I did a bit of debate in high school but I forgot most of it so you should treat me as a lay judge.

I'll probably vote for a nice narrative or something.

Hello friends,

I'm Hannah; I used to do PF for Interlake and am now a 26 at Dartmouth. Please set up an email chain for round documents, my email is hwhuang04@gmail.com.

LD

I have never ever competed in LD. I'll try my best to evaluate everything, but I also haven't debated in a while and am a normal college student at this point... I <3 topical arguments and will probably evaluate them in a way that everyone will be happier about

PF

I evaluate debates as tab as I can, but deep down I do like truthy arguments that make sense. If I dont understand something, I feel cosmically compelled to evaluate other things before it

I liked debating and I like watching people debate. Whether I like judging is another question contingent on some of the things below

Things I like:

• Decelerating rounds: faster case and rebuttal, slower summary and final focus (PLEASE COLLAPSE EFFICIENTLY)
• Clash: collapsing on a common issue on both sides makes the debate more interesting, easier to evaluate, and easier for me to make a decision that everyone is happy with (this can also be done thru comparative weighing)
• Frontlining in the next speech: this should be going on as soon as 2nd rebuttal
• Complete extensions: this goes for offense and defense - no sticky defense
• Warrants/analysis that go beyond "author said so"
• Implicated turns: please weigh turns that aren't direct link turns
• Content warnings with opt outs
• ROB analysis: I like progressive arguments which tell me WHY i should deviate from more traditional judging and what role the judge should take in the round
• Cool, intuitive arguments

Things i dislike:

• New in the 2: I WILL NOT evaluate anything not in summary
• New implicative weighing in ff: it's basically a new argument
• Frivolous theory, please don't waste my time
• Bad spreading
• Bad evidence
• Debaters that don't look at their timers
• Racists/sexists/etc

I'll disclose whenever I can. Feel free to ask questions about my decision if the tournament isn't running behind

i'm a senior in pf, i debate both local and nat cirq.

i vote on arguments within the round, so pls extend warrants and weighing.

in other words, im more tech > truth, but don't be rude/insensitive/commodifying args.

i require content warnings if you plan on reading sensitive arguments. better to assume it is sensitive than not.

feel free to email me if u hv questions /want further feedback (karlume9@gmail.com)

Specifics:

2nd rebuttal should frontline. no sticky defense. pls weigh, but only when you are winning case. don't bring up entirely new arguments in 2nd summary/2nd ff. I need parallelism (summary+FF) for any offense you want me to vote for.

analytics can equate to evidence if they are well warranted (half of pf is just reading basically blog posts as warrants, an analytic is not akin to a study but it definitely can match chen 18.) that said evidence without warrants is pretty useless in context to debate rounds.

if a piece of evidence is contested throughout the round i'll call for it myself. i will drop speaker points as well as arguments when teams knowingly use misconstrued cards to further their game. if your opponent reads theory about evidence ethics or suggests i drop you over ethics i'll probably go for it (if i can verify the violation they present me in your evidence).

i will understand vernacular/jargon. i'm fine with speed under 450 if the round is between noon and four pm, otherwise pls stay under 350. send speech docs if you plan on spreading and want me to be guaranteed to follow

i might listen to 1st and 2nd cross, probably not grand tho. i approve of using grand cross for non-strategic purposes such as discussing educational topics or if we live in a simulation.

signpost pls

**it's kinda long, tl;dr read the bold to avoid nasty surprises post-round. If possible, please flip and pre-flow if y'all are outside the room waiting. For background, I was team captain of PF 3 for years at Interlake and debated at nationals, TOC, and State. I will always disclose, as I believe it's good to have solid feedback for your future rounds. Majority paradigm credits to Kayla Chang.

I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round.

---Normal tech stuff

First speaking teams: terminal defense is sticky if you extend it into FF (obviously you must respond if it's frontlined), any offense must be in summary but I'll extend dropped turns thru FF as mitigation/terminal D.

Second speaking teams: Turns and disads coming out of 1st rebuttal must be responded to or it's a drop, you can respond to terminal D in summary, but it comes off way stronger if you respond to it from second rebuttal. If you read DAs in 2nd rebuttal, I'll have a very low threshold for responses needed to block it. New carded offense in second summary is a no go.

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense, as your arguments get more extreme (ex. War is good) I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

---More unique stuff

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds)

Please signpost by voter tag, links, or impacts (ideally numbered). I don't always catch card names and I guarantee I'll miss content if I don't know where to flow.

No new evidence in FF. I don't count it, you make the other team mad, you lose speaks.

Give off-time road maps. Makes my job soo much easier, just tell me the order on the flow your going through OR signpostreally well. Bad signposting for a messy flow is the easiest way to lose speaks.

Don't extend through ink. If you tell me to "extend this dropped argument" I'm not going to, you need to extend the warranting and or evidence that applies to that argument.

If it not in FF, its not a voter. yeah.

If you run a useless framework, - 3 to 5 speaks.

---Other stuff

-Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, in my eyes it's only a means to get concessions and clarify sticky situations. The only way concessions end up on my flow is if you bring it up in a speech. Please don't talk between partners in the first two crosses, they're intended to be 1v1. You can call for cards, but read the cards in prep time.

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading but it's annoying when people try to speak fast and can't. The faster you go, the more likely it is for me to miss it on the flow, speed at your own risk. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm generally at least listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :).

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters though, so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) or there's actual discrimination happening or it's drop the arg not the debater. Apologies can work.

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I have the same link standard for weighing as I do with voting issues. But weigh! Do it! Yes!

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, it’s still wrong. I have voted teams down and dropped speaks for bad evidence ethics. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to DURING ROUND, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

-Postrounding: As a debater, I had a saying: Even in rounds you believe SHOULD have won, there are always things you could do so you COULD have won. If it was unclear, it was unclear. You should have made it clear in your speech, don't try to clear it up with me post-round. Chances are, your postrounding will just reinforce my RFD in my head.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

- Thoughts: I try to be easy to read, feel free to take those signs; I generally don’t presume (tbh I think I just forget it's an option so I have to not understand ANYTHING going on - but feel free to discuss w me or make an argument why and for whom I should), I'll generally instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. My name is not judge.

Debate should be fun, so debate in a way that makes it fun.

P.S. if you have questions, want my flow after round, I’m running late, etc. text me! (425-635-8206).

Experience:

Rising Senior at Interlake High School

I am a flow judge.

Debated for 4 years:

- 4 years in public forum on the local and national circuit (Qualified for Nationals and TOC)

- 2 years in parliamentary (wasn't that good)

Preferences:

Speed:

I don't care how fast you speak as long as you are clear and what you are saying makes sense. If you intend on spreading, check with your opponents and be sure to send me a speech doc @ ishansinha2004@gmail.com

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, I don't have a preference. Give analysis on why your weighing mechanism is more valuable because it makes it SO EASY to sign my ballot i.e. severity is more important than magnitude so even if they win their entire case we still outweigh.

- If there is a specific policy being implemented i.e. UBI or Price Controls, I prefer a two worlds analysis. If the resolution does not specify a policy i.e. Increase Nuclear Power, I prefer a voters analysis.

Things I HATE:

- I love giving feedback and talking with excited debaters, but I am strongly against post-rounding/ pre-rounding. If I feel like you are trying to influence my decision after or before the round, it will result in an instant loss and 20 speaks.

- Debate is inclusive, everyone should have fun! I am strongly against sensitive issue cases i.e. anything to do with domestic violence, sex trafficking, etc.. It makes it sufficiently more difficult for your opponents to refute without looking like an ahole. HOWEVER, if you check with your opponents and they are okay with it, I will flow it normally.

- I HATE miscut evidence. While bad evidence may not completely sign my ballot, it will be reflected with a -1.5 in your speaks. I will call for evidence if 1) I feel that it may be misrepresented 2) If someone asks me to

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

she/xe pronouns ask if you don't understand that

i’m a senior in pf

i vote more tech>truth than truth>tech

pls extend ur warrants

i require content warnings if you plan on reading sensitive arguments. better to assume it is sensitive than not. if you want my full opinion/a cw theory shell check my wiki

email me if you hv questions novelisticme@gmail.com

PF PARADIGM:

2nd rebuttal should frontline. i'm not very comfortable voting off new frontlines in 2nd summary

analytics can equate to evidence if they are well warranted (half of pf is just reading basically blog posts as warrants, an analytic is not akin to a study but it definitely can match chen 18.) that said evidence without warrants is pretty useless in context to debate rounds.

if a piece of evidence is contested throughout the round i'll call for it myself. i will drop speaker points as well as arguments when teams knowingly use misconstrued cards to further their game. if your opponent reads theory about evidence ethics or suggests i drop you over ethics i'll probably go for it (if i can verify the violation they present me in your evidence).

i will understand vernacular/jargon. i'm fine with speed under 450 if the round is between noon and four pm, otherwise pls stay under 350. send speech docs if you plan on spreading and want me to be guaranteed to follow

i might listen to 1st and 2nd cross, probably not grand tho. i approve of using grand cross for non-strategic purposes such as discussing educational topics or if we live in a simulation

you can use a framework if you want to. i'm receptive to framing arguments like structural violence. pls cut topic specific evidence!!

theory arguments are chill with me, just know what you're doing when you read them. i don't have a lot of experience with kritical debate, i'm receptive to it but i may not understand it well enough to make a super satisfying decision. i wish pf had plans/cps tbh

Put my email on the chain: tanushyadav at gmail dot com (I love using SpeechDrop too if you'd rather do that)

Pronouns: He/Him

Interlake '22

——————— partially plagiarized from Interlake DB and Newport JQ ————————

Short Version: I WILL VOTE ON THE FLOW AND ONLY ON THE FLOW IT IS THE ONLY PLACE I HAVE JURISDICTION

Long Version:

i don't really see the point of telling you about me, but everyone seems to do it so here: i'm a senior at Interlake. i debated LD since freshman year. i won UPS in 10th grade and have qualed to the TOC once. go hawks

If you wanna do a traditional round, go for it. If you're in a novice round, I probably expect to see traditional debate. Don't spread a 6 min K Aff against a novice. Don't be that person. As for open / nat-circ, I'm down for whatever. Personally, I love reading Plans, CPs, DAs, Theory. I find Ks very interesting, just make sure you actually explain your K to me as if I've read none of that K's literature and you'll be fine. If you stand up and read 1 cap bad card and don't explain it in CX or 2N, it might be a tough ballot. That being said, I love seeing creative Ks, just explain it at some point without reading the card and you'll be chilling.

Theory: i default no RVIs, DTD, yes CI; i only use defaults to evaluate round if nobody makes any arguments about these paradigm issues whatsoever, which seems rather unlikely

Spreading: it's been a few months tbh since i spread/listened to spreading, if you do like 80% of your fastest spreading you should be fine. honestly, if you're not sure how fast to go, just try on the faster end of things and I'll say "slow" or "clear" if you've got to slow down.

Default Layering (again this is only if nobody makes arguments on it): Theory > Topicality > K > Case

Debate's a game to me but not to everyone, so be respectful no matter what.

Again, do:
* be respectful
* email / Speechdrop docs
* live laugh love

Don't:
* be a pain in cross-ex
* be shady about cards
* forget to extend
* be toxic
* be racist/sexist/etc (auto-drop if you do this)

and most of all, have a fun time. debate can be pretty stressful, but remember it's just an activity we do for fun. everyone in the community is trying to become a better debater and person, so be supportive.

good luck!