Hi there! I did Public Forum for 2 years and now I do Speech :)

Here's my email if you have any questions before/after a round or for an email chain for sending cards/evidence, haabo23@icstudents.org

Things I want to See

- Rounds should be about convincing me that your overall argument and position on the resolution is correct. Please keep in mind that's what Public Forum is, persuasion.

- Please signpost, (tell me what argument you're responding to or what overall contention you're talking about), it will help me keep track of my flow and especially use them when you’re extending cards (i.e. saying the tagline.) It will help me with my flow so please try and do it

- Weighing: Weigh the arguments in the round, ESPECIALLY in summary and final focus. Tell me why your weighing means you should win this round, not just why your weighing is true. Talk to me like I am a 3rd grader who doesn't know much about the topic and you're telling me why you're the best and not your opponents. (I assure you I know a lot about the topic, but pretend I don't)

- Impacts: Tell me why you have greater impacts than your opponents. If a debate gets really close, I will most likely decide the winner depending on who weighed the impacts better.

General Stuff to Remember

I am completely fine with off-time road maps, as long as you follow them.

Please time your speeches and prep, I will keep time, but it is also your responsibility.

I will allow you to have 10-15 seconds to finish your sentences at the end of your speech.

Please be respectful. Public Forum is also for everyone to have fun and learn. Respectfulness leads itself to better speaks. Any problematic behavior in the round (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc.) can lead to a loss or docked speaker points. Watching a super aggressive/rude debate is also super frustrating and will hurt your speaks. I do not have any tolerance for any form of in round abuse or discrimination.

Please have a trigger warning for any content related to sexual violence, self-harm, or graphic descriptions of violence. If you're not sure if you should read one, read it. If somebody isn’t comfortable with you reading the argument, don’t. Usually, I'm okay with this kind of content, but please ask beforehand.

Speed

REMEMBER THIS IS PUBLIC FORUM AND NOT POLICY/LD. I can handle some speed but please don't spread, If you do, it's on you if I couldn't flow your speeches. If you have some speed, please also be clear when you speak, that way I can hear your arguments and be able to flow them. Clarity > Speed

Speaker Points

For good speaker points, I want to hear good tone, authentication, and speaking style. Being kind and respectful can lead you to better speaks!

(I will give you +0.5 speaker points if you make any references and I know of it, literally not joking) (Or if you somehow get food to my house, I'll give 30 speaker points to you)

(If you buy me any album off my album list I will consider giving you an automatic win and 30 speaker points)

29-30: Amazing Speaking

27-28: Really good speaking

24-26: Average/Okay

23 and below: Poor Speaking

Cross-Examinations

Use cross-examination periods to ask questions you genuinely want your opponent to answer. Listen to their response respectfully. Don't use cross-examination periods to make arguments, and please do not make me repeat this, please be kind during cross, I don't want to see any bullying or disrespect. (Also please do not be like Trump and Biden during the Presidential Debate, that was terrible.)

I want to see some clash. Clash is good, debate the warrants behind the other team's arguments vs. the reasoning behind your arguments.

Rebuttals

Please don't just throw a bunch of blocks and evidence at my face, use weighing, and tell me why your blocks make their arguments invalid. Please extend as well, that will seriously help you in your speeches.

Summaries

Try your best to not make this like a second rebuttal and do not just repeat everything your partner said in rebuttal. No new arguments in 2nd summary (it's abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond)

Final Focuses

PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP NEW EVIDENCE IN FINAL FOCUS. Final Focus is meant to weigh everything important that's happened in the round and to tell me why you should win, not to make new arguments.

Other

- Please try to not call me "judge"—it feels weird and cringy >_<|||

- You can refer to me as Hana (Pronounced as Hah-nah) or "You"

- Please stay on the topic and resolution.

- If I see any disrespect directed towards your opponents, me, or anyone else. Not only will I dock speaker points but I will also say YOUR BEHAVIOR IS SO UGH (extra points if you know where this is from)

- Make your arguments very clear to follow and understand, especially if you are advancing them. If your opponents do not respond, make sure to mention that in your next speech.

- Please do not lie! Also do not have any skewed cards, it's just downright bad to be lying and won't do you any good.

- Please do not cheat your prep time, I will be keeping time to be sure.

- If an argument isn't valuable in the round anymore, it's ok to collapse on something else in summary (but make sure to say "We're collapsing on __ because __")

- If someone calls for a piece of evidence, please give it to them as soon as you can. For online rounds, if there is a chat option just copy and paste the card, tagline, and citation there. Otherwise please email it to your opponents and me.

- Please be a good sport! These times are difficult to be able to debate like we usually would. Be kind to your opponents and judge. This also just isn't for me, but for everyone. Many people are working very hard to make these tournaments possible for you to debate and have fun.

That is all! If you have any questions about this please ask before we start the round, have fun and good luck! (╯°▽°)╯ ┻━┻

Iowa City West High School '23 | she/her | alicedebate3014@gmail.com

About me: I’m currently a varsity PFer; this is my 4th year of debate.

NOVICES: take everything below with a grain of salt, debate the best you can, and have fun!

General:

• "debate is a game" so tech>truth
• I will always disclose unless told not to
• Run what you want as long as it's warranted & has impacts
• Time yourselves
• Be nice
• If you bring me bubble tea before the round, +0.5 speaks
• Feel free to email or Instagram DM me if you have more questions after the round :)

Things I want to see:

• Off-time roadmaps & signposting
• Trigger warning if your arguments could be sensitive
• Start frontlining in 2nd rebuttal
• Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
• Interaction (aka actually RESPOND to what your opponents say, don't flow through ink)
• Collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win
• Collapse STRATEGICALLY - aka don't go for the contention/argument that has 8 responses to it (unless you're prepared to/have time to frontline them all), when you could go for the one that has just 2

Things I DON'T want to see:

• "Bruh homies out here having an asthma attack while reading cases." Don't spread. This is pf. If I miss something you say, that's on you. (If your opponents spread, feel free to run anti-spreading theory)
• Don't read frivolous theory
• DONT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGS IF YOU KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABT PROGRESSIVE PF

• "asking" statements, instead of questions, during cross
• New arguments in final focus or 2nd summary. This is abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond.
• Bringing stuff up in final focus that wasn't brought up in summary (I won't vote on it)
• DON'T just read card after card. You need to analyze in between and explain how they prove your point
• Discrimination

I think speaks are very subjective, but here you go:

30: God-tier - I see you definitely breaking and making it into deep out rounds

29.5-29: Great - You're breaking for sure, might not make it far, but you're breaking

28.5-28: Average - Might be on the verge of breaking/will be in a bubble round

27.5-27: Comprehendible

<26: Either I can't understand you at all, or you were egregiously rude/discriminatory

link to one of my favorite pf rounds ever!

I've primarily judged speech/interpretation events, a handful of Congress rounds and some Public Forum over the past three years.

Make it make sense, I am a lay judge.

I want folks to be mature and maintain civility throughout the event. More simply put, respect everyone involved and we should be okay.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

I'd like to see clean logical debates; keep it civil and respectful. I'd prefer to hear slower and clearer arguments so that I can best understand you.

Please be respectful of each other in the round. Interact with each others cases, and impact!

Evidence-supported topicality is a key to my vote. Avoid exploding the topic just for the sake of shock value--if you've honed your skills, the strength of your argument will win over gimmicks. Being organized is another important factor; the better I can follow your lines of reasoning, the more likely I am to vote your way. Confidence is great, but arrogance can be off-putting.

Judging: I have, thus far, only judged PF rounds. That is my comfort zone.

Speed: I can follow faster presentations, but if I miss a contention because I was taking notes on the previous contention, that's on y'all.

Numbers: I don't require facts, figures, and statistics. However, if one team uses them, cites them, and defends their validity if challenged then they will have an advantage over a team that does not. This being said, if these numbers accidentally reveal that the other team outweighs on magnitude, or probability, that's also on y'all.

Unconventionality: Original (strong) arguments are appreciated and effective. They have to make sense and they have to be supported by evidence. They also have to be relevant.

How I weigh: Beyond simply proving your point, I focus on whether someone's contention has been neutralized/negated/disproven/minimized (or demonstrated to be non-unique). I tend to favor probability over magnitude.

Warrants/Technical Arguments: Linked to unconventionality, if you make an argument that requires technical knowledge, you should try to briefly explain it. Also, if the feasibility/reality of a claim is not readily apparent, the warrant should come with a short explanation as to how it makes sense.

Don't be rude.

WEIGH.

GBX 2023

- send constructive and rebuttal docs with cards to both emails before you read them

- set up the chain BEFORE you come into round

- I have done a considerable amount of topic research

- I think open source is a good norm

Westwood '22

Coach for Westwood

Email for email chains (I want to be on it)/questions/anything really: amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com AND westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com

I will flow every speech and be focused on the round. I love the activity and know how much time you put in - you deserve a judge that pays attention and that cares. Go as fast as you want but be clear. More often than not you don't need to read 4 contentions or go as fast are you're going - quality is way more important than quality.

Speaks are a function of strategy (good collapsing, weighing, going for dropped turns and doing it well, etc) and practices (disclosure, cut cards, etc). I do not care what you wear. Speaks will range from 28 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.

I will research most, if not all, of the topics. So, you can assume I have background knowledge, but if you're reading something super specific explain it and your acronyms.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

If you want a short version - I agree with Akhil Bhale.

Non-negotiables:

- No prep stealing (it's quite obvious)

- Have the cut card for any piece of evidence that you read easily accessible (bare minimum), if your going to send links to large PDFs please strike me.

- I am uninterested in listening to and will not vote for arguments that endorse self-harm or suicide. Spark and other hypothetical impact turns are fine.

- Do not use racist/sexist/misogynistic rhetoric.

- I will "flow" cross-examination and it is binding (it exists for a reason). I hate it when teams don't understand their own arguments and this is the time to make it obvious. Probably won't be a voting issue but could be made into one.

"Preferables" (your speaks will automatically improve but I won't hold it against you unless convinced otherwise by theory etc.) :

- Disclose previously broken positions on the wiki (personally think new Affs/Negs are good but that is a debate to be had)

- Read from cut cards

- Send constructive and rebuttal docs with all the cards before your speech. I will never call for specific evidence after the round. If I think the evidence will decide or influence my decision I will go to speech docs to read it, if it isn't there too bad. Sending evidence after the round is just a way for debaters to send new evidence they didn't read, highlight evidence, cut parts out - I don't want to deal with that. TLDR: It helps both you and the debate if you send docs. I am a sucker for good evidence. If you have some really good evidence make sure I know about it - call it out by name. Again not an excuse for not debating - don't hide behind your evidence.

- Pre-flow before the round.

General:

- Tech > Truth (to an extent) - if an argument is dropped it is considered true but still has to be an argument for you to win on it (ie. it must be extended with uniqueness/link/internal link/impact), new implications or cross applications justify new responses to the specific implication. If you blow up a 2-second rebuttal blip - my threshold for responses won't be very high. More stuff on progressive arguments later.

- Read whatever you want to read - do your own thing. More on specific progressive arguments later.

- Open CX is fine (both people can speak/explain during cross-examination). Flex prep is fine and often good (ask questions during your prep time).

- 2nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline everything on the argument you're going for. Efficiency will be rewarded with good speaks. Defense is not sticky. Most "weighing" is new responses more on that later - at the latest 1st final but that's probably way too late and justifies 2nd final responses which isn't good for you anyway. 0 risk is a thing, but most defense will be evaluated on a probabilistic scale. 1st summary is the last time, I will flow new arguments. (There is a distinction between new arguments and new weighing - be careful.)

- Most substantive questions will be revealed on a probabilistic scale - comparative risk of the arguments. In 99% of debates, both sides will win some offense so comparative weighing and impact calculus can and often decides rounds. Procedural arguments often have to be evaluated on a yes/no basis (does the AFF violate the interp, RVIs or no RVIs, etc.)

- Turns. I love them but they are often done terribly. 99% of link turns need uniqueness to be offensive (ie. If the AFF tells me there is no negotiation in the status quo, and the NEG goes for a link turn about how the AFF makes negotiation worse, I have no idea what the impact to negative negotiation is.) Impact turns are also often interesting debates - if the link is contested (I hope it isn't if you're going for an impact turn) or if your opponents go for a different argument, then extend it clearly. If both teams seem to agree to the link and it just becomes an impact debate, I don't really care about link extensions too much. There are only 2 types of turns. Link turns and impact turns. New DAs and ADVs are often labeled as turns but you won't fool me and don't try - more on that later.

- Weighing. Also something I love but is often done wrong. There are three weighing mechanisms: probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a subset of those three (ie. scope is a subset of magnitude) or isn't a weighing mechanism (ie. clarity of the strength of the link or whatever people like to say.) Unless convinced otherwise (which is easily possible), link weighing/debating > impact weighing. I often find that nuclear war outweighs climate change or poverty outweighs death is irrelevant with good link weighing. I will give examples of link weighing below: at the latest these arguments need to be introduced by 1st summary. Probability link weighing are no-link arguments or "mitigatory defense." Stuff like "it is hard for terrorists to get BMDs because of monetary and technical constraints" is definitely link defense and needs to be in 1st summary at the latest. Probability is a function of how much defense you win on an argument, I will not arbitrarily assign probabilities (ie. say climate change is more probable than nuclear war) - you have to explain to me why that is the case which often is just link defense. Timeframe link weighing can be great. Arguments like the NATO bank at the earliest even if created won't get funding for years etc. Magnitude link weighing is really good and often underused (ie. "scope of solvency"). Solving bitcoin emissions won't solve climate change writ large etc. That being said, I can be convinced that impact weighing comes before link weighing. Arguments like extinction first and Bostrom and viable and can also be good. I hope everyone knows what impact weighing is so not going to go too in-depth on that. Last note - turns case is really, really good and also really, really underutilized in PF. Conflict probably ends negotiations, climate change probably makes war more likely, economic growth probably resolves underlying conditions for crime, etc. These types of arguments can really help you frame a round and establish why your came case comes first. Impact weighing and turns case can come by 1st final by the latest.

- Try or die can be convincing if done well. It is often a great strategy if you are going for an extinction impact and the NEG has conceded uniqueness. This is not an excuse for not frontlining - 0 risk is a thing. Timeframe is a really good weighing mechanism in try or die/extinction first debates and can often implicate probablity.

- Framing debates are also really interesting - extinction first etc. Framing arguments are not a substitute for link debate but a supplement. If you win policy paralysis and the other team wins a very large risk of their extinction scenario, the other team has probably won the round.

"Substance":

- Quality > quantity. Not too many interesting thoughts here. Good weighing and link debating wins rounds - avoiding clash, being shifty, and dumping blips doesn't.

- Empirics aren't arguments but can help your position combined with warrants. If you have good empirics that are specific to the mechanism of the resolution/your argument you're probably in a good spot.

- I could care less about quantified impacts. They are often random predictions by conspiracy theorists or terrible models. Even worse, debater math. I would much rather your impact be economic growth than some math you did with different studies and percentages. Extinction is an impact, recession is an impact, etc - I do not care about your 900 million card.

- Kicking case in reading a new DA/ADV in 2nd rebuttal is a bad idea. You essentially just wasted half of the debate. I will have a very low threshold for responses and encourage theory. This is different from reading 4 minutes of turns (ie. kicking case and just going for prolif good). I am perfectly fine with that, in fact, that would be quite fun.

Below are some thoughts on progressive argumentation. Don't read these arguments to win rounds - it's quite obvious. You disclose for the first time and read disclosure theory, change from full text to open source for 1 tournament to meet your interp, etc. I will still vote for it if you win but your speaks won't be great. Also, don't read progressive arguments just to beat novices - I will give you the worst speaks I possibly can.

Theory:

- I have mixed feelings on disclosing broken interps - could be convinced either way. In general, meta-theory is interesting and under-used.

- Topicality is also interesting. Define words in the resolution. Intent to define and evidence quality is extremely important. Unlike most theory debate, precision, your interpretation, and the evidence matter a lot more to me than the limits/ground debate.

- While I will not "hack" against these arguments be aware it is an uphill battle if you are defending paraphrasing good or disclosure bad. If you win your CI and everything on the flow of course I will still vote for you. If it is a close-round, you know which way I am probably going to vote.

- I default to competing interpretations, no RVIs, spirit of the interp, and drop the debater. I can easily be convinced otherwise. If paradigm issues are dropped/agreed upon they do not need to be extended in every speech. If the debate devolves to just theory under competing interps - I am voting for the better model of debate, I could not care that you won no RVIs (personally, no RVIs doesn't mean you can't win on a counter-interp in my mind)

- Reasonability is a good tool against mis-disclosure (open-source versus full text etc) and frivolous shells. You should still read a counter interp - but explain why the marginal differences in your models of debate are outweighed by substance crowd out etc.

- Read your shell the speech after the violation (if they paraphrase in 2nd rebuttal - feel free to read paraphrasing theory in 1st summary.) Theory after that is fairly late and really hard to have good clash, thus probably will result in intervention but if you think its necessary read it (bad language etc.)

- For some reason, small school counter-interps are quite popular and I get why (I read them myself a few times.) However, I am inclined to believe that arbitrary entry limits are just that arbitrary. Also, a lot of small schools are in big prep groups with a lot of resources, or just don't have a lot of people competing etc.

- Theory is unaccessible is a terrible argument - there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to any other argument.

- Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K's:

- "Substantive Ks" like Cap K or Security K are great but probably will just be evaluated as DAs or impact turns. Reading it as a K is often just an excuse to get out of the uniqueness debate, and when your alternative is just rejection, I don't think that gets you very far.

- Non-topical positions are also fine - I am familiar with most of the stuff people read in PF, but if you're reading high-theory or something confusing - slow down and explain it. I won't vote for something I can't explain back to you. This is my one exception to disclosing new Affs/Negs. I strongly believe non-topical positions should be disclosed before the debate to allow for clash.

- I slightly lean towards T/FW against K affs/negs probably because K debate in PF isn't done very well - but can easily be convinced otherwise. K teams should go for impact turns, weigh the K against the shell, and have a good CI that mitigates the limits offense. Do not read a K based on research about x argument and discourse and then make a prepouts bad argument on theory - that doesn't make too much sense. Weighing is really important in these rounds and I find that the theory teams get away with some stuff too easily (answer stuff like fairness is key to participation which comes before your method.)

- I am also down for a method v method debate, or PIKs etc. Conditionality is probably good against a new K aff/neg (ie. fine with T/FW combined with a PIK etc)

- Long pre-written overviews are not as useful as line-by-line and specific weighing.

- Also, please have an actual method. If you say "vote for me because I pointed this out," you probably won't get my ballot.

- Paraphrased Ks are a big no. Non-negotiable.

If you got this far, thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions feel free to email me whenever. I will always disclose unless the tournament explicitly tells me not to. Postrounding is good if it is constructive and educational - but this time, I will have already submitted my ballot and will not be able to change it. Feel free to email me questions after the round as well.

Hey there! I've debated in PF for 2 years and have done speech events for 2 years, now I am currently in college at the University of Iowa.

PF:

1. Please do not spread as a tactic. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to carry your points in the flow.

2. If you include an off-time road map, make sure it’s clear.

3. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.

4. If frameworks are included, please carry them through the round. If the framework is dropped, I will not weigh it in the round.

5. I need to see impacts. I weigh impacts after the entire round, so you MUST carry them through the round.

6. If there is an evidence debate, I most likely will call for your cards at the end of the round. If you fail to provide the evidence that is called by me, your claim will be dropped.

7. Have good sportsmanship. Don't be overly aggressive and have fun while debating.

Speech:

Individual and Duo Interp Events

• Believability and connection to the story

• Rising and falling of emotions

• Discernible voices (for multiple characters)

• Partners should respond naturally

• HI should be funny

• DI should be more dramatic and build to a climax

OO, POI, Extemp

• Defined outline

• Credible sources that support your thesis and purpose of your speech

• Be natural with your movements

• Some humor is good

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

add me to the email chain and label the round morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to there.

PLEASE do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal, call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where to vote. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no.

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.

With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

I love being asked questions and helping you learn!!

Hello,

I am currently a sophomore at the University of Iowa studying Business Analytics, Ethics and Public Policy, and Economics. A little bit of background about my debate career. I competed all four years in a variety of events including Public Forum, Student Congress, Dramatic Interpretation, and Spontaneous Speaking. My "main" event was Student Congress for which I am a 3 time national qualifier, a TOC qualifier, and a national semifinalist. But, all this to say that I am familiar with debate :)

These are some of my basic expectations in round -

• Make sure that all your arguments are presented in a clear claim evidence reasoning format. It is hard to flow if you are just presenting a list of claims or a list of reasoning... that makes no sense to me. If you want me to stay engaged follow a clean line of reasoning. I love patterns and organized arguments.
• When you get to the end of the round, or you are done making new arguments, WEIGH. Take your arguments and your opponents and put them against each other and tell me why I should vote for you over them. This is what makes a good debater, your ability to persuade.
• I love new and interesting arguments. Back when I was in high school, my partner and I had the record for running some of the coolest cases. So, if you want to present something that may not be conventional, I am here for it. Bonus points if you make arguments about extinction and make it make sense Just make sure that you are clear and have a flow of argumentation ready.
• Lastly, be articulate, clear, and stay clam and focused. You are here to win yes, but also learn and have fun. Don't let the pressure get to you :)

Goodluck!

doop doop doop

Put me on the email chain if you're gonna do it. Email: js46497@wdmcs.org

I'm a senior at Valley. I do LD.

Novice specific:

I prefer novices to read lay/traditional cases. I get that winning rounds based on varsity arguments your teammates gave you looks good to your parents, but if you don't understand what you read, then you don't gain anything from it. Instead, I think novices should focus on the basics of debate: good argumentation, being able to think on your feet, doing your own research. If you can actually understand your really technical Berardi case and it's something you actually want to read, then go for it. Otherwise, maybe don't.

If you're going to spread, try to spread well. Don't garble your words, speak clearly. If you can't do that, don't spread. Only spread if your opponent is cool with it.

All novices get 29+ unless they do something bad and by bad i mean defend racism or smth

PF specific:

I don't do pf so I will not know the topic literature. I have judged it a few times but I'm gonna judge it like an LD round because that's easier for me

You can call me a progressive judge, do theory and have an opposing framework and stuff (why do y'all not do framework debate? it's weird).

I'll vote on analytics, not everything needs to be carded.

This only happened once but if there's no impact weighing I will default to lives saved and look for who saves the most lives. *NOTE: I WILL NOT DO THIS IN LD*

General:

I don't care if you dress up or not, it won't affect my decision

Tech > truth. exception is if it's a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc argument.

Run what you want, but understand your cases before you read them, else i will be annoyed.

I won't flow cross-x unless you ask me to.

I'll say clear thrice. After that, I will stop flowing and just stare at you and let the judgment flow. if I say slow, it's not because you were unclear but rather that I am bad at flowing.

Things I like:

clear extensions with weighing. Specifically, I like hearing "extend this argument, here's the warrant"

tricks

phil

k's that my small brain can understand without learning

memey theory

Things I like less:

larp

k's with really big words that I won't understand without reading 13 doctoral theses in the subject unless you can explain SUCCINCTLY and CLEARLY

disclosure theory if it's not contact info

Time yourself, please, I'm lazy. I'm fine with you going a little over time to finish your sentence, but don't make it insane.

Use all your speech time. I see people not using all their time when judging novice debates. You can't get this time back, you might as well use it all. exception is if you're dominating/hitting a novice, in which case it's fine to sit down once you've hit all the important points.

Ask me questions after round, it'll help both you to become a better debater and me to become a better judge. I'll disclose speaks if you ask

I'll try to be lenient with speaks (especially for novices). Speaks will be decided based on how i feel

If you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc., I will drop you and give you a L20.

If you can tell me your favorite Tech N9ne song, I will give you +0.2 speaks (no saying face off or -0.2 speaks)

if you tastefully roast the following people you get +0.3 speaks (no generics and nothing actually mean): michael meng, nate weimar, ashley seo, caedmon kline, shreya joshi, ria tomar

if you praise grant engelbert you get +0.4 speaks

call me what you want, especially if it's funny like "joe mama, third in his line, conqueror of Brennan in smash ultimate" (you are forbidden from using this specific name)

Just have fun and try to learn something.

In high school I was a policy and public forum debater at Olathe Northwest in Kansas. After high school, I competed in college level Lincoln Douglas, IPDA, and public forum debate. My partner and I went on to win a PKD national championship in IPDA. Due to my experience in debate I would describe myself mostly as a gamesplayer. This means I will believe what you say until your opponent refutes it and vice versa. I place structure and tech almost above all in the debate. Check your framework and your impacts!

Besides the obvious hateful speech and arguments, mostly any arg, being a K or a performative speech, is okay with me.

If you are speeding and your opponents ask you to stop, I will also ask you to stop. Please do not use speed as a weapon.

Err on extending the cards and contentions that your opponents have dropped. I am a little old-school when it comes to this extension theory but its the way I was taught and I believe it is good practice.

I hate judicial activism. Please use your framework and explain why you win. I will not do the arguing for you, if you havent said it, it doesnt go on the flow. I will not flow arguments you do not make no matter how much I want to make them for you or no matter how much you claim you made them in your constructives.

If you have anything more specific please do not be afraid to ask before round.