TLDR: I like smart narrative tech debates. But you do you!

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and my email is zarachapple (at) gmail.com. I debated PF for Dalton (C)Y from 2017-2020, ran Beyond Resolved, coached for PFA, and now I study Public Policy and Sociology.

Don't be bigoted, don't be mean, respect pronouns + use content warnings. If I make this round/tournament safer or more accessible, please reach out, and I'll do what I can!

.·:*¨༺ ༻¨*:·.

Debate is a game and that game is Jenga. Collapse!

Procedure: Preflow, track your prep, and don't skip cross. I'll disclose decisions/speaks/comments as the tournament allows and give feedback, but don't post-round me.

Getting Good Speaks: Signpost everything, especially weighing/off case args. Implicate weighing/responses to your opponent's case. Crossfire shows how well you know your own arguments. I strongly prefer analytical responses that go after the structure of your opponent's arguments to prep-outs and card dumps.

Speed: Check with all teams/judges. My limit is ~220 WPM and I won't flow arguments I didn't hear.

Evidence: Your evidence probably isn't as good as you make it, but I won't evaluate issues with things I'm not asked to look for. Good analytics >>> unwarranted evidence. I'm chill with paraphrasing when it explains something more efficiently.

Theory: I am familiar with and will evaluate theory. I have high standards for reasonability, and argumentation still matters. Please don't make me intervene on vibes because your theory arguments aren't extended, warranted, and/or implicated. Theory isn't an RVI unless you make args otherwise.

Ks/Progressive Arguments: I really believe most policymaking approaches are problematic, so I welcome these arguments, and I'm familiar with most authors read in PF. That said, I have more experience judging LARP rounds, and I see their educational value too. PF's structure isn't conducive to Ks so I understand if you just explain the role of your argument, but I would encourage you to focus on strong links and alternatives.

Misc: I'm a Cancer Sun, Scorpio Moon, Pisces Rising. I judge nothing like Ben.

Good luck, and have fun!

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit. Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.
2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal; no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

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

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

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

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

I'm currently a high school senior and I've debated in PF for four years.

I'll be flowing, probably on Google Sheets, so there's a good chance I won't be looking at you when you make your speech. I might also have my video turned off, but rest assured that I'm paying attention. Whether or not I can see you, I don't care how you dress or whether you make eye contact, just make sure I can see your face. Don't be actively mean towards your opponents, don't be racist or sexist, etc.

In General:

As a rule, I don't have any particular things that I think you're absolutely required to do besides extending your offense and defense.

I'll enjoy wacky strategy like dropping case to go for a turn, but it won't necessarily benefit your speaker points or probability of winning if you don't do it well.

While responding to arguments by saying they don't have a card is fine, that definitely cannot be your only rebuttal. In general, in a scenario where your opponents use a mostly logical argument, I'd prefer that you respond with at least some logic of your own. Not having a card will count against them, but that doesn't excuse you from using your brain.

Card indicts, on the other hand, are great. Do that.

If your card just appears to be a journalist or pundit saying something without evidence, I'm just going to treat it like you said it yourself. Examples of this include vague theories about the behavior of a country/group/person without any past examples of said behavior or explanations of what incentives they have.

Limit the amount of debate jargon please. In fact, I'll add extra speaker points if you can avoid using it at all.

I also really enjoy it when debaters come up with new arguments on the spot using information not directly related to the topic, so extra speaker points for that I guess. Generally displaying a good understanding of what is happening in the world and why beyond the direct scope of the topic will get you brownie points.

I'm personally a ruthless utilitarian and thus my go-to weighing mechanism is just to more or less just tallying up the number of people impacted/killed in whatever contentions are left and voting for who has the bigger number. If you also choose to weigh on magnitude, even though I'm already implicitly weighing on that already, do mention it and explain what exactly your impacts are, because I'll like you more if you don't make me do math. Alternative weighing mechanisms are extremely encouraged - you should not emulate my lack of creativity.

Weighing on "probability," "strength of link," or anything like that is not weighing.

For turns, you have to extend whatever parts of the contention are necessary for the turn in addition to the turn itself, so keep that in mind if you decide to make a turn a voter.

I hate having to come to my own judgements about anything. Do anything to avoid making me doubt whether what you're saying it actually true. You can do this by basing explanations off of obvious/well carded things.

Constructive:

Fast talking is fine, but please don't spread. I can handle wacky arguments and theory as long as you explain it.

Crossfire:

I won't be flowing, but I'll be listening and feel free to reference whatever you or your opponents say in cross in your other speeches. Interrupting is fine if you're not being super annoying about it, but don't talk over each other/launch into parallel monologues. Definitely don't spend reread your case at length in a condescending way in response to a question.

Rebuttal:

Turns are great and all, and I fully encourage first rebuttal especially to use them frequently, but I'd prefer if you actually run at least some defense on all of the opposing contentions before starting with those. It's also never too early to begin weighing, so if you can do that in rebuttal that's great.

Summary:

Drop please, running everything makes the round super confusing to both flow and actually evaluate at the end. Preferably you would find some way to connect all of the extant arguments into some kind of comprehensible narrative or at the very least track the state of each contention while extending instead of going line-by-line. Everything in Final Focus except responses to anything new or responses to dropped arguments have to be in Summary, so actually communicate with your partner about what you want to do in this speech.

Final Focus:

Pretty much do the same thing you do in Summary: go through whichever arguments are left and tell me why yours are unrefuted and important while theirs aren't.