arguments inside and out; do not take this precious activity or space for granted and learn something from every round ^^

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!!!!!

Hi I'm a hs incoming sophomore who's been debating since ms I did mostly LD in ms and now I do policy,

Speaking:

-Spreading is fine by me but make sure you're articulate and if not then you shouldn't be spreading. I will give you a couple of warnings in the round if you're spreading and not speaking clearly however, if you don't slow down after that I will stop flowing what I can't understand.

-Be sure to signpost makes the debate a lot clearer and easier to follow for everyone in the round.

Args:

-Everything is fine by me but theory usually doesn't stand with me unless your opponents have broken a major rule

GLHF

evergreen valley '23

i qualled to toc in ld & pf my junior year

i was coached extensively by kumail and claudia. this might mean something to u, or it might not – i wouldn't look into it too much.

Strake Jesuit '25

Email chain: justindebate314@gmail.com

I like debates that feature long pieces of evidence.

Scenarios start at 0%. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Sweeping explanations of the world rarely exist.

Arguments that contravene basic intuition require an extreme level of warranting that is hard given a short timeframe.

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