umich '27, debated 4 years for thomas s. wootton '23 on nat circuit, 2x toc

tldr:

speed ok, theory eh (see below if planning on running), tech > truth

start an email chain before round starts & add me: ruthdai077@gmail.com

please label said chain "tournament name, year, round, flight, team 1 code vs team 2 code"

in round:

preflow before round

no offtime roadmaps needed, just tell me where you're starting & signpost

i heavily prefer fw be extended in every speech but i won't hold it against u if you dont

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u spread: send speech docs (put in chain--don't put a locked doc). however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow--i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go ultra fast(but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be impacted out and implicated in rebuttal to be voted for. id also strongly strongly strongly prefer them to be weighed when introduced

i have a pretty low threshold for what i consider turns--but 10 word blips labeled as one wont be voted on

if you aren't using your opponents uniqueness for your turn, you have to introduce your own

defense is not sticky and must be implicated in every speech--i wont do it for you

*do not try to blow something up in the next speech when it wasn't implicated in the prior one--i will not evaluate it

i don't believe in uniqueness + probability + clarity of link/impact weighing but if its the only weighing i get ill evaluate it (the only time probability weighing exists is on the link level when the link chain is conceded. otherwise, it exclusively operates as defense)

comparative + meta weighing makes me happy

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics, otherwise, i default first (i am open to any alt presumption if this becomes a debate)

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

cross:

cross goes to the flow if brought up in next speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

open cross is fine

evidence:

carded warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or just cause

i don't accept cards that aren't cut

miscut ev gets speaks dropped and is knocked off the flow

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

start off every cross with a good knock-knock joke (bad jokes get bad speaks)

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

bring me a dunkin chai latte + hashbrowns and u will have my firstborn child

give me a 1 page mla format letter of rec for you from any of my old partners for 30 speaks

evidence challenges:

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

prog:

in all honesty i started off on the traditional circuit and never fully adapted to new tech and am not great at evaluating progressive. that being said, its the judges obligation to adapt so read (so long as it is inclusive) what you want, just know my best attempt at an rfd will probably not make you super happy.

theory:

if i believe there's an actual violation that endangers people in the round, the shell doesn't matter to me atp, ill just down the team

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

running theory just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

don't read paraphrasing overviews, just run theory atp

things i wont evaluate:

- tricks

- tko's

- 30 speaks theory

- an identity k that does not apply to u but applies to ur opponents

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (regardless of tourney rules) and im happy to disclose speaks, just ask

postrounding and being a sore loser are not mutually exclusive, im fine with the former not the latter

if you have any questions prior to the round or after feel free to email me(preferably ask me in the room, im a very lazy typer)

*side note: debate should be fun--run whatever makes you laugh (so long as your opponents are also okay with that type of round)

daniel (he/him)

if you have any specific questions ask me before round.

==========================================================================================

<< ONLINE DEBATE >>

1. evidence: if an email chain is made make sure to add me on it

2. general: mute yourself when not talking, keep track of your prep when reading cards (be honest !!)

==========================================================================================

<< PF >>

general stuff:

- tech > truth but the more squirrely an argument becomes the more work you'll have to do to convince me that it's a valid argument

- signpost throughout your speeches

- speed is fine but just make sure i can understand you, if you speak too fast, i'll stop flowing and just stare at you. please don't do that. it'll be awkward for the both of us.

- i think CX is binding but i won't flow it, if something important happens tell me in the later speech

- i presume neg by default but this should never happen, am open to other presumption args (e.g. 2nd, aff)

- if i am told to call for a card and i find that it contradicts what the person running it says i'll toss it out and pretend it was never mentioned

- i average 28 speaks

- please preflow before round, i won't let you do it in the room if the round should've started already because delays suck

- i like off-time roadmaps but it make it quick

good stuff

- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal

- comparative weighing -- simply throwing out buzzwords doesn't count, interact with your opponent's offense!

- warranting your evidence

"bad" stuff (avoid!)

- progressive args (theory, kritiks, etc.): not a "bad" thing perse but i don't have much experience with these at all so i can't promise i'll make a good decision over them (if theory is run make sure it's in response to actual abuse)

- don't call me judge, i think it's weird; speeches are directed towards me anyways

- don't read a framework that's just util (cost-benefit)

- card dumping

- just reading an author tag when extending evidence is not enough -- explain what the evidence says

- being rude during CX is very lame

I debated for four years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.

General Stuff:

• I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.

• I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.

• I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.

• I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.

• Please time each other. Keep each other accountable, don't rely on me for that.

Things I Do Not Like:

• I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.

• If you are blatantly racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks.

• Please be civil in crossfire (to a reasonable degree). Trust that I can recognize if someone is being abusive but also stand your ground when you feel it's appropriate.

If you have any questions please ask me before the round starts.

hey! long paradigms hurt my eyes so this is gonna be kinda short.

i think i am flow.

tech>truth

i'm a high school debater currently a sophomore but i've been debating for a couple years.

why is this funny to u ruth. stop laughing...

general:

1. i will evaluate any argument brought up by teams, won't do extra work, pretty self-explanatory

2. i am good with speed

3. usually won't call for ev, but if u tell me to i will

4. any sensitive topics pls read a TW

5. don't be sexist, ableist, racist, homophobic or exclusive in any way, i will intervene and most likely drop u. pls never compromise the safety of a debater :)

round:

1. signpost so I know where you are

2. good with roadmaps, just make it quick.

3. collapse. i'll only evaluate comparative weighing

4. second rebuttal pls frontline

5. rebuttalists, go line by line it's easier for both of us.

6. whatever you want me to flow and consider a voter in the round should be in summary and extended into ff. Defense sticky for 1st summary.

theory/prog

if ur case is triggering, PLEASE read a tw AND an opt out option.

i have hit theory but my rfd won't be great.

good speaks

good strat and fluency

make fun of ruth dai and her egg obsession and send video evidence.

use grand cross to roast lindsey wu's silver toc flex on her rfd.

take a series of pictures of abigail hill fixing her hair (it will happen a lot) and send pic evidence.

if u crack an amazing appropriate joke during cross and make me laugh

but i generally give high speaks tho

extra stuff

I'll always disclose

please time yourselves. I usually time but just end up forgetting.

If you have any further questions feel free to email me, angiegu822@gmail.com

post round me if u want to

biggest takeway is to roast ruth and have fun :))

Hi! I debated for 3 years on the circuit for Churchill (MD) and am now a sophomore at Penn.

tl;dr

I haven't seen a PF round in 2+ years and am not updated on the norms/trends, so you should probably treat me as a flay judge.

Here are some key points:

• Please be clear, signpost, and warrant well
• Collapse and weigh comparatively in the second half
• I'm probably worse at flowing than the average flow judge, so don't go too fast or you'll lose me
• Don't extend through ink
• Be nice
• I'm really not a fan of theory/Ks and don't understand them at all, so I'd strongly prefer if you stick to substance and will probably be biased against you if you run it for no reason. Like below, if there's a real violation, just explain it plainly

Feel free to read the rest of my old paradigm if you want, but the above points are the most relevant. If you do all of that I'll try to be generous with speaks. Let me know if you have any questions before round, and have fun!

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

I'd consider myself a normal flow judge, so just debate how you like.

General

- I like well-warranted and well-explained arguments. It makes it easier for me to understand and thus vote on.

- Please weigh your arguments comparatively! If you don't weigh (or its not comparative), I will have to do my own weighing, which might not turn out how you like.

- Tech > Truth, but the more ridiculous the argument the lower the threshold I have for acceptable responses to it.

- Collapse pls

- If you want me to vote on it, you should be extending it, not just saying "extend X, extend Y"

Speed

- I kinda suck at flowing, so try not to go tooooo fast. Generally, I can keep up, as long as you remain clear. If I think you're going too fast, I'll say "clear".

In Round

- Don't make new arguments in final focus.

- You should extend arguments that you want me to vote on in summary and final focus.

- Signpost

- I think it's strategic if second rebuttal frontlines responses in first rebuttal (but it's not necessary if you aren't comfortable with it)

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless its frontlined in second rebuttal), but if it's important you should still extend it in summary

- "They don't provide a warrant/the impact isn't contextualized" is a sufficient response for me.

Evidence

- I think paraphrasing is okay, as long as you have a card to back it up.

- I won't call for evidence unless I think it's important to the outcome of the round or unless I am explicitly told to.

Progressive Arguments (K, Theory, etc.)

- I don't think progressive arguments are good for the direction of the PF, and I would discourage you from running one in front of me. With that being said, if you choose to read a progressive argument,

1. You should explain it very well

2. I never had much experience with it in high school, so I will probably make a decision that reflects my lack of knowledge

- If you think there is a real violation in round, I think you should just explain and warrant it like any other argument (paragraph theory), and I will be inclined to vote on it.

Finally,

don't be rude, sexist, abelist, racist, etc.

Good luck and have fun!

read content warnings if your argument contains sensitive topics. send out an anonymous google form so that everyone can anonymously consent to the debate.

- don't spread

- not good at prog but i'll evaluate

RFD FOR POTOMAC INTRAMURALS

- be nice

- signpost (tell me where you are on the flow or i will become very sad)

- i don't have a lot of experience with prog but i'll do my best to evaluate it (i've hit it a few times) --> i would say that i'd rather not judge a prog round unless there's a serious violation

- tech > truth, but if an argument is super unrealistic i will accept weaker responses for it

- probably won't call evidence unless you tell me to in speech

- i don't flow card names, so extend warrants with it

- frontline in second rebuttal (or at least respond to any offense)

back half

- collapse (when you choose one argument and explain why it's the most important one in the round/ why you are winning)

- weigh comparatively

- no new args in second summary/ff (newly implicated weighing in 1ff is ok)

- dropped defense is sticky for first summary, but i think it's still a good idea to extend it

I have done Public Forum debate for an amount of time.

General:

- Tech > Truth > Tech > Truth > Tech > Truth

- Speaks range is 27 to 30.

Speaking:

- Speak loud enough so that I can hear you so I can flow what you are saying.

- Spread at your own risk.

Cards:

- I will call cards after round if it plays a decently sized role in my vote.

- Prep time will be run for the team calling the card as soon as they receive the card.

- If it is obvious that the opposing team is unable to produce a stated card, it will be dropped from the flow.

Prep time:

- I trust that each team will account for their own and their opponent's prep time. Feel free to interrupt if they go over their limit.

- Don't steal prep. Example: Calling a card and then proceeding to prep while the opposing team looks for the card, without taking prep yourself.

- If the opposing team is stealing prep, call them out right there and then.

Timing:

- I will time, but you should too.

- There is a 10 second grace period after the time is up for you to finish your sentence. After that 10 seconds, all words will be disregarded.

- If you continue to ignore the timer, speaks will be deducted.

Theory:

- Truth > Tech (kinda)

Speeches:

- Off time road maps should be simple. Signposting should do the rest.

Case:

- Respond to theory in second constructive.

- Not much preference otherwise.

- 30 speaks if you read more than 10 contentions.

Rebuttal:

- If you want to gain offense off turns, you have to contextualize your impacts.

- Try to number your responses (eg. On their C1, 3 responses. 1. abc. 2. def. 3. ghi.)

- When frontlining in rebuttal or first summary, just tell me what response number you are on. You don't really have to elaborate on what the response says.

- You MUST frontline in second rebuttal. Unless you want to drop case...?

- If your opponents read an unholy amount of turns on an arg and nothing else, you can read defense against your own arg. It's kinda funny.

- Collapsing in rebuttal is cool.

- Weigh.

Summary:

- Arguments not brought up in Summary will be dropped. In other words, DEFENSE (and offense) IS NOT STICKY.

- Don't bring up new points, evidence, or arguments in 2nd Summary (unless it is a backline) or beyond.

- I will drop any new points that the opponents bring up. Feel free to call them out for it in speech or after round.

- Weigh.

FF:

- Anything that you want me to vote off of must be mentioned in FF.

- Spend a good amount of time on comparative weighing.

Cross:

- Meh, I don't flow cross. Use it strategically though.

- Anything you want me to flow in cross should be brought up in future speeches.

Additional Notes:

- I will probably disclose unless I am told specifically not to.

- Feel free to challenge me on my decision.

- High speaks if you bring me chocolate.

have fun!

Current freshman at Georgetown, debated four years for Winston Churchill.

Standard tech judge, simple preferences:

• Please don't spread or speak too fast. I would very much prefer quality over quantity.
• Please weigh! Weighing helps determine my ballot 99% of the time, so if neither team weighs, I'll have to intervene, which is almost never a good thing. Doesn't have to start in rebuttal, but at least in summary.
• Extend your arguments properly including uniqueness, link, and impact. It's going to be very hard for me to vote on arguments that aren't extended with all 3.
• Warrant and implicate your arguments. Don't just make claims and then read an impact.

cant talk gettin swole

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.