Cathedral, Emory | sarang.arun17@gmail.com

—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty, bear w. me please

—TLDR: Debate however you like, and I'll attempt to adapt to you - you can do everything/anything you want to do in front of me as long as it's clear. Fair warning though, I'm not really experienced with evaluating Ks or theory or really any progressive arguments but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate them: it just means you'll need to explain the nuances of your argument to me more. I did circuit PF in high school, and I think that's still pretty flay/tame compared to other events.

PF

—Defense is not sticky (explicitly call out drops), 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything that the 2nd speaking team wants to go for in the back half, offensive overviews are fine in 2nd rebuttal, good defense extensions > bad weighing <=> good weighing > bad defense extensions, weigh link-ins (link turns) when first read or I won't evaluate them, you don't need to extend author names when extending an argument, extend all levels of the link chain, I'll default to competing interps, yes RVIs but you must respond to no RVIs adequately if read, collapse or I'll be annoyed, speak slower because I really dislike speed (I have a hard time flowing speed because of auditory issues, where words get jumbled), everything must have a warrant, be kind to everybody in the round, if both teams win offense at the end of the round and don't weigh I'll intervene arbitrarily, disclosure is a good norm (+1 speaks), reading cut cards are a good norm (+1 speaks), I'll rarely presume neg/first (what I end up doing in a given round is subjective)—if I have to everyone's speaks are capped at 27, the median speaks I give out are 28s (so, if you disclose and read cut cards, you start out with a 30), & I'll disclose barring any specific requests.

—Add me to the email chain - no google docs for evidence please, people unshare them after rounds and that's a) unfair to the other team that actually debated in the round b) gross because all you did was cut/find said evidence - it's not your intellectual property so don't be stingy; if you make a google doc despite my request, I'll cap your speaks at 28.

—Content warnings are good and you should read them (within reason, use your better judgement) & barring a legitimate reason (like Wifi problems if we're online), I won't flow off a doc so adjust your speed accordingly. I will clear you twice before I stop flowing; take that as you will.

—have fun & breathe; you got this. Let me know how I can make the debate round more enjoyable for you.

hey! i debate for national cathedral (ncs)! messenger me if you have any questions before/after round!

*specific to septober topic* i have debated 3+ tournaments on medicare for all so expect me to know most stock args (don't let this compromise your warranting/explanation of your arg though) :)

tldr: please weigh, weigh, weigh. gimme a clear link story that includes warrants. frontline (at least offense) in second rebuttal.

evidence:

1. probably won’t call for a card unless explicitly asked to

2. i will always prefer warranting over evidence

cross:

1. be friendly and polite :)

2. if it’s in cross, it must be in a speech for me to eval it

rebuttal:

1. signposting is key! tell me where you are on the flow and number your responses

2. if you are gonna spread i will need time to flow (lol send a speech doc too)

3. implications are good, don’t read a million cards and not tell me what they mean

4. quality > quantity

summary and ff:

1. should mirror each other; if it’s in ff it shoulda been in summary

2. COLLAPSE

3. extensions: extend the WHOLE arg, don’t have to extend card names if you extend warranting

4. weighing? yes, please. also, probability weighing is strength of link :/

prog:

1. not super duper familiar with this so please please if you run it be clear about your argument (send a doc tho!)

2. won’t respond well to tons of theory/tricks...most likely won’t vote off of it

misc:

1. i absolutely do not tolerate any -ist/-phobic rhetoric and will drop you

2. if you are funny/entertaining, i will give you higher speaks

3. BE NICE, we are here to have fun!

Obligatory flex about where I went to high school, how well I did at debate, where I'm going to college, how many years I've been coaching, how well my students have done, what I do professionally, etc. etc. etc. (for realz tho, I debated mostly pf for 4 years, some parli, some worlds, some congress)

email - caleb.brobst78@gmail.com

I'm an econ and political science major so while I'll go by the flow, you'll def hear about it post-round if u bs basic economics

there's a tl;dr at the bottom that tells you pretty much everything you need to know, but I just feel like longer paradigms that detail things are better than shorter paradigms, also I kinda just keep adding to this so there's definitely some repeat things(those are probably important) and some ramblings as I literally edit this whenever I think about debate
General housekeeping

- include me in the email chain plz, it makes it easier for me to look at cards cause the one's you'll contest are likely to be the ones you called

- if online, idc what you wear, if ur camera is on or not, try not to abuse prep time

- I also don't care what u wear if we're in person

- U can prep while the other side gets their cards, this promotes having ur evidence readily available, which u should so I don't get annoyed - leads to drop in speaks

- I don't care what side you sit on, I'd prefer if you faced me during your speeches

- Have cards/pdf ready, if you give the cut card of a study without the methodology and the other team wants the methodology you better google the card and get the methodology

- I'll time prep/speeches, after time for speeches is done, finish your sentence quickly, anything new I'll stop flowing and dock speaks

- Be nice, Ik debate is inherently aggressive so I understand things get heated, but attack arguments, not people, if you do attack people, I'll drop you, give you the lowest speaks tab will let me, and give the other team double 30s

- keep your computers/cards ready for me to read after the round, I will only call for them if the other team compares evidence/you guys disagree on what the card says. That is the only time I will intervene in a round. See later on evidence.

- During Cross I normally write out comments, but concessions in cross are def important so if they concede a warrant talk about it in speeches

- Don't say ur opponents dropped something when they didn't or that they didn't read something if they did. Idk if people think judges won't notice but I'm flowing, I will, and it will def tank ur speaks like nothing else and if its a close round might end up being part of my decision. Its not a good strat, its lazy debating

Here are some things about the round - General

- If you say that your opponents dropped something when they didn't, I won't drop you but your speaks will be significantly docked

- I won't flow any cards or new arguments brought up in final

- Please weigh, idc if it is at the top, the bottom, or in between but weigh with clear taglines, I don't think buzzwords (i.e. scope, risk, timeframe,) can be used instead of warrants, but I think they make weighing clearer for everyone in the round

- In terms of things that I like weighing wise, love uniqueness, I think probability is still offense, I'd make some sort of warrant why I should prefer it but in general I view it as common sense/how many alt causes is there for ur impact

- tell me why you're weighing mech matters, this decides a lot of close rounds and makes everything easier

- I know the norm is prefer warranting of evidence, but if your evidence sucks, (too old, not specific, wrong methodology) I won't buy it as long as the other team is smart enough to call for the card and tell me it sucks, (hint, hint, call for cards)

- I can handle some speed but if I don't know what you're saying, it doesn't go on the flow, and it doesn't get voted off of, (you'll be able to tell I don't know what it is, I'll stop flowing)

- Paraphrasing is good, you still have to have the cut card or be able to highlight the source where you find it from but in research, you almost never cite actual cut cards and instead paraphrase it, also makes ur read ur sources, and people who are going to paraphrase badly are also going to miscut cards

- Theories that I will for sure vote for: Social Distancing theory, mask wearing theory if we're in person

- Theories that you'll have to work hard to convince me of: Paraphrase, disclosure if reading it against small-school teams, if ya'll are from big schools or are super successful on the circuit you should probably be disclosing cause then you can access ur impact of norm-setting cause debaters look at what u do if no one knows who u r then idk how you're changing norms but if you have a warrant I'll buy it

- In really messy debates I find myself voting on a narrative, a lot of times this happens when teams don't collapse on a single thing in summary/1Rs

- That being said I'll def vote on turns if they're dropped so ya know, but if you're going to extend a turn and you read a de-link on it you'll need to tell me why you're de-link no longer matters

- I.E. the best way to read turns if you're going to go for them in front of me is read uniqueness and then read a turn, weigh the turn preferably when you read it or in the speech after it, or make the de-links not compatible with the turn

- I think rounds tend to come down to either me voting for the team that has offense because one team didn’t frontline sufficiently enough or both teams getting some access to their offense and me voting for whatever team wins the weighing battle, the second one is a lot more common

PF Specific

- Please only extend one case argument in summary, that doesn't mean I won't vote off of the other if you extend more than one, but unless the other team didn't give a rebuttal, extend one

- extend the best piece of defense/offense on the other team's case, please don't card dump at any time

- the first rebuttal can extend defense to first final focus only, but you have to frontline any response the other team gave it

- 2nd rebuttal has the obligation to frontline any offense first rebuttal reads, preferably collapse or start collapsing in the second rebuttal

- No new cards after rebuttals unless they directly respond to an argument the other team ran, I'm more lenient on this for the first summary, less for second

- Don't run theory, K's, or CPs unless the other team is ok with it and have agreed before hand

Parli/WSD

- Empirics are generally good

- Have warrants to back them up

- The negs job is to disprove the aff meaning that aff has the burden 51-49

- that doesn't mean I won't vote on off case neg args, aff u need to respond to them otherwise if they're comparatively weighed vs urs then u lose

- Don't bring up new args in the second speech if you have 4 speeches, its stupid, more lenient on this for aff cause they go first, less on neg (if u bring it up and don't go for it I won't drop u but I'll def give u a low-point win, esp if its a well-developed argument)

- Please weigh, esp in these events, and weigh links because often times it comes down to clashing warrants so give me a way to evaluate them

LD/Policy

- I probably shouldn't be judging this event unless its a local, but I know how to flow so if u put it on the flow and give me a way to evaluate it then I'll vote on it

- I have no conceptions about whether or not substance or theory or whatever comes first so please warrant this out if you're going for something like this otherwise you'll probably be mad when I vote on substance rather than ur high tech super cool theory shell

- If ur spreading u have to send a doc, I don't mind spreading or speed but if I can't hear you I can't flow it and then I can't vote on it, with that being said I'm not super well versed in flowing from doc as a judge

- Theory, K's, CPs, and other stuff here are all the norms so that's fine

- Frameworks are just weighing at the top

- Potlical DA's are normally kinda stupid, there was one that a lot of teams ran about how Trump passing Medicare for all would cause him to get re-elected and I thought that was pretty stupid, I mean they're cool in theory but trying to reduce all of American politics down to one link is probably not a smart idea but if you can do it and the other team doesn't respond to it then hats off to u

Congress

- each speech should respond in some way to the speech before it

- Congress is the time for well warranted, well researched nuanced stock arguments, I don't want to hear anything squirrely, no way out there stuff

- funding arguments are generally not the move unless there's a very specific alt that you can prove the money is being pulled from, just saying hey this money could do something instead isn't enough

- I love a good intro, wack a mole is pretty good, anything that ties into the topic is also nice

- Don't fake evidence, its easy to get away with but its annoying

- If you weigh, do any type of link comparison, impact comparison, or higher-level analysis I'll be very pleased

- Questioning probably doesn't play a huge role in my ballot, I probably use questioning to compare people with similar speeches, you won't win with better questioning over someone if you had worse speeches than them

- Don't be afraid to do straight rebuttals, as long as you attack the idea its ok, call people out by name cause its easier to take notes that way

- this is probably the only event I'm truth over tech, only cause there's not really a flow so

- Idk what to do if ur POing, expect somewhere in the 2-5 spot depending on how well you do, if you really suck I won't be afraid to rank u last

General Judging Philosophy

tech > truth, if you say the sky is purple and the other team doesn't respond to it, the sky is purple, this also means for extinction first, econ growth bad, etc. type args, I will buy them if explained well

Give me that sweet sweet uniqueness meta weighing

Idk if this will apply, but I've seen a lot of political DAs, I'll buy them if well warranted, but trying to reduce all of American politics down to one issue and then ignoring the fact that politics constantly changes by the day, maybe not the move

the above statement does not include racism good, single parents bad, etc. those will 100% of the time be voted down by me

I vote off the flow and the cleanest path to the ballot which should be given to me in weighing

tl;dr tech> truth, have good evidence, weigh, and second speaking has a higher burden in responding to stuff, don't say ur opponents dropped something when they didn't

Also Idk If I said this earlier, but in super messy rounds I tend to lean more towards the side of a cleaner narrative, not saying that the other side won't win, but just something that in general helps a team in a messy round

If you don't know what something means feel free to ask, happy to help

I think rounds tend to come down to either me voting for the team that has offense because one team didn’t frontline sufficiently enough or both teams getting some access to their offense and me voting for whatever team wins the weighing battle, the second one is a lot more common

This is my actual paradigm

Hi! Starting with the basics of the round, I'm a flow judge, and I look mainly at weighing and framework. If you are not able to give me a solid reason to vote for you, I'll probably give it to the other team or judge based on cost-benefit analysis, and you probably won't like either outcome. On Framework, please carry it through the round FULLY or else I wont count it into my decision. Same goes with the rest of your case, no sticky defense.

If you say anything Islamophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you will be dropped. This includes generalizations about the Middle East, any rebuttals that sound very ALMish etc. If you run this, you should strike me cause I will drop you with no hesitation, and I will give you the lowest possible speaks.

PLEASE DO NOT ADD BLIPPY ARGUMENTS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES. i love arguments that call out the injustices across the world, but don't bring it up just to get a cheap win in 2nd summary.

I do not care about anecdotes. Please bring facts to the round and cut cards.

Theory/K's: totally fine, make sure it works in the context of the round.

Speed: speed is good. Make sure you speak clearly.

Crossfire: Cross is an important time to poke holes in your opponents arguments, and if you want to bring up something that happened in cross in a later speech, i will flow it. However, I do not flow cross.

Rebuttals: Make sure your signposting and try to go down the flow, or else it will be harder for me to take what you're saying into consideration. Giving an off-time roadmap would be preferred, and generally please make your arguments more than "this is non-unique" or reading a card. Give me a reason to prefer your argument and drop theirs.

Please keep track of your own time, I won't be giving time stamps. If you call cards, I'll give you 3 minutes to find and send them and then I'm running prep. I refuse to flow through new arguments in summary or FF, so please do not bring them up. I will take off speaker points if you do.

Lastly, I'll add speaks if you make me laugh, mention a quote from the movie Zombieland, mention the title of a Greenday song, and read the paradigm:)

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

Hi! I'm Navin and hopefully, I'll be judging you today!

Some things you should keep in mind:

1) Please weigh your arguments, preferably as early as rebuttal. Weighing must be comparative (don't just state how big your impact is. Actually make a comparison against the other team's impacts).

2) Have a clear narrative from the beginning. From second rebuttal onward, it should be clear what arguments you are going for. I don't like shifty strategies where teams go for arguments that they only spent 10 seconds on in a previous speech.

3) Warrant your responses. I will not be compelled to believe a piece of evidence if you just say "x author says this therefore it is true." I need a justification behind the claim. If you want me to consider responses and/or arguments, warrants and links need to be extended in every speech.

4) Speed is not an issue for me. Just send a speech doc.

5) Evidence quality is important but it is the other team's responsibility to call out bad evidence ethics, not mine. I'm not going to drop you if you misrepresent evidence but I will be less compelled to believe your argument.

6) Civility in the debate space is extremely important to me. Do not be rude or make any offensive comments. Some snarky behavior I can handle. Repeated disrespectful comments and behavior will affect your speaker points and maybe even results.

7) Progressive arguments are not my cup of tea. However, as far as I see it, they function like any other argument, so as long as you structure it like a regular arg, I should be able to understand and flow.

8) Debate shouldn't be as stressful of an activity as it is. Too many people treat it as a competition at the expense of the enjoyment of the activity and the opportunity to share your beliefs. Persuasion and appeal are core parts of debate and will help you in the real world. So remember, have fun! :)

Good luck!

Questions before round? Contact me at navindurbhakula@college.harvard.edu or Navin Durbhakula on Facebook.

Debate judge with a decade under my belt. I've judged and coached for PF, Parli, and World School.

For all debate formats, I look for a good mix of evidence and reasoning; there isn't much point to solid facts if you can't present them in a convincing manner.

I allow for all speeds of debating but I should always be able to understand the speaker (in other words, no spreading).

Everyone should remain respectful of their judge and opponents during each round.

Hello! I’m a 1st year out from Chanhassen HS (Minnesota) and attending the University of Florida.

If you care about my experience: I joined debate in my sophomore year in High School, competing in PF all 3 years (and did congress once). I found success at locals and national circuit tournaments. I'm a 2x National Qualifier, breaking at nationals both my junior (top 65) and senior (top 45) years. I also broke at a few nat circ tournaments my junior/senior years.

Note for TOC: I have not judged since the Bronx tournament, and I am in the middle of finals week so please keep that in mind!

If you have any questions or would like to add me to the email chain: ellasfurman@gmail.com

Super short version: Standard Flay Leaning Tech judge, I will usually vote off the flow but recognize I am human and am subjected to my own biases depending on presentation. If you want to go tech, I would appreciate it if it didn't sound like a monotone mess and don't spread on me.

If you skip over everything else in my paradigm, at least read this. If you spread, you are guaranteeing you get below 27 speaks and if it's incomprehensible to the point that anyone must shout "clear" multiple times, you're likely going to lose. I have Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis and due to this, I cannot flow super fast arguments, that's not saying I will give up - but don't expect me to put myself through physical pain to catch everything. If you plan on spreading: strike me or emphasize the things you need me to catch. That being said, I do prefer conversationally quick debate and can flow 850-900 word (PLEASE stay below 1,000 words) rebuttals/case as long as your annunciation is good.

Here are my in round preferences:

Content/Trigger Warnings: YOU MUST READ ONE. If you have an issue with an argument presented in the round - you don't need a warrant for why something triggers you, just a general warrant for why it would be triggering in general and you don't need to disclose if you are triggered either. Run a shell, even informal and I will most likely vote on it

I will end the round if I deem it necessary for the safety of any competitor, and give the team responsible for the lack of safety a loss.

Stylistically: I am willing to adapt to teams, but keep in mind that I do have a preference towards techier debate but don't spread "uniqueness controls the direction of the link" and if you do you will get a "cool" on my flow. Again, don't spread (seriously, don't). Don't flow through ink, I vote off of any offense at the end of the round.

On Presumption: I honestly believe that the ones about speaking order or the "status quo" are a waste of time, if there is a SYSTEMIC disadvantage (i.e sexism, racism, etc) that you say I should presume you on - I would absolutely be down for that.

On Theory/Ks/Progressive debates: I will listen to any progressive arguments and am willing to vote off of it, I’ve ran theory myself and also have some experience with Kritiks (having run the majority world K, and an ableism rage K) but don't read like high-level kritiks without explaining it to me and how I should evaluate it. Also, I don't think that there really can be an Alt in PF debate since usually, that would be a counterplan... which is illegal...

Friv: Disclosure theory (if you're reading this against a small school), shoes theory, or any shells of the sort. I will most likely not vote on it, especially if you're running it against novices because I think friv theory, in general, is really bad for debate.

I default to competing interpretations for most shells unless you can tell me why I should intervene with reasonability.

Furthermore, as a female-presenting former debater, I am well aware of the microaggressions that exist within this community.

Male PFers: Your voices are naturally louder and deeper than womxn debaters. Do NOT speak down or over womxn opponents. I don’t want ANY questions regarding your opponents' knowledge on the topic, or anything of that sort. It’s degrading and inappropriate. If you do I will either drop you or at least tank your speaks because of this. (I have had personal experience with it, and it's why there is such a gender gap in PF)

Finally, I will not tolerate any racism, homophobia, xenophobia, antisemitism, ableism, or anything of the sort. This will not only result in the lowest possible speaks but also a drop.

Speaks:

I think speaks are meaningless and are extraordinarily subjective. I'll start with a 30 for everyone, and lower it if you're problematic or disregard my paradigm.

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

I have been doing Public Forum for about 4 years, and I was the Novice Director at Brooklyn Tech. Overall, I love judging and I really do enjoy giving you feedback on how to grow as a debater.

If you do disclose please email me your case, it makes it easier for me to flow the round and decide who should win the round, my email is nabila.hoque2004@gmail.com.

1. Theory: YES. I love it when people run theories. However, you have to realize you're fighting an uphill battle since many judges won't know how to evaluate that. I, however, am bored and get excited about interesting arguments. The well-argued theory makes for interesting debates. This, for example, is how you call people out on rulebreaking - don't just say "it's illegal/not allowed," make it an argument with impacts.

2. Card-calling: I believe that being able to call for a card is an important strategic tool. That means it should be used, get this, strategically. You should have your cards ready and it should not take that much time to get it, however, if you are taking a long amount of time I will start running your prep.

3. Crossfire: Crossfire is your time to clarify. Don't expect me to write any argument you make during crossfire because it won't happen. Instead, follow up on strong points during your next speech. Finally, resist the urge to engage in shouting matches, it will definitely cost you speaker points and is a terrible use of everyone's time.

4. Attitude. If you are rude to either your opponent or me I will deduct your speaker points and if your attitude is off the charts I will give the other team the win regardless of the flow. Overall, be nice.

5. Rebuttals. Signposting is something I want to see all throughout the debate, however, in rebuttals it is key. I like off-time road maps and I expect that you should follow your off-time road map during the speech. I also want a logical and concise analysis of the faults of the opponent's argument, not just "this card says otherwise." Tell me why their argument is faulty and why your argument is better.

Speaker Points

30 - If you run a good meme case/if you speak with an eloquence that can only be personified by someone like Barack Obama/Best speaker in the tourney in my opinion.

29 - If you speak really well with minimal error.

28 - Good job but you can use some improvement.

27 - You need improvement, but it's only an upward climb.

26 - There's a lot of room for improvement. Don't get down if you receive this from me. The debate is all about improvement, and if you attain this score then I will definitely give you tips on how to improve and better yourself in the verbal and digital feedback.

25 - Why are you here?

24 - If I have to go down here then you should go to policy/LD/Parli/Anything that isn't PF...

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.

she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu

competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist

general notes

tech > truth

please preflow before the round

i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments

love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)

warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence

can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread

if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.

won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches

rebuttal

must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)

implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round

summary + final

defense isn't sticky

collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it

progressive argumentation

i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it

i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning

have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate

other notes

i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round

if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give

if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round

Hi! My name is Zach, and I'm a high school Senior. I've actually never judged PF before, but I've done a lot of Model UN, Model Congress, and Government Club. Along with that, I keep up to date on the news, and have a particular interest in offshore fisheries policy; all that said, this is my first time judging, so using complicated debate jargon won't score you any points. Also, I don't flow.

hi!

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

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

misc:

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

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

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

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

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

round:

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

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

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

4. defense is not sticky 4 first summary. 

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

weighing:

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

2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist. 

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

prog: 

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

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

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

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

5. no tricks.

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

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

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 !!

I am a flow judge. if you want me to consider a point in my RFD, you must state it cohesively in your speeches and ensure that you bring up important points. if it’s not on my flow, i won’t consider it.

speed: i’m all right with speed as long as you’re speaking legibly and i can comprehend your words enough to note them down. i don’t see any benefit or reason to spread but if you do, it’s your choice. remember, you’ve to win the judge over, but if they can’t understand you, there’s going to be some problems.

evidence: statistics > anecdotal/theoretical evidence. your argument must be supported by sourced evidence consistently. don’t simply state an argument and expect me or your opponent(s) to buy it. if asked for a card, you must be able to provide. if you ask your opponent for a card, the time you take to view the card will be deducted from your prep time.

*REMEMBER TO SIGNPOST* begin your speech by saying “my framework is...” or “contention 1...” it makes it easier for both the judge and your opponents to flow your case.

i love seeing active clash during crossfires. be quick on your feet and attack your opponents, defend valiantly, and win every single battle. you might not win the round for being able to handle crossfires well, but you will be rewarded with good speaker points.

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical

The most important thing to be aware of in my round (and any round) is that you will immediately be dropped from the tournament if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Please be aware of the way you speak to your opponents. For whatever reason, sometimes debaters think being condescending is a good strategy. It’s not. Your speaks will be dropped if you are guilty of that.

Speed - I’m totally ok with speed as long as it is comprehensible. If you fear that it’s not, please send a speech doc. I also encourage sending a speech doc anyway because it makes sure that debaters with internet issues are not disadvantaged.

Evidence & Speeches - I only flow what you say in your speeches. I will watch the crossfires but I will not take notes of any kind. As for evidence brought up in the round, I prefer empirics and the least amount of paraphrasing as possible. If your opponents do not call out an issue with your evidence, I will flow it through onto your side. Please provide analysis & warranting with any cards you use. Pointing out faults in arguments is useless without some kind of logical analysis. Do not assume that I will use “common sense” to make decisions for you in the round. Everything you want and don’t want to be flown through needs to be explicitly stated.

Please make sure all of your arguments have links. I will flow arguments with messy linkage through, but it will be much easier for your opponent to convince me to drop them. Additionally, anything brought up in FF that was not extended in summary will be dropped.

Tech over truth.

Theories/K’s - I actually enjoy hearing these when its beneficial to the debate space, and not a ploy to win. Feel free to run it.

Weighing/Impacts - This is what I am going to make my decision off of. The team that does it better wins the ballot. If neither team weighs nor impacts efficiently, I'm forced to decide based off of who I think has the stronger arguments. I really don't want it to come down to that, because it requires judge intervention.

I am open to sending my flow/ further reasoning for decision if you request it.

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical High School (2018-2022).

TL;DR: Just debate good.

Strike me:

- If you are _____-phobic or _____-ist. This is an automatic drop for me. I don't care how much you are winning on the flow, making the debate space safer comes before substance.

- If you don't cut cards properly. If I want to evaluate a card, I don't want to cut it for you mid-round.

- If you steal cases or prep from other teams without asking.

Speaker Points:

- I'll generally inflate speaks if it's an important tournament because I don't want my biases or preferences to decide your seed.

- Speak clearly, although you can safely get away with spreading if you send a speech doc.

- It's impressive when you can outsmart your opponents rather than speak better than them. If you can do something big brain, speaks go up.

- I don't care what you do in cross. If you can make me laugh, speaks go up.

- If we ever go back in person, bringing me snacks is an automatic 30.

Extensions and Weighing:

I will automatically assume that any points you don't extend after second rebuttal are dropped and I expect that you collapse on at least one argument during your summary. If you expect me to vote on random points that you gave throughout the round or a rebuttal to your opponents' contention, that will not be convincing enough for me. I'd rather have a fully fleshed-out argument or fully fleshed-out turn to your opponents' argument to vote on rather than fragments of reasons why your side is better.

Make sure you weigh effectively and convincingly as early as possible! If you were losing the whole round but win on weighing at the very end, you have the round right there.

Evidence:

What ever happened to debaters talking about the credibility of sources? You don't necessarily have to mention it in round, but be wary of what sources you use and call out your opponents' sources if they're faulty. If I end up calling for the card at the end of the round because you didn't explain it enough, trust me, I do not care if your uncle wrote a shady article in the New York Post about extinction being imminent, I will vote it down.

I would prefer the least amount of paraphrasing as possible to avoid falsifying the sources you use. Imagine that the author of the source is listening to the round; they should generally agree with you, not shake their head in disappointment. Never assume that I will use logic or make decisions by myself, you must tell me everything that you want, and don’t want, me to flow through.

Speech Formatting:

I expect the second rebuttal to include frontlines to arguments brought up in the first rebuttal. I'm down for whatever strategic method you may have in terms of organization, but summary (especially second summary) is the most important speech in the round so make sure that it effectively explains the position you are in and why it is the best position to be in. As most judges say, your final focus should be my RFD, try to make me think as little as possible by the end of the round. Stay away from bringing up new evidence/arguments in both summary and FF as your opponents will call it out and I won't flow it through.

I am all good with theory debate and progressive rounds as long as you can make them work in the CONTEXT OF PF DEBATE.

send link chains to markop@princeton.edu if you intend to spread

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at Princeton University studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I personally do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is actually useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is actually occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I absolutely love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

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!

I will not intervene against any argument that has a warrant and has an implication on how I should be writing my ballot. I feel most comfortable evaluating topical rounds. I will evaluate any arguments about why things other people do are unfair or are bad for debate. I typically look to the argument that is best weighed assuming a reasonable probability of it happening with rare exceptions that you should delineate in the round. Answer all offensive arguments in the rebuttal speeches and answer rebuilding arguments/ frontlines when extending defensive arguments. The earlier the better.

A little about me :)

Marcus Repsher

I have done PF for 5 years among other speech/debate events

Student at Bixby highschool

What I consider interventionist on the judges part and I will not do

I will not call for evidence unless told to by your team

I will not decide if a teams argument is factually based on my own knowledge of the topic that is up for you to prove to me

I will not ask clarifying questions after the round

my job as the judge is to simply observe all information presented to me and the way you want me to interpret it so please tell me how

Debate stuff

I will evaluate literally any k, shell, or random theory (within reason...) just make your interp clear, if you decide you want to change the norms of debate and turn this into a theory round I'm 100% behind you if you can make your line of reasoning sound and explain violations etc.

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean I enjoy hearing shoe theory or the like.

Flow/tech judge

Tech > Truth almost 100% of the time

Debate is not a game and is to be considered much more than just that rudimentary definition. Remember the topics you discuss often have real-world impacts that affect others and or your opponents, debate isn't always about the ballot.

TW/CONTENT WARNING/Misgendering

I am a firm believer in TW theory and the violence that can be caused by debaters not reading content warnings before potentially triggering topics. I ask that you read your case before the round and consider with each contention if it needs a CW, if there is even a question about the contention needing one please include it before the content is read. If your plan is to read a case that includes potential triggering content as most topics have, please include some format of an anonymous opt-out system and a backup case/contention. If in the event these standards are not met I am fully prepared to drop the debater or tank their speaks. If you have any questions about this/your case please speak to me before the round or coin flip. I will fight tab about dropping the debater who violates this before I allow debate to become an exclusionary event.

TKO
At any time you can Invoke a TKO (Technical knock out) and I will end the debate there with a win to your team and award you 30 speaks, however if not your speaks will be set at 20. This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you’ve solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate BUT only do this if you believe that your opponent has absolutely no route to the ballot.

Some other stuffs

Run whatever you want, I will do my best to follow. Judge adaption is a sorry excuse for lay judges to be lazy and not actually learn debate.

You may read your cases as fast as you would like, but if you would like me to flow key cards or points please slow down on them or send me your speech doc.

If you plan on running very long link chains please explain them to a full extent or include me on an email chain- marcus.repsher@gmail.com

if evidence is asked for at the end of a round please make sure the entire card is at least an 8 point font or I assume you don't want me to read it.

If in Lincoln Douglas, the same goes for card font also if your running unique Criteria or Value please explain them to the full extent if you wish for them to be flowed.

I usually value tech over the truth but I do not think in a strict offense/defense paradigm. Terminal defense, presumption, and negligible risk are possible.

post rounding is acceptable if you have nice things to say or questions for me or your opponent, post rounding is not the time nor the place to argue my RFD, if you absolutely disagree with my RFD please take it to your coach or a tournament director arguing with me in round will get you nowhere.

PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum is an evidence-based debate.

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss, unless offered a framework or observation this is how i will judge your round.

I do not mind sitting during grand cross, during 1st speaker and 2nd speaker cross i do prefer you stand.

There is a difference between being assertive and rude.

I will assume you to be well versed in the rules in public forum, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

If you don't offer a framework of what you need to prove to win or the opponent needs to prove, i will hold your opponents framework in the round (technically you should just adopt their framework but you get the idea), If neither of the teams offer one I will decide the round over the weighing that has been offered to me.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges I do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather than "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

Lincoln Douglas

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss. Of course other factors will be taken into consideration but this is the very basics.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

There is a difference between being assertive and rude, please understand the difference.

You can stand or sit during cross, doesn't matter much to me.

I will assume you understand the rules of Lincoln Douglas debate, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

Please understand these are the absolute basics of how I will judge your round. Of course other factors will influence my decision, but that is tailored to each round.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges i do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather then "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

General rules

I do not tolerate mansplaining

I'm not an interventionist judge in any sense I weigh the round how you tell me to, I will, however, become interventionist when you become homophobic, racist, transphobic, or any other form of bigotry.

If you are going to spread, please ask all parties involved before the round starts (aka case reading).

If you ask me to disclose after round, I will but only if asked.

Do not trap your opponents into some terrible tunnel vision of a framework. (I know this doesnt translate to everyone so if you have a question about this ask me before round)

Please keep cross as professional as possible, I understand the want to prove a point, this does not mean you can be rude to your opponent.

Please take any critique that I give you to heart, I am in no way a snobby judge who will get mad if you move your hands too much, I really wish for you to do better.

Of course all of this goes deeper and if I listed all rules I think debaters should follow we would be here all day. The most important rule is for you to go to a tournament and enjoy yourself, debate is in no way meant to be a exclusive rude community.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ASK BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS

FOR YALE 2022 LD: I have never debated LD in my life, BUT i have a pretty decent understanding of debate in general?? Just stay away from LD-specific jargon, be logical, and u should be fine. Pls do read the rest of my paradigm though for a sense of my preferences as a judge - though it's geared toward PF, most norms still apply. (i.e. i do 100% expect content warnings as outlined below).

******

hello and welcome! i debated pf for montgomery blair and am a pretty standard judge. the tl;dr is that i expect clear warranting, impact extensions, weighing (!!), all the usual stuff. i genuinely think lay debate is more important than flow so u might want to consider me a flay judge for all intents and purposes.

you need content/trigger warnings, and i would HIGHLY recommend an opt-out process. if you do not provide them and read a potentially triggering argument/impact, i will drop you + give you extremely low speaker points (subject to tournament rules - FOR PFI: i won't/can't drop you for not giving a cw). i will remind you of this before the round in case you did not get a chance to read my paradigm.

if you don't know how/when to read a warning, read sean wallace's post here. you can also email me at anika.seth@yale.edu (or with any other questions).

i'm generally quite lax and happy to adapt to whatever round you give me (if there's a different paradigm you want me to judge under and both teams agree, that works just lmk), but i do not tolerate rudeness or discrimination of any kind. debate should be fun! anything deliberately unkind is grounds for lowered speaks, and if blatantly offensive/egregious, for an automatic loss (subject to tournament rules).

in round:

1. i value cross. won't flow it unless you refer to cross in a later speech, but i am paying attention! be assertive but not aggressive. i will be very unhappy and lower your speaks if you are aggressive/disrespectful at any point in the round (incl cross)

2. do not call cards just to waste time. do not prep while your opponent is looking for a card. to the team pulling up a card: i know it can be hard, but please please PLEASE add links ahead of time -- don't just give the other team the cut version (context is important!)

3. time yourselves. knocking, raising your hand, and waving a timer in your opponent's or even your partner's face while they are speaking, etc. isn't cool. i'm pretty lenient and will let you finish your sentence, but don't abuse this.

4. you can curse if u want as long as it's not derogatory or aimed at anyone in the round

5. kind of an aside but probability weighing is pretty silly to me. weigh thoughtfully and productively - don't just use buzzwords

6. second constructive also giving rebuttal is probably my favorite thing ever pls do it

7. if it's not in the backhalf i'm not voting on it. extend clearly enough that summary and final are enough to get the whole gist of the round

8. use ballot-directive language. explicitly tell me what ur voters are. it makes my life so much easier (and yours too)

9. without a warrant i'm not buying it. warrant everything, even if analytically (tbh i prefer analytical warrants & responses)

10. if you have questions, comments, concerns, whatever feel free to ask me right after or email me later. i'd rather you ask than be upset later

11. be courteous to your opponents (and your partner!) after the round!

on theory/prog debate:

1. in general, know that i firmly believe that you should only run a progressive arg if you legitimately believe it. please do not run theory just because. there is no way for me to know if you believe it or not, but it really irritates me when debaters try to perpetuate norms that they don't even fully understand

2. don't run theory if your opponents are not comfortable with it. i will ask both teams before the round about comfort level w/ progressive argumentation -- hold me to this! don't run theory if your opponents explicitly say they're not okay with it! there are some (very, very valid) exceptions for legit in-round abuses

3. run whatever you want on me and i will evaluate it, but be warned that i'm not very well-versed in kritiks especially and don't know the conventional way to eval tech progressive args. just make it pretty clear and lay-friendly and we should be fine

This paradigm will be displayed publicly on the main Tabroom site, and will also be linked off pref/strike sheets for tournaments.

Please bear in mind that paradigms are public, geared to an educational audience, and have your name attached. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in your paradigm being removed. We might also lock or delete your Tabroom account.

In other words, be mature, and good people.

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

Hello!

So glad to see everyone on campus this weekend!

I am a sophomore at Harvard competing primarily in APDA. I did a significant amount of PF in high school (Richard Montgomery HS) and won the tournament in 2022.

I'm ready to evaluate any arguments you'd like to run. That being said, please

1. Weigh
2. Warrant
3. Have high-quality evidence
4. Consider theory sparingly. I am relatively unfamiliar with evaluating these arguments at a technical level.

Most of all, take it easy. I hope that good argumentation and the best debates are exciting and fun for all involved.

If you'd like more details about my judging, this paradigm by a teammate is quite representative.

Flow judge who will adapt to the debaters. Debate in a way that you enjoy & makes everyone comfortable!

howdy! i'm lawrence (any pronouns) and i did pf at montgomery blair. i now study environmental studies at yale where i do a bit of coaching. if anything here doesn't make sense/if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, contact me at lawrence.tang@yale.edu!

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

im a bit detached from the debate community. i will still draw cool extension arrows but you shouldn't assume i know anything about the topic or ur uber-cool groundbreaking meta-strategy.

general thingies

i will evaluate any argument as long as it isn't violent, exclusionary or compromises anyone's safety (be it bigoted arguments or lack of warning)*. include content warnings and an anonymous opt-in process. all participants in a round (including judges) need to opt-in. here's an example of an opt-in form!

i can handle most pf speeds but i'm also a bit rusty. don't use speed as an exclusionary tool.

no big emphasis on evidence -- how you spin your evidence matters more. i encourage cards though. i'll avoid calling evidence unless it's impossible to resolve the round otherwise.

i have a pretty bad poker face.

i view debate as a game of probabilities with every round having some uncertainty left up to the judge (weighing impacts, evaluating defense, etc). you should minimize that uncertainty and maximize the probability that i vote for you. assume that i'll make some mistake -- i'm not a robot!

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

• signpost and respond to arguments in the order they're made

• err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, many args I've seen have been super blippy/unwarranted and have left me pretty confused

general rule: the later an argument is made, the less weight i'll give to it. defense is sticky for first summary. don't read defense on your own offensive. concede defense immediately after the speech it was read in.

tempted to say probability weighing doesn't exist. if both teams give me weighing that's cool but i don't know how to resolve that so please interact with the weighing already read.

everything you want me to vote off has to be in final focus even if it's conceded. you don't have to do as much work but please at least breathe on them.

if i can't resolve the round without intervening, i'll presume whoever lost the flip.

progressive stuff: above-average understanding, but don't be exclusive

my defaults are:

• disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, but theory on these is iffier

• fairness is not a voter, rvis bad, CI > reasonability, drop the argument over debater

Phil/FW - some background knowledge but not much. make sure you're not just regurgitating weird academic language and actually explain ideas in normal english.

T - tbh i don't think i've run across a pf situation that needed a t shell. you're fine just saying something is non-topical. i also disagree with the nebel t.

Theory - most shells in pf are fluff. absent legitimate abuse in round, i'll vote on theory but i won't like it. disclosure and paraphrasing are more valid but still iffy.

Kritiks - i wrote a cap k once. familiar with some lit (biopower, orientalism, setcol) but not from debate pov. your strategy can't rely on background knowledge or me reading your evidence. iffy on arguments that weaponize identity or structural violence for the sole sake of a ballot. if you're reading these arguments, be genuine.

other things

• ask as many questions as you want. postround me. i'm always learning and would love feedback!

• always looking for more music, book (literally any type of media) recommendations, so if you have any hidden bangers please lmk!

*given my positionality, i recognize that i'm not neutral and cannot operate under a veil of objectivity. i don't trust my judgment in determining what is violent. however, i fail to see a better alternative :(

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Background:

(he/him/his)

PF mostly with some LD

Tabula Rasa

Tech>Truth

Speed is fine (my listening comprehension has gotten worse with more years out of debate. Plz j give speech docs)

Please signpost, especially in later speeches!

Speech Docs --> +speaker points

I like progressive argumentation

-I hack for disclosure and paraphrasing theory, though you should warrant it properly

-K alts should be well-developed and thorough

-Performance is encouraged! Let me know if I can assist in any way possible.

-Please don't use this type of argumentation to insensitively meme. I'm not gonna stop you, or necessarily not vote for you, but you run the risk of ruining the vibes.

2/2 split is highly encouraged and I'll be sad if you don't split 2nd rebuttal in any capacity

I don't pay attention to CX, if y'all want to ignore it and prep better rebuttals/summary/final focuses I'm all for it.

I LOVE when debaters take big strategic risks like dropping their entire case and going for an undercovered, slightly blippy turn.

Zoom Debate sucks. If y'all wanna keep your cameras off, go for it.

Please be conscious of the language you use and the choices you make. We want the round to be a safe space.

I'll disclose, and feel free to post-round me however much you want.

Email: shrayes.upad2004@gmail.com and ask me any other questions you want before the round, preferably with at least someone from both teams present.

I did nat circuit PF from 2018-2022 but I am hard stuck -1 IQ so pls dumb stuff down!

I prefer 1st summary frontlines turns at minimum and 2nd summary address all voting issues

1 other peeve, I rlly prefer u email all the ev u plan to read in a speech before you do it to the other team (+ me if u want), separately "calling evidence" only should be done in a "so where does your evidence say xyz??" kind of clarification. Too much prep skewing going around. Or just disclose but if u disclosed u should have the stuff ready to pull up anyways

If u do the ev stuff + are nice to the other team I'll give u 30s. Thx :)

Not voting on tricks/friv

Other than that debate how you want to

Thanks homies

.

junzhix@upenn.edu

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

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

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

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

hi, i'm irene!! i did pf at sidwell for a few years. if you need help after the round or really anything, my email is irenezhao29@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain)

i am begging you to fully extend your offense (uniqueness, link, impact), then comparatively weigh it against your opponents' arguments. also, collapse: you only need 1 piece of good offense to win a round.

the current trend on the circuit of reading 6 billion contentions and dumping seven million incomprehensible responses in the front half and then pretending to "clarify it all" in the backhalf is really upsetting to me. i would much rather you have a narrative from the getgo and flesh it out throughout the round. i will not vote on blippy turns. turns, like all offense, need warranting and FULL EXTENSIONS (uniqueness, link, impact + weighing).

other stuff

a) nothing is sticky, 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

b) read trigger warnings/be tactful - please be nice!!!

c) not the best judge for prog stuff -- of course, willing to vote on any well-warranted, well-explained argument -- i just have very little jargon/bg knowledge. i tend to really dislike jargon-heavy theory debates + k debates where people are clearly just reading off backfiles.

d) there's nothing wrong with slow debate! i despise flowing off docs. LIKE ACTUALLY FLOWING OFF DOCS MAKES ME SAD