Potomac Debate Summer Camp Session 3
2020 — Rockville, MD/US
Debate judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
standard flow: tabula rasa judge, can handle speed, theory ok, tech > truth, don't be rude
i like short offtime road maps(as long as you follow it)
tech > truth (blatant lies = lower tolerance)
im good with wonky args just spend more time explaining them
spreading is dumb but if u do it send speech docs and be clear
warrant everything out, don't just card dump
a-ok with 2nd rebuttal overviews/da's
defense is sticky
uniqueness + probability + clarity of link/impact weighing DOES NOT EXIST
will only evaluate new ff weighing if there's literally no other weighing(but please don't make me do this)
preferably time yourselves and your opponents
i default the squo in policy topics, otherwise, i default first
i will never intervene. if weighing is not done or never comparative and that's what the round comes down to, i will default.
only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, or for educational purposes
dk why speech docs are necessary if u don't spread, wont hold it against u if u don't wanna send one to ur opponents
i will be sad if the card is not cut
blatant misconstruing is pretty trashy
take a long time pulling up cards
ur rude/condescending/racist/sexist etc.
based off strategy & speaking
if u start off every cross with a GOOD knock knock joke
if u nerf gun abigail hill = 30 speaks(must LAND the shot + give video proof)
bring me a grilled cheese from starbucks please and thank u (bonus points if u get them to warm it and cut the crust off)
READ A TRIGGER WARNING + GOOGLE FORM OPT-OUT OPTION
don't read paraphrasing ows, just run theory atp
i like theories if they're properly run + not friv(but i don't have much experience with them so do it at ur own risk)
i will not evaluate 30 speaks theory
never ran or hit a k but ill evaluate it as best as i can
*please don't run dedev, i will cry
dk what they are, please don't run them-i will be lost and confused and probably wont vote for you
out of round:
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)
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 >>
- 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
- 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.
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.
i'm a high school debater currently a sophomore but i've been debating for a couple years.
1. i will evaluate any argument brought up by teams, def won't do extra work
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 :)
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.
umm not super familiar, never ran it but i will try my best to understand it. rfd prob won't make sense tho
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, email@example.com
post round me if u want to
Have fun :))
Hi! I debated for 3 years on the circuit for Churchill (MD).
I'd consider myself a normal flow judge, so just debate how you like.
- 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"
- 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".
- Don't make new arguments in final focus.
- You should extend arguments that you want me to vote on in summary and final focus.
- 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.
- 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.
don't be rude, sexist, abelist, racist, etc.
Good luck and have fun!
If you have any questions, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or message me on Facebook (Joey Huang)
hi! i'm christine (she/her)
for the email chain: email@example.com
here's my paradigm, but feel free to ask questions b4 round
- IF YOU SAY SOMETHING OFFENSIVE I WILL DROP U IMMEDIATELY (whether it's blatant or implied)
- i shouldn't even have to say this but respect pronouns
- i don't flow crossx, but i do pay attention for speaks (if it's important, say it in speech) and i also dislike rlly loud aggressive crosses so be nice to eachother
- signpost (tell me where you are on the flow or i will become very sad)
- pls make offtime roadmap concise
- warrant your arguments
- i don't have a lot of experience with theory, so i wouldn't recommend running it
- tech > truth to some degree, i would be a lil uncomfortable voting for a really blippy argument unless it's super well warranted
- probably won't call evidence unless you tell me to in speech or if it becomes a really big issue (unless it's online debate, put me in the email chain)
- things that are lame: card dumping & disad dump in 2nd rebuttal
- WHEN U EXTEND CARDS ALSO EXTEND THE WARRANT (ex. if you say "extend the our kim evidence" and don't tell me what the kim evidence says i will not consider it an extension)
- "it doesn't have a warrant' is enough of a response for me if it's true, but you should probably still respond
- collapse (for ms/youngers: it's when you choose one argument and explain why it's the most important thing in the round)
- weigh comparatively
- no new args in second summary/ff (if your opponent does this all you have to say is that it's new and i'll count it as a response)
- not in summary= i drop from flow (unless it's first summary u don't have to extend dropped defense, but i still think it's strategic if u do)
- new weighing/implications is fine in first ff but not in second (that being said, u should always try to weigh early and i will be a little more cautious on voting on large quantities of new weighing that comes in 1st ff --> this is just so 2nd ff knows to respond to the weighing)
for speaks (tbh i give pretty good speaks)
- be nice, if you're rude i'm going to look at you ugly
- good warranting throughout the round will guarantee good speaks
- im fine with most speeds but if you spread, send a speech doc
- you can keep your own time but i'll also time if you want
- you can finish your last sentence if you're over time
- make your frameworks strategic (don't be like "if we win we win")
- postrounding: my old paradigm said no postrounding but i think that was kind of misleading so what i mean is that y'all can and should ask me any questions you have about my decision but do not try to actively change it by undermining your opponents
- if i can tell you are acc listening to my rfd/ asking questions in attempt to further your debate education i will probably up your speaks
- cameras on is preferred :)
I have done Public Forum debate for an amount of time.
- Tech > Truth > Tech > Truth > Tech > Truth
- Speaks range is 27 to 30.
- Speak loud enough so that I can hear you so I can flow what you are saying.
- Spread at your own risk.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Truth > Tech (kinda)
- Off time road maps should be simple. Signposting should do the rest.
- Respond to theory in second constructive.
- Not much preference otherwise.
- 30 speaks if you read more than 10 contentions.
- 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.
- 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.
- Anything that you want me to vote off of must be mentioned in FF.
- Spend a good amount of time on comparative weighing.
- 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.
- 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.
paraphrase or i drop u
debating is stressful so dw everyone gets a 30
Hello! I'm a standard flow judge, currently a sophomore at Churchill, and frequently compete on the national circuit.
Classic tabula rasa debater judge; it's my job to adapt to you, not the other way around, so debate how you like.
Few things I like:
- Weighing - compared why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments
- Collapsing - choosing one or two arguments to go for by the end of the round
- Extensions - re-explaining your argument's link chain in summary and final focus
How to get higher speaks:
- Read DAs disguised as turns in rebuttal
- Start weighing in rebuttal
- Ask smart and intelligent questions in CX
- Be nice during CX
- Try very hard to use up all your speech time
- Don't make offensive comments
- Have fun!
If you made it down here, great job! Both partners should let me know that you "read my paradigm" before the round starts and both your speaker points will start at a guaranteed 29. Paradigms are important.
howdy peeps, my name is hrishita or hershey or even hershey-taH (if you would like ig). if you guys have any questions please feel free to ask me before the round starts!
just some tips; in the round, be sure to:
- puhlease time your prep honestly i literally will forget and lose track so ima believe yall
- 2nd speaking team should frontline in rebuttal
- collapse on arguments you're winning (don't worry about dropping arguments, this is smarter than wasting time on arguments that you've already basically lost)
- W E I G H
- warrant all your stats/cards/responses
- please be polite bruh. no one wants to judge people that are being rude to their opponents, partner or judge
- please do not just make up numbers or cards :| come on yall
- use strategy! (like collapsing! pick your battles)
- (PLEASE IM LITERALLY BEGGING YALL: WEIGH)
- flow coverage
- please try not to spreaddddddd I HATE
- guys idk if you've read it already (maybe not, you might've missed it) but i think that maybe you should weigh
- please like-- don't be annoying about cards. i get when cards need to be called occasionally but please don't call eVeRY SinGLE CaRD
- when looking through cards please be careful of your time
- try not to run theory
- please try to use all of your time in speeches. if you can't, just end it the speech and stop time. it's totally awkward random (bonus points if you can tell me where this is from)
l m f a o w e i g h .
good luck to everyone that's participating & have fun! :)
TLDR: Normal flow judge here. Nothing to be worried about, I hope.
I debate, and I think I can handle most people's strats. I will vote on almost all topical args.
Tech > Truth
Questions? Ask me on FB!
1. Extend warrants, not just cards
2. Weigh. It would have to be my worst nightmare for a judge to intervene and do weighing for me, so don't make me do that. Unless you want me to, but let's be honest, no one does. Also, I still don't understand what weighing on "uniqueness" means?? Also, I think probability weighing is not really a thing-- if you're winning a link, shouldn't the impact happen?
3. Try to extend defense in 1st summary, but if it wasn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal and time is running out, I'm not picky with these extensions. I feel like it is a good idea to extend some defense in 1st summary, just not required. If it's clean dropped after 2nd summary, I don't care if it was in 1st summary or not. However, I am picky with 2nd summary defense. Gotta take care of that.
4. Consistency in the back half, especially with weighing. I'm not happy when people just completely change their strat in either FFs. That being said, new weighing in 1st FF is ok, just not preferred. No new weighing in 2FF though. Don't try to cheese your opponents like that. I'll probably figure it out.
5. 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to turns and new offense from the 1st rebuttal. If 1st rebuttal is just 4 minutes worth of turns and disads, that's a rip, but get ink on all of them.
I default neg, but you can change that really easily, just tell me to do otherwise-- only takes a couple of seconds to do so.
I won't call cards unless people tell me to do so. If it's contested, just tell me to call it. Please read dates on evidence when it's first introduced, and if you don't, asking for the date of a card won't take prep.
I can handle most PF speed. If you're going really fast, like 300 WPM:
1. Make sure your opponents are ok with it.
2. Send a speech doc.
3. Read quotes instead of paraphrasing, makes flowing so much easier
Theory - I tend to gut-check a lot of shells, so I guess I default to reasonability? I don't think this will be an issue though, because every theory round I've been in or judged has gone to competing interps. Just tell me to do so. I don't have a personal preference on disclosure or paraphrasing, it depends on a case-by-case basis.
Ks - I've never run them, but debated against them once or twice. I only really have a superficial understanding of them, so please, please, please explain them very very very well if you decide to run them. Don't trust me to make a perfect decision.