If the first or second speaker are not clear I will not write anything.

Act as if I don’t know anything about the topic.
Tell me everything I need to know if you don’t say it I don’t see it.

Be respectful towards your opponent.

I will ask for cards so have that prepared.

Use time wisely if your run out of time finish your sentence.

Good Luck and remember to have fun!

Current debater for Mountain Brook. I've done PF for 5 years

Add me to the email chain: allencaroline75@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Hello, my name is Gabe Au. If it means anything, I did like 2 years of PF, 1 year of BQ for Auburn High School. I currently go to JHU, and do APDA/BP debate now. As a judge, I open to giving as much feedback as you want, as well as any feedback you may have for how I have performed as a judge (it's usually pretty hard to offend me, so feel free to say whatever you think!).  You can email me at gau1@jhu.edu after round if you have any issues/concerns/questions!

Stuff for PF

I mostly judge FLAY (Flow-lay), since I think that is what PF is intended to mirror, though I lean tech over truth when it comes down to it.

I’m not very good with progressive debate.

Theory should only be used when there is a pretty bad violation of the rules (pls no paraphrasing theory)

Conflicting evidence should have a clear comparison to prove which one should be accepted- I will just count it as a wash if both sides simply keep repeating the same points.

Signpost plenty.

Keep your own time, though if you feel you want me to, I’m fine with that.

No counterplans, no spreading, this is PF.

Give me a narrative. By all means, make your round entertaining and creative!

The Round™

Constructive speeches:

- Explain your cards (if it seems logical, I’ll flow it, but I’ll count it as an analytical argument unless you explain it) (Aka don’t card dump)

- Don’t throw a bunch of statistics at me: explain the methodology and meaning. It's impossible to read a whole academic article in prep time, so please convince me that you understand what you are talking about and not just repeating a quote from some random professor who made a predication with a large number in it.

Rebuttals:

- Second speaking teams must respond to first speaking team’s rebuttals

- Good analytical rebuttals are fine

Summaries and Final Focus:

- Collapse and weigh

- Frontline stuff if you can

- No new contentions in summary, no new information in final focus

Do a Jojo's pose before constructive for +0.1 speaks to both partners. Have fun!

*****

Stuff for LD

I come from PF, so my default judging style is mostly "flay" (off the flow, but I will intuition check some arguments), although I will try to lean more tech/tabula rasa as possible for LD debate.

I really prefer that you do not spread, but if you have to, please include me in the email chain.

Signpost plenty. Keep your own time, though if you feel you want me to, I’m fine with that.

Give me a narrative. By all means, make your round entertaining and creative. I prefer seeing a fun round compared to the nth round with the same stock arguments.

I’m also not very good with progressive debate and I prefer trad debate.

• I think that theory should only be used when there is a gross violation of the rules (e.g., when people are being discriminatory or have badly cut cards).
• To be completely honest, I also think that K's are kinda dumb, but I will try to evaluate best I can.
• Different framing of the round beyond the usual utilitarianism/cost-benefit-analysis is cool though.

If you want to run theory and/or K's

• Time to very clearly explain how I should evaluate the round under the theory/K framework and metaweigh that framework if it comes into question
• Don't just rattle off like 10 really quick points of your theory doc and say that your opponent did not address all of them.
• Carry that weighing under the theory or K cleanly through the round, make it clear that you beat them off case, and then move on if you have extra time.

Evidence

Conflicting evidence should have a clear comparison to prove which one should be accepted- I will just count it as a wash if both sides simply keep repeating the same points.

Statistics: please do not repeat a number over and over without telling me how the study works. It is impossible to read an academic article in the span of prep time, so you need to do the work to bring across any numerical impacts, rather than just quoting a large number from some professor.

The Round™ 

Constructive speeches:

• Explain your cards beyond just reading them (Aka don’t card dump) (if it seems logical, I’ll flow it, but I’ll evaluate it as an analytical argument unless you give me some analysis on why it matters) 
• Don’t throw a bunch of statistics at me: explain the methodology and meaning. 

First Rebuttals:

• Please try to respond to first speaking team’s rebuttals
• Please try to extend/rehash what you would like me to weigh at the end by either saying that it was not addressed or by responding to earlier rebuttals. If you do not carry stuff through all of your speeches, it will be very hard for me to vote on it at the end.
• Good/"mechanized" analytical rebuttals are fine. However, just saying "this is not true" or "my impact is true so their case is not true" is not actually a rebuttal, please provide clash (i.e. why I should prefer your impact/cards/reasoning over your opponents)

Last speeches:

• Collapse on your most important contention and weigh (I will usually prefer one weighed contention over lots of contentions at the end of the round)
• I prefer no new contentions or information here, these few speeches should crystallize the debate into several main points and explain why I should vote exclusively for one side over another, not some tricky analysis that your opponent does not have time to respond to.

CX: I don't flow CX, but some of my speaks will be based off how well you can extract information/utilize CX for the debate

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

If you paraphrase

I will likely vote you down

Ev! ethics! are! cool!

General Info: I am a student at Auburn University studying theatre management. I have competed in PF debate and Congress throughout my high school debate career. Trad>Prog. I flow; however, if you are a clear win on the flow and do not convince me during your speeches, I will not vote for you.

PF: My background is in PF. Novices, I have more grace with; however, please try to stay on the flow. Varsity, you know how Debate works. Space your time well and be persuasive. I will be sad if your cross is dull, but it does not affect if you win or not, aka I do not flow it (because we do not do that).

Speaks: Speed is fine if you are clear; however, if I make faces at you of confusion or your opponents feel like you are spreading, do not be rude. Slow down. Again, I have a background in theatre, so the flow of speech (vocal variety and enunciation) and persuasiveness are vital to me. Speaks will be ranked based on that.

Do not make any drastic comparisons to genocide, slavery, rape, etc., in your case or weighing. Automatic loss, I will stop flowing and will not vote for you. The same goes for homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., comments. I will not vote for you if I hear it, even if you out-debated. There is no room for bigotry in Debate.

Good Luck!

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAIN

abbybowling58@gmail.com

*if you have any questions about your debate/my decision, please feel free to email me!

I have been debating at Vestavia for four years now. Also, I am a scorpio -- do with that what you will.

Please be pre-flowed prior to the round.

Please keep your own time in round. I find it super annoying when the judge has to keep the time.

(these two things will get you higher speaks)

Summary -- needs to have all offense that you're going for. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.

CX -- Needs to be clean. I won't flow cross if you have something you want on the flow then you must bring it up in the next speech. Also, keep it entertaining. I do appreciate a laugh (one laugh +1 speaks).

Prep -- PLEASE KEEP UP WITH THE TIME YOURSELF! If you ask me how much time you have left, I will be annoyed (and you also won't like your speaks)

Speed -- I don't have a problem with speed for the most part, but don't spread in round. In fact, if you speak at a normal pace it makes it easier to flow and evaluate your arguments.

Signposting -- is good. Please do it. If you do not do it, then I get confused, then I can't weigh the round properly, then you lose. Lesson to learn -- SIGNPOST!!!!!

Theory -- can't stand it. Very hard for me to vote for it.

Evidence -- If your evidence is shady I will probably call for it. If I do call for evidence, cut card/website are both fine, but a paraphrased version of said evidence is not fine. If I believe you are practicing bad evidence ethnics you lise the argument and the round.

Hello!! I'm looking forward to judging this round with you.

My background: I debated for four years at Vestavia doing Public Forum and Congress debate and am now a sophomore Law, Politics, and Society major at Samford.

I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you want to debate but here are just some short preferences and tips that will make the round more enjoyable for all of us:

1. Do NOT be overly aggressive. This is debate, it gets heated, its fun, I get it. But if you are out right rude to your opponent or speak in a manner that doesn't reflect the intellectual and educational atmosphere we are in I will dock your speaker points.
2. I'll keep time but do your best to as well, that just makes you look more professional. There will be a few seconds of grace period but don't steal time.
4. Evidence ethics are cool, but don't waste excessive time calling for cards unless you need it -- if you won't be talking about the evidence/quote/stats/etc. in a speech or cross let's keep it short.

I'm cool with speed but don't start spreading -- I would rather you say a few important points really clear than 50 not very important points super fast.

After I submit the ballot to tab I am more than willing to disclose after the round if it is asked for! As your judge I will do my very best to give clear and precise feedback about the decision I made and what can be improved.

Email me with questions, concerns, speech docs, or for an email chain cundiff.linden@gmail.com

upenn 27

hs vpf for 4 years

Hi, my name is Liz! A little about me to start. I'm a varsity member of the Hoover High School PF team. I've always done PF debate and I love it!! I am a senior at Hoover and I'm planning to attend UA fall 2021.

To start off with my preferences, speak clearly at all times. I cannot flow what you're saying if you aren't speaking clearly. Please give off time road maps so I can follow your speech with ease and flow your points. Weigh your impacts!!!! This is important for a judge to see your impacts by your opponents' side to side. Collapse on your standing arguments and extend those arguments all the way through. If you don't extend the arguments all the way through I won't flow it. Another important one is to Face your judge during your speeches!

If you need debate help, my contact email is - elizabethbh003@gmail.com

Good luck debaters!

Father of seven :)

I appreciate technical elements of debate and really do need them to fairly evaluate your round. Clear impacting and weighing is critical, take some time to signpost, kick out of less valuable arguments and turns, etc.

If your case requires a speech doc, use your lay case. Excessive speed is exclusionary and I don't trust my ability to fairly evaluate these absurdly long cases. That said, I can handle speed in those tricky speeches in the middle of the round where you have a ton of ground to cover.

Debate is far too subjective for you to be mean, so be nice.

These low probability extinction/calamity impacts don't go over well with me, don't run them if you can at all avoid it.

Really just don't take yourself too seriously, and try to have some fun with it!

Hey, I'm Maggie. I debated all four years of high school (public forum), and now I am in college debating policy. I am well-versed in debate rhetoric and research, both of which are important in each round. Add me to the email chain if there is one available, maggiej2004@gmail.com .

For public forum debates, I a generally okay with every argument as long as you have adequate sources to back it up. I try to keep any biases outside of the round I am judging, however, you still must tell me where to vote. The only time I'm going to "judge-intervene" is if both teams give me no weighing mechs. I am more inclined to vote for a team, even if they are behind on the flow, if they give me weighing mechs.

Other than that, I am very flexible. I would prefer no spreading in public forum rounds just because other debaters might not be used to the speed. However, I can keep up with any speed you may like. If you are trying to speak fast/spread, please please please make sure you are still understandable. Anything I cannot understand will not go on the flow.

I will give an RFD at the end of the round, as long as time permits. Feel free to ask any questions at that time about the decision or suggestions.

You may also ask me any questions before the round starts.

Good luck everyone. :)

My Background

I debated in High School. I am currently a student at Auburn University studying Computer Engineering and Finance.

If I have made my decision after the round i will disclose (if allowed) but if it is a close round i might need more time to think.

Tech > Truth.

Personal Preferences

Make sure you are polite to your opponents.

I will call for evidence if you explicitly tell me to look at it. But it looks bad if you say their arg is bs and it's solid.

I like it when you collapse down to one or two arguments in summary (First or Second summary). I wouldn't advise going for everything if you have 3 or more arguments plus turns. I will still judge the round the same way if you don't collapse but it's easier for me to evaluate rounds without considering 5 args on each side.

Try and be very clear during your off time road map and during your speech where you are on the flow.

Also... I don't like speed. If you're case requires a speech doc to understand I would prefer your use your lay case. I can't stop you from spreading if you want. Excessive speed is exclusionary to smaller and less wealthy programs in my opinion.

If you don't offer a speech doc and then you proceed to spread I won't vote on anything I don't have written on my flow. I typically wont ask for one after constructive so its on you to make sure your judge understands and can flow your arguments.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

Hi! I have been debating at Vestavia Hills High School for four years now.

Evidence - If the evidence is sketch... I will call for it

Rebuttal - Signpost!!! Tell me exactly what you are doing/responding to

Summary/Final Focus - Weigh!! Signpost PLEASE! Say where you are on the flow

Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire, but if you want to tell me something that happened in crossfire, then say it in the next speech. Be respectful! Do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Yelling and screaming at each other will NOT help you win the round

Keep your own time (prep, speeches)

Have fun! :)

General Things:

- I don't care how fast you talk as long as I can understand what you're saying, but I do ask that you slow down for things like large numbers or contention titles.

- If your team does not bring up an argument in summary, you cannot bring it up in final focus.

- If you concede something in cross but the other team doesn't bring that up in a speech, I won't flow it.

- Do not use an abusive overview.

- I will not time you in the round, so please time yourselves.

- I'm not a lay Judge. I don't care if you use emotion or make eye contact with me, I care about the substance of your speech.

- Theory is ok, maybe?? but no guarantee I'll understand it due to the fact that I've never run theory or had it run against me.

Rules:

1. If you misconstrue evidence, I will almost definitely vote up the other team. Just misconstruing one card is enough for me to doubt your entire case.

2. Do not be rude in round. You're not attacking each other, you're attacking the cases.

3. No profanity or cruel terms.

4. If you go over time significantly and it's obvious, I will cut you off.

Speaker Points:

You start with 28 speaker points.

Here's how you can gain points:

1. Good Speaking

2. Good Cross Questions

3. Good Weighing

Here's how you lose points:

1. Bad Speaking

2. Being Rude

3. Using Profanity

Laurel Pack (she/her) Varsity public form debater 2020-2023. Current JV policy debater at Samford University.

Email: laurel.a.pack@gmail.com (use this email for any questions before round and for the email chain)

Policy Paradigm

T:

Line-by-line/reasons to prefer are super important to me when extending T into the block. However, I ask that you slow down and annunciate clearly on the T arguments that aren't carded. I also generally lean aff on T, so long as they prove being neg isn't impossible and there is a substantial literature base.

Condo:

Contradictory condo is your strongest story if you run condo. Otherwise, unless condo is not responded to at all (or not responded to sufficiently) I will probably have a pretty difficult time voting on condo over substance of the round.

CP Theory

CPs need to be competitive with the aff and the neg has to make that clear. If I think the CP can happen in the same world as the aff, I probably won't vote neg on the CP. I also don't belive in judge kick, the debater should have to do the strategic work in the round and decide if the CP is worth going for. I also think there should be more focus on CP framing, should the CP solve all of the aff to be sufficient? Not sure. Don't ignore the top-level stuff.

Kritiks:

I am not a judge who is comfortable judging a kritikal or performance aff. I am also probably not a good judge for a k v k round. I am most comfortable evaluating the K on the neg. I also prefer alts to be specific. My ideal alt would be to advocate for a specific movement or mindset that can proveably resolve the impacts of the aff. Please don't make the alt "reject the aff." The alt should do something. Finally, please don't assume I'm an expert on the literature base you're reading from, you will probably have to walk me through the links clearly and make sure you spell out how we get from point a to point b.

Final Thoughts:

Don't be unethical. No arguments like climate change good. If you read authors who are morally questionable I will absolutely drop the card and will be willing to listen to a procedural about it. I also won't read cards after round unless there is a dispute about what the card says/what it means.

PF Paradigm

TLDR:

• The team speaking first should start an email chain with everyone so exchanging cards is easier. If you're disclosing cases, the case should be a PDF or a WordDoc.
• If your team is doing the second rebuttal, you MUST frontline (spend about a minute on it). No new frontlines should be read in the second summary.
• Your final focus should only be going for 1 of the arguments presented in constructive. Pick a scenario and stay with it, this should be done in summary.
• When you are going for an argument in final focus, every part of it should be extended (uniqueness, link, and impact). An argument without any of those components is not very useful.
• If someone reads a turn, even if you are not going for that argument, you HAVE to respond to the turn before you drop the contention. I consider it offense if the other team decides to point it out.
• SUPER IMPORTANT: Don't look at me in cross exe when you're answering a question, the feeling is reminiscent of when people sing happy birthday to you but you don't know what to do.
• Be nice :)
• I tend to make a lot of facial expressions, please consider them ALL neutral. I have really bad eyesight, most of the time if I look like I'm confused or angry, I'm probably squinting to look at something on my computer. I also worry that I tend to look angry but please don't let this discourage you (I'm most definitely not angry).
• Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round if you have any, I'm always happy to explain things

More info:

• Constructive: Not much to note, go as fast as you feel comfortable. Warning: I find it really difficult to vote for cases with just one contention (unless it has multiple subpoints) I also very rarely see good cases with three contentions. In 99.9% of cases, the third contention is just one card which wastes time (this time could be better spent reading another card on either of the first contentions).
• Rebuttals: A strong line-by-line is key to the ballot. You should have one or two responses to every point of their argument (uniqueness, link impact) (Signposting is also really important here, please tell me exactly what argument you're addressing). When you give an off-time roadmap, stick to it. Don't say you're starting on their case then start time and go to your own case. This was mentioned above but if you're going second, frontline pretty please.
• Summary: Having a good summary is key to not losing a round. My ideal order of a summary would be collapsing (identifying which scenario your side is focusing on for the rest of the round + responding to any turns read), then immediately weighing the scenario you are going for, and then REALLY in-depth frontlining on everything they read against it in rebuttal. Then, move to their case, talk about why you outweigh any of their scenarios (pre-requisite or turns case arguments are really useful here), and then extend your rebuttals. Note: Summary is a super difficult speech, don't feel like the round is over if you miss one of these things, all will be well. Also, I'm really suspicious of new arguments in the first summary (unless they're frontlines) and I do not accept new arguments in the second summary. If the other team points out you made a new argument in second summary, it won't be evaluated. I will also probably evaluate that argument last, even if they don't point it out.
• Final focus: Extend all the parts of the argument/scenario you're going for and then WEIGH. Literally, be so dramatic during this speech. Ideally should be split half and half between your case and their case, covering their case should focus on what you think are the MOST devastating arguments (arguments they didn't respond to or the ones you find most compelling)
• Cross exe: Please please please be nice. There is nothing I hate more than a super-aggressive cross exe. You can be witty, and sassy, and funny, but there is a very big distinction between that and angrily dominating the conversation. Also, cross exe is binding if the other team points it out (i.e. don't concede the entire case in cross because you think it won't matter).
• Misc. Thoughts: I am constantly saddened by the state of PF. Debates become really repetitive and very surface-level. Clash and creativity are the easiest way to win my ballot. I will 9/10 prefer the smarter, well-thought-out, and compelling argument to one that's super polished but really insufficient in warranting or links.

Speed- I do not have preference to the speed, but please don't spread. I would prefer more on articulation than speed.

Speech and Weight-

Before you start your speech, it is preferred to give off time road map.

Make sure to weight at least before the final focus and present your list of voters in final focus.

It would be better to start weight on your rebuttal.

If your opponents drop an argument and you mention, make sure to collaborate the significance of that dropped arguments and weight why you win.

I will vote to a team that had a greater and solid impact.

Time- Make sure to keep time, but I will be keeping time just in case.

Pre-Round

kalebshockley48@gmail.com

The email is for anything that comes up in the round. Just so you know I give automatic 30 speaks because it really doesn’t matter. The only way to get less is be rude or disrespectful, so please be nice and courteous.

In Round

I know this is PF and big number evidence rules and I wont say that’s wrong by any mean, but if your opponent deflects it even a tiny bit and it already made no sense I wouldn’t rely on it without backing it up. Refutations are great and are needed to every contention your opponent runs. Even if its just logic I want you to say something against everything. I understand collapsing so as long as you responded to any turns if you don’t collapse on it I wont count it for OR against you. I like when it comes down to one thing and its really strong. Tell me how you win the round, connect back into the framework and how you fit it better. If you collapse and weigh and refute the opponents well you will almost always win the round.

Post Round

Unless I have been instructed not to I will close, always ask just before or after if I can or not and I’ll let you know. I will explain it and leave you both comments about what to work on wether its case or arguments. I love when people are nice to each other after round. Remember this is just debate and its not worth getting that mad over. Thank you guys for the round and I hope you all do well for, well this debate with me and the debates after.

I did PF at MA all four years of high school, and I’m currently a freshman in college. I’m a pretty trad judge.

If you have any questions just ask me before the round.

Freshman at UPenn, did PF for four years for Altamont School in Birmingham, AL and qualled to Nats and GTOC 2x. I consider myself a tech judge and I pretty much adapt to the style of the debaters but I have a few notes/preferences (Public Forum specific).

_________________________

GENERAL

- Add me to the email chain, email at bottom.

- Assume I have little to no topic knowledge.

- Tech > truth. Dropped arguments are true arguments and evidence is a necessity.

- Just don't be offensive/abusive it's not that hard. Debate should be about inclusivity. If you are offensive/abusive I will dock you speaks and maybe drop you depending on how bad you are.

- Novice Debaters: Please just use your whole speech time, it will always help you more than hurt you and I'll give you higher speaks.

- Talk however fast you want, I can understand speed but if you are going to spread, email me and your opponents a speech doc.

- Warning: I am not really familiar with theory/really progressive arguments but if you explain/warrant it well with evidence I'm open to it.

- If you want me to call for a card because you think your opponents are misrepresenting it, tell me to do so and I will.

SPECIFIC SPEECH STUFF

- Second rebuttal should at least respond to turns put on their case.

- Weigh from summary on, if not rebuttal.

- I will not vote on an argument if it is not in final focus and summary.

- No new unresponsive arguments from 2nd summary onward.

- I don't flow cross but it is binding. If something important is mentioned, bring it up in a speech.

_________________________

If you have any questions ask me before or after round or email me at wvsdebate@gmail.com Also I'm pretty much always gonna disclose, if you don't agree with my decision, ask me I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi everyone! My name is Ariel (she/her/hers), and I am currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, studying finance & marketing operations with a design minor.

Background: I debated Public Forum for four years at Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, Alabama. I debated on the local and national circuit and qualified to NSDA Nationals and TOC Gold in 2020. I also kinda competed in Congress (but like idk what I was doing).

PF:

General/Fun Overview

1. If you turn when you read a turn, I will give you +0.5 speaks.

2. I like puns and funny catchphrases in speeches, so do what you will with that info.

3. Don't steal prep time pls and thx - also i hate extremely long evidence exchanges. I expect you to run your own prep time if you call for evidence.

4. I vote off crossfire. Just kidding. I will probably be on my phone during cross, so if anything important happens in cross, be sure to reference it in later speeches, so I can flow it.

5. If you fail to present evidence within three mins, I will scratch it from my flow.

6. Tech > Truth

7. Any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop.

8. On a scale of 1-10, I can flow speed of around 7. Spread at your own risk.

Progressive Args

1. My experience with Progressive Args is limited. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory and non-topical kritiks. Run at your own risk. 90% of the time, I will be confused. Do whatever. Go stupid. Go crazy.

2. Please don't run theory unless there is an actual violation. Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Trigger Warning theory are fine I guess.

3. USE TRIGGER WARNINGS. PLEASE if you run any suicide or domestic abuse or anything potentially triggering in case, give us a heads up and warning ahead of time.

Rebuttals

1. Second rebuttal should frontline turns, extend, and weigh case. Start collapsing if you want. It makes the narrative more clear.

2. Weigh and implicate any turns.

3. Quality > Quantity

Summary

1. Defense is sticky. Frontline in rebuttal/1st summary if you want to extend an argument.

2. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE. COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything.

3. weigh. weigh. weigh. start early. I expect weighing in BOTH summary and final focus. Tell me why I prefer your arguments.

4. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

5. I prefer line by line over big picture, but do as you please.

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. If you extend a completely different argument than your partner did in their summary, you have no offense.

3. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact. If there is no impact, I will not vote for it.

4. I enjoy probability weighing.

LD:

um... yea. Treat me like a lay judge :)

Any Questions? Email me OR send me a meme: aszhou@wharton.upenn.edu