Horizons Debate Camp Tournament
2020 — Boxborough, MA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi, I'm Suchir, and I've debated PF for Acton-Boxborough on the Nat-Circuit for 3 years.
If you need to get in touch with me for any reason: Email (firstname.lastname@example.org), Facebook (Suchir Baradwaj)
For Novice/RJ Grey Tournament: Read this (you can skip the rest if you want)
So, you decided to join/try out PF. Congrats! As mentioned above, I've been debating for the past 3 years at Acton and have had a lot of fun doing it. This tournament is just to get y'all introduced to PF, so the main thing is having fun and not stressing out. Probably THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to realize is that your success in a round or at a tournament in no way defines you as a person. Debate to the best of your abilities and be respectful to me, as the judge, and to your opponents, cuz that will tell a lot more about you than any argument that you make in the round.
Overall, I hope you have fun, and I'm excited to judge your round! Good Luck!
Things I Like to See
1. Well warranted, well-explained arguments (quality>quantity)
2. Good comparative weighing
Other than that, have fun and be respectful (to me, your partner, and most of all, your opponents)
For Everyone Else:
1. Tech > Truth, but I believe that all args need to have some truth to them for me to vote for them. If an arg has an extremely low probability, I'm gonna have a much lower threshold for responses to it.
- HAVE FUN!!!!
- for speed, i generally debated a sorta fastish, (around 200-225 wpm) but it's tough for me to flow anything above about 250ish wpm, so if you're gonna go fast, be aware. I don't like speech docs, and generally won't use them (mostly cuz I have better auditory reaction than visual aka. im a slow reader) but if you are gonna go fast, ask people in the round what they are comfortable with, and be willing to send speech docs to other judges or opponents. lastly, don't abuse speed. i get that in tough rounds it is sometimes necessary, but taking advantage of inexperienced debaters and dumping "23 tUrNs" is unacceptable and your speaks will reflect that.
- Defense IS sticky but with 3 min summaries, I would love if you extend everything ur gonna say in the second half.
- When doing extensions, extend the warrant, not just the card names (i barely ever flow card names anyway, so use that as you will).
- For speaks, I usually start at a 29 and go up or down from there
- If I'm nodding/smiling, keep doing what you're doing.
- I presume the first speaking team, as I believe that the second speaking team is at a massive advantage, and if you are not able to capitalize on that and generate any offense, you shouldn't be rewarded. However, I'm willing to hear well-warratned arguments about why I should presume other ways.
What I Like to See
- Clear Link Stories and Weighing. Weigh for all offensive args (case, turns, disads). Even if you win 100% of your link, I will be inclined to vote for whatever side has done the most weighing, the reason being that even if you win your link, I have no clue how this will affect the round or how it will affect the world outside of the round. Moreover, I think weighing comes in tiers, as there needs to be some level of probability to your argument in order for you to access the other weighing mechanisms. If you don't like this, Metaweigh if you deem fit, but understand that I have a lower threshold for responses to arguments with lower probability. If no one weighs, I will be forced to intervene, so please don't make me do that and WEIGH.
- Explicit extensions (uniqueness, link, impact) for all offensive arguments (case, turns, disads)
- Frontlining in Second Rebuttal
- Summary and Final Focus mirroring
- Collapsing as early as possible
What I Don't Like to See
- Evidence debates. They are the BIGGEST waste of time. If y'all have contradicting evidence, find some way to get around it ie. warranting, postdating, etc. Further, even if you do "indict" one of the opponent's cards and don't tell me why that matters, I can still vote for them if they have weighing, clearer link story, warranting/analysis etc. Lastly, I don't like calling for evidence, and probably won't unless a) you tell me to, AND b) it will affect my decision.
- New arguments made after 1st summary, unless its a backline to an argument already made in the round
- Disads in 2nd rebuttal (please don't read wEigHiNg oVerViEw BS unless its actually a weighing overview)
On theory/progressive argumentation:
I'm new to progressive arguments so if you do read them in front of me, tell me explicitly how they function within the round and should influence my ballot, or I won't know how to evaluate them. PLEASE OVEREXPLAIN
I'd much rather judge a round on substance, but I'd be willing to listen if a) there's substantial abuse in the round due to PF's speech structure (time-skew, evidence, etc.), or b) if someone says something problematic/unfair. However, often reading paragraph theory/just calling out the opponents for reading/doing something bad is ok (you don't need a wholeass shell).
How to Decrease Speaks:
- Being toxic or reading/saying anything blatantly ____ist (will result in an L/20)
How to Increase Speaks (if anyone wants me to waive these, lmk):
- Bring cookie for +1 points
- Citing Rap Lyrics +.1 - .5 depending on how good/how clear it is.
- Be funny or make me laugh.
hi! am deb8er @ acton in my third year of pf on the nAtiOnaL ciRcUit
email for whatever: email@example.com
if you dont know what im talking about below this section dont worry, i still sometimes don't know what im talking about either
the most important things you should read is probably the section on weighing and not being rude
other than that:
- i know it sucks to not know the result of the round so i will be disclosing the winner and giving feedback after round unless the tourney explicitly tells me otherwise.
- debate's supposed to be educational, feel free to postround or ask questions as much as you want
- debate however you normally debate, you prob shouldn't need to change up how you debate for a flow judge like me
tldr, im j a normal flow judge
im normally tech over truth but the more sketch an argument seems the lower my threshold for responses is
ill trust you to keep your own speech/prep time
speed is ok but if youre gonna go fast j lmk before hand, or send a speech doc
probably goes without saying: i will only vote on arguments in both summary and final focus
defense is sticky but itd b cash money of you to extend it anyways in summary especially given that now theres 3 minutes
if im nodding then ur doing good, if i look confused i probably am
im fine with yall dressing casual, its pretty uncomfortable to be sitting in a a button up shirt with a tie or something all day long, and especially with online debates it doesnt really matter all that much to me
how 2 win:
warranting: warrant everything, when theres competing warrants, please give me a reason to prefer your warrant.
weighing: please please weigh. if no team weighs ill have to intervene and i dont like intervening cuz it makes debaters and me sad. however, this does not mean just yelling "OUTWEIGHONSCOPEANDMAGNITUDEWEWIN", do the warranting as to why they are important, and do the comparative weighing too.
- weighing can come as late as first final.
- if no one weighs ill presume the squo unless told otherwise or ill intervene, both of which you dont want
frontlining in second rebuttal
extensions of uq, warrants, impacts, not just cards
the later responses come in round, the less likely i will eval them
clear narratives/link chains
making puns/having good taglines for contentions gets you +1 speaks
using speed to decrease inclusivity
please dont go up in 2nd rebuttal and say something like "5 tUrNs/oVeRvIeWs aT tHe tOp oF thEir cAse" when they are just das. it will make your opponents sad and make me very sorry i decided to judge.
rudeness in cross, listening to yelling isnt a fun time for me or anyone
evidence debates w/o warranting/comparative
racism/ sexism/ ableism/ homophobia etc, dont do it or probably L 20s
im not too familiar w progressive arguements (theorys, ks, tricks etc). i always prefer voting off substance, and i have no clue how anything other than theory and k's work, so prob dont run tricks or other stuff. i kinda understand the basics of theory and ks but im still new to them and probably bad at evaluating them, so you might not want to run them unless real abuse happens.
- that said, even though ill try to evaluate prog args, if u run them against a team who clearly doesn't know whats going on, i may intervene and drop you.
feel free to ask any questions you have after round or on fb
I have been debating PF at Westborough for 3 years.
1. offense (anything that can helps the opponents win the round, such as turns, DAs, and case) must be responded to in the next speech
2. PLEASE WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH COMPARATIVELY. This makes it cleaner for you and easier for me since I don't have to do it myself. Compare your arguments with your opponents when weighing, don't just restate your impacts. On top of impact weighing, if you do any other types of weighing and clearly label it so (prereq, link, etc.) you will get +.5 speaker points if I deem it reasonable.
3. summary and final focus parallelism, I will not vote off of an argument that isn't in both those speeches.
4. would strongly recommend collapsing
5. extend the link (with warrants) and impact of and argument for me to evaluate it
6. if you read or do anything that is racist, sexist, or ableist you are going to instantly be dropped with low speaks
7. I will not be flowing cross but paying attention, concessions are binding but must be brought up in speech
I will usually give speaks that range from 28.5-30 range and disclose in round if everyone is comfortable with it. You can come up to me after round and ask me any questions to help you and help me with my future judging.
(My Papa is typing this as I don't have good English)
I don't like Aff because it is racist. If you are aff please say this before your speech "Before we begin this round, let us all take a moment of prayer so that we can channel the power of God and His son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, against the evil Coronavirus. The political has been ceded to white Christianity as this administration spends its time praying. White Christian conservatives have captured the political and drive the world towards Armageddon as they prepare for the second coming. Why are we forced to debate this irrelevant topic while our society is crumbling around us? Our white Christian country demands that we give our crusaders in the Middle East their due. Even if we have something educational to say about this topic, the political will just pray it away and continue their Mission to conquer the world in the name of Jesus Christ."
I want teams to write the ballot for me. So if anyone is techy please feel free to walk up to my Apple and type in who won.
I default to 69 speaks as my Papa told me it's his lucky number.
Never forget endie endie!
Hi, my name is Varun Ganesan. I am a current Senior at Westborough High School and this is my second year debating on the Nat Circuit. A couple of preferences.
1. Mostly tech over truth unless you read offensive, sexist, racist, ableist, etc. arguments. which will result in an L20
2. I don't flow cross. If something important happens bring it up in the next speech.
3. Second rebuttal should frontline any offense from first rebuttal (turns) and it is probably strategic to frontline all defense for the contention you're going for.
4. The way I make my decision is by resolving the weighing debate and then I look to who links in better. This means weighing is pretty important. Please comparatively weigh. If I got one team impacting to lives and another impacting to poverty, I need weighing as to why I should prefer one or the other.
5. If you go for turns PLEASE IMPLICATE THEM
6. when you collapse, extend the warrants, and the links also sign-post
7. Have Parallelism in your summary and final focus, it really helps establish your narrative.
8. Have fun, debate can be super stressful sometimes so take a deep breath! You got this!
9. Please ask me questions, I am here to help!
Ello. I am Advu. I always vote aff because I want to see change in society. When I was in school, I was taught the quote, "Be the change you want to see in the world." By voting for the aff, I can follow this quote.
During round, I will be sleeping. Please wake me up when you are done with your debate so I can submit my ballot for the aff team.
I personally do not care if voting for the aff will make a nuclear war 100% true. The world is very boring right now, so I will always vote to change it.
As a debater, I won the diamond TOC in PF, LD, and policy all 4 years of high school. I am very experienced. I have gone aff every single round. Even in the rounds where people flipped aff, I would just pay them $50 and then become aff because we need change.
1. Unless you do something atrocious (any of the-isms), you'll get 30 speaks
2. Defense is not sticky. If you don't respond to defense in second rebuttal, it's dropped, so make sure to frontline the arg you're going for.
3. I believe in probability weighing. I do believe that your recession impact is much more probable than their nuke war, but make sure to tell me why that's important.
4. If you doordash me Chipotle, I'll call the TKO for you.
I've debated for 2 years at Acton Boxborough :) Msg me on fb or email me if you have any questions before the round!
My email: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm an average tech judge, so just debate however you feel most comfortable.
- Whatever you collapse on should be frontlined in second rebuttal.
- Defense that wasn't frontlined is sticky in first summary.
- Strong analytics > cards with no warrants.
- Metaweigh please!
- Theory and Ks are fine but I'm not the most educated on prog, so it's probably safer to debate substance.
- I can handle speed if you're speaking clearly, but I prefer teams that debate lay and build narratives. Spread with caution because I kinda suck at flowing.
- Tell me what evidence to call for if you think it's important and explain why your evidence is better if there are contradicting cards.
Things that I don't like:
- Offensive overviews/DAs; they're highkey abusive imo so I probably won't vote off them.
- Be assertive in cross but don't be straight up rude, it makes debate a lot less fun and it will affect your speaks.
- I don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia etc; you will be autodropped.
- Please don't call me judge
- If your name is Sivapriya Marimuthu I will also auto drop you
Hi, I'm Amir and I've been debating at Westborough HS for two years on the local and national circuit
Follow me on spotify
I judge flow but you should debate lay
I flow so I'll try to be as tech>truth as possible
If you do anything / read any argument that is sexist, racist, ableist, etc. , I won't hesitate to drop you with low speaks
With that, let's get into some specifics
1. Be nice, a toxic debate round isn't fun for anyone
2. I won't be listening too closely to cross and I won't vote off it, but if something big happens, bring it up in the next speech for me to consider it.
2a. Please don't just scream at each other in cross, keep it civil for all of our sakes
3. Try to respond to arguments made against your case in 2nd rebuttal. at a minimum, offensive responses like turns, disads, etc. should be responded to.
4. Weigh comparatively! Weighing is the easiest way to get my ballot, but you have to comparatively weigh, don't just state your impact again and say it outweighs on x,y,z, tell me why to prefer yours over your opponents
4a. Because weighing is so important, try doing it as early as possible, if you're in 1st rebuttal and run out of time, weigh! I'll probably give you speaks because it makes my job easier, and it's very smart.
5. Collapsing is probably one of the highest IQ things you can do in a round, condensing the round to 1-2 main arguments is extremely smart and makes the round 100x better
5a. Extend all parts of the case argument you're collapsing on (warrant, impact, etc.) but that doesn't mean re-read your case, try to summarize it to be more efficient
5b. You must respond to all responses made against the argument you're collapsing on.
6. Summary and FF should mirror each other, I won't evaluate arguments that aren't in summary.
7. Build a narrative through the round, its super helpful for me
8. Final Focus should be all about writing my ballot for me, you do the work and i'll vote for you
9. Before your speech, give me a general overview of the structure, at a minimum tell me where you're going to start.
9a. Please signpost in your speeches, this is super important to me because if I don't know what you're responding to I will spend half the time messing with my flow and I will probably miss some of your responses.
Debated Public Forum for Boston Latin School in Boston, MA - currently a freshman at Harvard. I know how to flow and PF, but it's been a hot second since I've judged or debated so please be patient with me!
- Racism, homophobia, sexism, anything that makes the round a non-safe space = lowest speaks + a nice big L
- Have trigger/content warnings & opt-out methods if you're discussing sensitive topics (e.g. domestic violence, mental illness, etc.)
- Don't go fast if: your connection won't allow it, you don't enunciate, or you're doing it in an exclusive manner (e.g. to scare novices). I'll dock speaks and you may take the L (especially if it's the last reason). The faster you go, the less I'll write down.
- I time speeches (unless I'm feeling lazy) and stop listening if you go overtime >10s. Please also time yourself tho
- Clear + organized + good coverage = high speaker points
- Summary & Final Focus:
(1) Collapse - focus on your best 1-2 args
(2) Extend - re-explain them PLEASE
(3) Weigh - tell me why they're the most important
- Mention important crossfire stuff in speeches
- I will tune out if you run progressive arguments (theory, Ks, tricks, whatever else there is). If there's a serious violation, explain it to me in paragraph or an easily accessible way if you want me to evaluate.
- Sticky defense: NO for second overall, MAYBE for first BUT AT YOUR OWN RISK. The later you bring it up and the more important it is, the less I evaluate it. If your defense was really that important, you'd fit it into every speech.
- Frontlines: Frontlining in Summary is OK, not frontlining at all in second Rebuttal because you think you can do your frontlines in Summary is NOT OK
Lmk if there's anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable! I hope you learn and have fun :)
I debated for Westborough for four years.
tldr: tech>truth but debate lay
I'm a pretty standard tech judge and I don't have a ton of preferences. Here they are anyways
Speed is a massive turnoff for me. Even though I spoke pretty fast when debating, I can't flow super fast nor do I think it improves the quality of rounds at all. I suck at flowing so when extending arguments I need more than author names.
All offense from second constructive and after needs to be frontlined in the next speech. This means turns in second constructive need to be frontlined in first rebuttal.
If you're planning on reading progressive args you should probably strike me lowkey. I'll try my best but I never ran them nor do I know much about how to evaluate them. If a round becomes abusive then I'll intervene
I'm not calling for evidence unless I'm told to. Everything needs a warrant when extended.
Defense can be sticky if you want but it's much more compelling if you extend it in summary.
If you want more stuff on how I would judge, I'd say Ben has a paradigm I agree with, minus the progressive args section.
I don't flow cross, nor do I care that much about it. Bring up any concessions in the next speech. I'm usually on twitter so if I react to something it's not you
For speaks stuff:
I'll give the speaks I think you deserve, but you're probably getting semi-high speaks from me if you do what you need to in the round. If the tournament is in person and you bring me food I'll bump speaks
Follow me on spotify. If you make references to stuff on here that I catch I'll probably increase speaks.
Debate's not that deep. Make rounds enjoyable please.
Ten Commandments to be Good at Debate:
1. relax and have fun!
2. signpost in speeches
3. start weighing early
4. for novices at little lex: if you are first rebuttal, PLEASE do not extend your case if you don't know what else to say, just end it early.
5. frontline turns and DA's in 2nd rebuttal
6. 3 min summary should have offense, defense, and WEIGHING in it
7. summary and ff should collapse and mirror each other. I love great back half narratives so literally, paint a solid picture of how you are winning and I'll pick you up.
8. Progressive stuff:
- Don't read theory unless there was an actual harmful abuse conducted by the other team. If you are a PF debater who thinks they are *tech* by reading disclosure/paraphrase/random frivolous theory for easy wins please stop (also, if you are reading prog args against inexperienced debaters it is abusive).
9. speaks (not the same for novice tourney)
29.5-30: you are raw
29-29.5: you are really good
28.5-29: you are pretty nice with it
28-28.5: you are above average
27-28: you can do better
<27: you are toxic
10. don't be toxic, a lot of novice rounds are just people yelling at each other, be chill to everyone and it will make the activity much more enjoyable. Any sort of -ism's in round finna get you auto dropped and I will tank your speaks, so be kind and accepting to everyone :)
Email chain: email@example.com
Junior at Acton-Boxborough.
tech > truth
will vote on anything, but make sure its warranted
defense isnt sticky
i prefer collapsing in 2nd rebuttal
have fun, ask other questions in round
hi, i'm Sivapriya, a 3nd yr debater for Acton Boxborough! i consider myself an average flow judge, but prob more flay: lay-----me-----flow
follow my face expressions.
if you give me an offtime road map follow it.
evidence - DON'T misconstrue. debater math is stupid. i'll call for evidence for the following reasons: a) you tell me to, b) it's crucial to my ballot, or c) i'm curious. don't take decades to pull up evidence.
keep track of time, but don't be annoying.
theory - run at ur own risk.
speaks - if you renegade, make a tiktok reference, or being me bread/chex mix i will give u a 30. BUT, if ur rude or make ANY type of derogatory comment i will hand out 20's & a L.
iMpLiCaTe YoUr ReSpOnSeS!! why do they matter?
cross - chill out. i probably won’t be paying attention so it's ur job to bring anything important up in future speeches.
rebuttals - card dumps are gross. i prefer a few well warranted implicated responses over 98758459 blippy cards. quality >>> quantity. rebuttal weighing is fire.
2nd rebuttal - frontline turns & args u'll collapse on
summary - clean the round up. i want solid extensions: thoroughly explain your link chain w/ warrants and impacts
1st summary - frontline turns. COLLAPSE! WEIGH! extend defense.
2nd summary - no NEW responses
final focus - have it mirror summary. no NEW responses.
weighing - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh! i don’t want to make my own weighing analysis. the earlier the better. comparatively weigh and interact with each other’s weighing. i love love love metaweighing <3
collapse - PLEASE collapse. pick a few responses and thoroughly explain them.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, be nice. although debate gets heated, we’re supposed to be having fun. i won’t tolerate ANY type of rude behavior.
overall, signposting, weighing, collapsing, and being nice will make me a happy judge.
feel free to fb message or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if u have any questions abt anything :)
i have been doing pf for the last two years at Acton Boxborough.
Tech>truth. I'll evaluate any arg but if its really ridiculous then my threshold for responses to the arg is very low
Im fine with speed but if your gonna go speedy, I'd like a speech doc
Progressive Arguments (Ks, Theory, Tricks, etc. ) - If there's some actual abuse in the round and the argument is well warranted, i'll vote off it. That being said, generally I will not vote on progressive args as I dont think they belong in this event. This basically sums up my opinion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ktZ8jX3JTbwB7ae-NopSoKg1KH0Mb2zCW5Ccsuy-XYM/edit
Defense needs to be extended in first summary
if neither side has any offense at the end of the round, i will presume first speaking team. this is because i believe that 2nd speaking is a huge advantage and if you are unable to capitalize on that advantage by generating offense you should not be rewarded
In terms of speaks, winning team gets 30s and losing team gets 29s.
Things i like
1. frontlining in second rebuttal
3. clear extensions w/ uniqueness, link, impact.
4. good warrants. 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.
5. weighing. 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 a questionable decision. If both teams are winning their case then i look to who's winning the weighing. Please respond to your opponent's weighing (if they read weighing) otherwise i choose which weighing to buy.
6. good evidence ethics. Paraphrasing is fine just don't horribly miscut the evidence
7. parallelism between summary and final focus
Things I dont like
1. offensive overviews in second rebuttal
2. being rude to your opponents. Im fine if you make jokes during cross as long as it isnt condescending \
3. if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. you are getting the L and your speaks will be nuked. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person
For Regis: Don't talk fast. I want to judge a slow round.
Please make the round interesting for me (e.g. read uncommon PF args [dedev, CC good, hege decline, etc.]), you will get much higher speaks.
That being said, I would prefer judging a slower round.
WARRANTS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DEBATE.
I will disclose and feel free to post-round me. Although the decision won't change, if I made the wrong call, then I want to improve my judging in the future.
Specific preferences are below:
(1) After constructive speeches, respond to all offense in the subsequent speech (e.g. second rebuttal needs to frontline turns from first rebuttal, first rebuttal must frontline turns from second constructive). I don't think frontlining defense/weighing in second rebuttal is strategic, but you can if you want.
(2) Defense prefs.:
For first speaking teams: Unfrontlined defense after second rebuttal doesn't need to be extended in first summary (you can do the first rebuttal --> first final extension). Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal and you plan to go for in the round must be backlined AND implicated in first summary and final.
For second speaking teams: All defense you plan to go for in the round should be backlined AND implicated in second summary and final.
(3) Offense must be in summary and final for me to vote on it. If you go for a turn, please extend an impact off of it that was previously read in the round or extend the opponent's impact scenario.
(4) Extend case offense clearly without dropping any links/internal links. I like to presume (I presume neg, however, I am willing to presume in other ways if you read warrants on why I should), so I will probably do that if I get poor extensions from both sides (missing links/internal links) OR if I have two unlike impacts that I can't reasonably resolve on my own (read weighing if you don't trust my judgement).
(5) Collapse. If you don't, you will probably get lower speaks.
(6) Weigh (if it's not comparative though, I won't be flowing it), but no new weighing in second final (instead, spend the time to explain why your weighing mechanism from second summary is better than your opponent's).
(7) I won't flow cross, but I will pay attention. Concessions are binding (bring them up in speech if your opponent makes one that is relevant to your strategy).
(8) I don't particularly want to judge a debate with progressive argumentation. You can read T, but I will probably drop the argument, not the debater, if you win your interpretation. Please don't read a K or tricks. I will vote on some shells (e.g. TWs), but not disclosure or paraphrase theory.
If you have any questions about preferences not listed above, feel free to ask me before round.
Hello. I am/have been a PF debater for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School for 4 years. I am a flow debater, but do not understand any theory, K's, or extremely tech debate. I am fine with spreading, but either giver a speech doc or annunciate properly. If I cannot flow, your chances of getting down any arguments and winning them severely decreases.
I consider the debate in this order: Weighing, Link, then Impact. If you win the weighing, that's the framework in which I view the round. I then look to who wins the link in that context and ultimately whether or not you access your impact based on any remianing responses and whether they were frontlined effectively.
EXTEND. If you do not extend your entire case, it makes it EXTREMELY difficult to vote, and if both teams dont do that then it will become a very problematic decision because I will have to intervene, and no one wants that.
Make sure to singpost, it makes my flowing easier and will take less time to understand your responses.
If you are speaking first, I consider defense sticky if not responded to. Otherwise, if responded to, please extend and also explain why the defense/offense is comapreitevly better than the opponents response. If you want new implications of defense made, even if it your defense has not even responded to, do it here. I will still extend it even if made in FF, it is just always better to have these implications mentioned earlier in a round and consistently extended, otherwise it may be too late.
If speaking second, no new responses should be in 2nd summarry or onwards. New implications of weighing is ok in 2nd summarry given the development of the round, but no outright new weighing mechanisms are allowed. All of this should be done in 2nd rebuttal. I prefer frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, it makes the debate much cleaner for me to flow and reduces the stress of the first speaker, and also uses 2nd speaking team to its advantage.
I will not call for cards unless I am told to. Make sure your evidence is easy to access, or speaks will be dropped a bit. For online tournaments, make an email chain.
Finally, no "isms" or you will be dropped and speaks will be tanked. Debate must be an activity that is inclusionary for all and must be maintained with a high level of dignity and respect.
Addendum - if both teams are okay with it/don't want to debate in a student-run prelims round let me know and we'll flip a coin to decide the winner and play skribblio for the rest of the round or just talk. debate is too competitive and i recognize i have enabled that in the past both for others and for myself.
Hola, here's a few updates for the novice tournament!
- First things first, please be respectful and don't be mean. That includes your opponents, your partner and people outside of the debate. You can scroll down for my previous paradigm for more specifics.
- I have done public forum the entire time, and my experience with LD caps off at watching a few YouTube videos and attempting to write a case. I can understand most arguments and will take notes, but I'm not very familiar with the specifics of LD.
- You should always try to run logical arguments that you understand and can explain well. In general, you want to make the round as simple as possible and write my ballot for me, that way I won't be forced to or accidentally intervene (and it might not be in your favor...)
- All of your arguments should have a claim, warrant and impact. Make sure to extend all of these in your later speeches!
Here's my normal paradigm for pf for some additional info!
Heyy! I’ve been competing in pf on the local and national circuit for 3 years at Boston Latin School. I'd like to say that I’m okay at debate...?
First things first, please be respectful to your opponents, partner and in general. If you are intentionally racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc. you will be dropped with low speaks. I know it can be unintentional, so if someone points it out, just apologize and don’t keep doing or saying it.
As for judging, DO NOT TREAT ME AS A TECH JUDGE. Going fast and card dumping does not impress me because most of the time, they aren't implicated and there's no educational value. That being said, here are some general parameters.
- tech > truth to a degree, my willingness to vote for you will go away faster than typical tech judges if your argument is just blatantly not true. I feel like debate is more about education than just being a game
- I will flow the round and I can handle speed fairly well (but know that the faster you go, the less happy my 3 brain cells will be)
- Please collapse and WEIGH your arguments, I will like you even more if you do comparative weighing. So explain why your weighing is better than their weighing
- I’m a huge fan of analytical responses and logic, if you can tell me why you’re right and your opponents are wrong with just logic, I think it is 100xs better than reading a card or block that doesn’t have any explanation
- Please ensure your opponents are okay with running progressive arguments before round, as it can be incredibly exclusionary in public forum. If there is a serious violation during round, you may run theory in paragraph form.
- Also note that I have received little training and exposure to any progressive args other than theory (still minimal). I will flow them and try to understand them, but I will be less receptive than say policy or LD judges.
+0.5 speaks if you add a pun in any of your speeches (there is no such thing as a bad pun and I will laugh at any you make)
Honestly, it's wonderful if you are very passionate, but you don’t have to be incredibly serious and aggressive to win the round. Be chill and have fun :) If you have any other questions, you can ask me before round or email me (email@example.com)
Debating on the Nat Circuit for Acton Boxborough the last 3 years.
I'd consider myself tech over truth, but I don't really like squirrelly arguments, so if you run them just make sure you are spending more time explaining it if you really want me to vote on it. I am ok with speed, but I admire debaters who are more efficient and can cover the same content as someone going 400 mph. Don't spread, but if you do or you are going fast send a speech doc (but trust me I flow much better when I hear it versus when I see it, and whatever it is on my flow is how it is going to be evaluated).
Straight from Asher Moll's paradigm: "I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a REAL violation in the round. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation rather than forcing me to evaluate progressive argumentation." Personally, I think that a lot of debaters do not get enough exposure to able to respond to theory. If you truly believe there is a violation, do it in paragraph form. Regardless, my threshold for theory is extremely high, and I would really prefer substance debates.
Things I like
- Weighing: No weighing, no evaluation of the offense (people especially forget about this for turns, so either weigh your turns or I will just evaluate it as defense if it makes sense). Even if you win 100% of the link I won't vote on it if it isn't weighed (the only time I would vote off of offense that isn't weighed is if everything else has terminal defense). When I am coming up with the decision, I start with the weighing so whoever does more effective weighing will most likely win my ballot (unless you complete lose access to your offense). Weighing should be in speech as early as possible, and at latest in 1st final focus. However, weighing does come in tiers, so clarity or strength of link weighing won't be as convincing as something else (ex: pre-req, timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc.). Weighing also is a comparative, so explain how you interact with their argument.
- Extensions: This should be explicit: Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact (people forget this part when they read turns, so make sure you don't). Probably also some warranting and explanation of why your link is true especially if it isn't already intuitive.
- Comparative: If you and your opponent keep on arguing over an argument, show to me why yours is more important than theirs (postdating, warranting, historical precedent etc.). If two teams keep on extending their responses without doing the comparative, I will just consider it a wash and only vote on it as a last resort.
- Consistency: Summary and Final Focus should be mirror copies of each other, except maybe a bit of collapsing since summary is 3 minutes.
- Frontlining in 2nd Rebuttal: It makes the round a lot easier. If your opponents dump on you in 1st rebuttal I would suggest collapsing during rebuttal, but no matter what make sure to frontline (at the bare minimum any offense from 1st rebuttal). 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it was frontlined. In that case, 1st summary should extend defense on the relevant parts of the flow.
- No new offense after 2nd rebuttal, and no new responses after 1st summary (unless the response was made new in a later speech, in which you should respond but I most likely won't evaluate the argument to begin with).
- Collapsing as early as possible: I understand it might be strategic to frontline everything (and I won't tank speaks if you do) but I will be more impressed if you are able to collapse in rebuttal and still win given that you just made first summary much easier. Collapsing needs to definitely be in summary though.
Things I don't like
- Evidence debates: I honestly think that debating evidence is the most silly waste of time during round. If you and your opponents disagree over evidence, prove why your side makes more sense and move on. If the issue truly isn't resolved, I'll call for the evidence at the end of the round. This also works with indicts: I think they can be effective if the argument is squirrely and dependent on one card, but to me indicts do not matter if they can just find another piece of evidence saying the same thing.
- Calling for evidence: I will do it, but only if the debaters tell me to. If the debaters tell me to but I don't think it will affect my decision, I won't.
- Mean debaters: if you exhibit any of the -isms (racism, sexism, ableism etc.) or you are just plain rude during round, I'm most likely not going to vote for you.
- Postrounding: If my decision is confusing or you don't like it, feel free to talk to me outside of the round or message me (Facebook is Ansh Viswanathan). I may not do a good job explaining my decision, so asking me clarifying questions or how I evaluated certain arguments in the round is okay. Also, I don't like when people talk behind someone's back, so if have something to say about the round please do it to my face.
- Be nice and have fun, I really enjoy debating and I am looking forward to a good round!
- I'm pretty vocal about what I like, so I might nod or smile if I like an argument.
- I'll start with 28.5 and go up or down based on your argumentation, strategy, clarity, and efficiency.
Also, the World Star effect in Hebron Daniel's paradigm works with me, so I'll link it below:
whats up, my names Keshav and I debate at Acton
I'm pretty tech over truth; which means that if you make an argument and give me warrants I will probably believe it.
Please extend your warranting and impacts in summary; for example: if in your case you say that m4a decreases innovation 60 percent because of price controls, which leads to 10 million deaths, you should summarize that information in summary, otherwise I won't know what your arguments mean.
Please weigh your impact; if both of you win that your case is true weighing is what makes me vote for you; if you do weigh well and comparatively weigh against your opponents, your chance of winning becomes wayyyy higher, the earlier you do weighing in a round, the better.
Weigh your links; if you have a higher probability link into the same impact as your opponent, say that! makes it so much easier to win
In all speeches for your arguments, win it, warrant, weigh it; frontline all remaining responses, extend what your argument is, and weigh the argument
You should collapse and go for one argument; this is very strategic and allows you to really flesh it out and make it clear.
I default util (biggest impact) but hopefully I dont have to.
All pieces of offense shd be weighed if you want me to vote on it
Remember to frontline all turns in second rebuttal, defense can wait till second summary.
If you face manas erramilli, roast him in cross i will laugh 30 speaks.
Hey, I'm Atharva and I have debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA for the last three years.
Off the bat, I don't have time for racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. I will drop you and tank your speaks. I also understand that we as debaters can often get heated in round (believe me, I've been there), but I would really appreciate it if you could try to maintain civility so that everyone feels comfortable. Please read trigger warnings when necessary and contact me if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am primarily tech over truth. That being said, I have a low bar for responses to outlandish arguments (i.e. death good). I will only call for evidence if it is pertinent to my decision and highly contested.
I want clear extensions in the latter half of the round. This means warrants, impacts, and any cards that you think are important for either. I'm not going to vote off of the general idea of your case.
The number one thing that you can do to win my ballot is provide a clear narrative throughout the round, which means consistency between speeches and well-explained arguments.
I will always prefer good logic to bad evidence. Every argument you make should have both a warrant and an implication or else it becomes meaningless to me.
WEIGH. From rebuttal onwards, preferably. Good weighing > bad defense in my opinion, so please extend comparative weighing throughout the round.
Frontlining in second rebuttal is a must; at the very least, get turns. I am also highly skeptical of long disads or offensive overviews in second rebuttal and would advise against it.
Similarly, if defense you want to collapse on is frontlined in second rebuttal, it has to be backlined in first summary. However, if it is dropped in second rebuttal, it may be brought up in first final focus.
If you're going to spread, strike me. I cannot handle speed, plain and simple, even with a speech doc. The bottom line is that I would love it if you spoke to me like a parent judge who knows tech jargon.
I have very little experience with progressive argumentation. I won't ask you not to read it, but I do ask that you explain it slowly and in-depth if you do, so no full-blown shells. I will not evaluate plans, CPs, or tricks.
Unless you really screw up on anything from the first paragraph, your speaks likely won't fall below a 28. You can raise them by feeding my ego with insincere compliments.
Lastly, have fun. I want the round to be as enjoyable as possible for everyone involved, so crack a few jokes and feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm or my decision whenever you want to.
Hi! I'm Zach and I'm a junior at Hackley in my third year of PF. I'm a pretty standard PF flow.
For the email chain, my email address is: email@example.com
Here's the zoom link for the round:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/5534924622?pwd=NER5NS9UUHoxZVowVXJpR0UzZjZFdz09 Meeting ID: 553 492 4622 Passcode: 5hGvmF
Here are some of my preferences:
1. Have a good narrative. This does not only have to be in the constructive speech. When collapsing on defense or weighing, the best way to get my ballot is to collapse on what will advance your story.
2. Please weigh! It helps to resolve the debate when both teams win their cases. This is not only weighing offensive arguments, but also doing comparative analysis as to, say, why your defense is better than their link/case argument. Weighing helps resolve clash all over the flow.
3. Frontline all offense and defense on the argument that you are going for in second rebuttal. If you don't, then I'll cut your speaks a bit and first summary doesn't have to extend defense.
4. I will 100% vote on any well-warranted argument if it's clean, even if it seems wacky.
5. Collapse in summary! Don't go for too much -- I really prefer when teams go for less and give more comparative analysis or in-depth frontlining.
6. You can read progressive arguments but I don't know much about them, so just make sure to explain them really well and I'll vote for you.
7. Warrants > Evidence. I think at this point in PF this is a hot take because we've become so evidence-focused, but I prefer logical analysis over cards any day.
hi! im zara (she/her) firstname.lastname@example.org (pls include me on the email chain!!)
i'm a sophomore at hackley and have debated pf and parli
rounds should be a safe space - pls let me know if i can do anything to make you more comfortable!
auto 30 if u send a speech doc and/or disclose !!!
i wont give below 27 speaks unless ur exclusionary or rude
weighing is the first thing i evaluate - pls weigh, warrant your weighing, and be comparative
i dont rly like frivolous theory but i will def evaluate theory if there is an abuse in round!
i rly like ks but have v little experience judging them so do w that what u will
i have zero clue what a trick is
if ur reading an argument about or including a sensitive topic, a content warning is mandatory and pls make sure everyone is comfortable
feel free to flip w/o me and pls preflow before round
ill only call for evidence if u explicitly tell me to call for it and i feel like it's necessary for my decision
i suck at flowing spreading so if u speak over 250 wpm i'll prob start to miss stuff
pls pls pls collapse
i <3 abe masam
feel free to ask questions before round :)
Hello, I have 4 years of debate experience on the national circuit debating for Wayland High School
- New arguments in second final focus. I love to be surprised when a team pulls out a surprise victory with a new argument late in the round.
- Unwarranted assertions. Who cares if there's any reason why your argument is true? All it needs to do is sound good.
- I prefer that debaters stare at each other during cross, not when they look at me. I want to feel like a spectator, not like I'm involved.
- Crossfire. This is debate, so I value crossfire above all else. Unlike "tech" judges, I will be on my phone during speeches, but be taking extensive notes on crossfire.
- If you want 30s, end every speech with "please clap"
- Speed. I cannot follow anything about 100 words per minute.
- Collapsing. To me, it looks like you have given up on several of your arguments. Good debaters should be able to cover the entire 16 min of the first half into 3 minutes.
- English. Lingua latina maxima est.
Good Luck! and have fun!
Here's the real paradigm. I think that I am a fairly traditional tech judge and there isn't that much out of the ordinary here.
- When I'm making my decision, I look for a team that's winning offense and weighing. In the events that both teams are winning weighing, then I expect metaweighing or I will be forced to intervene (you don't want that).
- If there are two contradicting pieces of evidence in the round, I need a reason to prefer one piece of evidence over another. If no comparison is given, I will be forced to call for the evidence and intervene (you don't want that).
- Anything that's in FF must be in summary.
- Please don't be rude especially in cross
- I played around w Ks and little bit as a debater, so I have like a very baseline understanding of them, and I will evaluate them; however, if you plan on reading a K, I expect two things
1. If you're reading an argument about spreading discourse, I expect you to flip for whatever side the K is on, and I expect you to read the K in every round that you are able to
2. I think that you should only read a K if you genuinely believe in it. I won't be able to tell in the round, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you don't believe in it, I feel like you're just reading it to win a round.
- I am willing to vote on theory. I never ran it as a debater, but I think I understand it enough to vote off of it. Please only read theory on legitimate violations on the rules of debate. If you read something like mouthwash theory, I won't vote off of it.
- Please ask any other questions before the round.