My name is Abraam, I'm a university student studying engineering. I don't have much experience in judging.

hints for high points

since the tournament is online please speak clearly and slowly, also send a copy of the case on Abraam778@gmail.com

good luck to everyone

Experience:

PF for 4 years

CNDF/BP (I'm from Canada) for 5 years

Public speaking competitively for 8 years

I am familiar with economics, IR (not what is going on in Africa other than Egypt however) and I know my history relatively well. Content in highschool debate would be no problem for me

Stylistic Preferences:

I am fine with speed but do so at your own peril. If I mishear or drop things because I can't comprehend you then oops! Your fault not mine

Please give off time road map prior to speech (not constructive duh)

Logos>Pathos. I get really annoyed by debaters crying about human rights, democracy, lives, and all that stuff. If you do that I might dock off some points depending on my mood. Prove it with analytics and evidence, not tears and cracky voices.

I am cool with jargon just not intense policy jargon.

Content Preferences:

I don't mind ghost extensions but I will value arguments extended throughout the debate over ghost extensions.

Weigh!!! Weigh!!! Weigh!!! If you don't tell me what is important I will do it for you.

If you are running extinction or nuclear war or just war for that matter than probability is paramount for me to value your argument. Probability>Magnitude, Scope of impact

Quantify things, give examples.

I don't flow cross if something important happened in cross bring it up in your speeches.

Reading uncut cards after cards in rapid succession gives you an automatic <25. I can tell if you don't understand what you are saying.

Flow matters the most to me. You can be a better debater than your opponents but if you lose on flow then you still lose. I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

I evaluate warrants and link/internal link analysis before impacts.

I don't buy cards that cite some person stating xyz without saying why ie John 2018 states that Arm sales generally don't lead to escalation. Debate is not throwing quotes at each other, debate with reason and empirics, not ethos.

Etiquette Preferences:

Don't fight physically, fight verbally, please. Attack the argument as harshly as you want, not the person. I love sass.

Don't lie or beat around the bush and waste time. That is my biggest pet peeve.

Don't be all preppy and suck up to me. That doesn't help your speaker scores or the judging decision at all.

TLDR:

Don't be annoying

You can speak fast, but clarity is more important. Any arguments that I can not catch will not be counted in the round.

Tell me the reason that I should vote for your ballot.

Respect one another and respect the rules. Be nice to each other.

Time yourselves.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

I am a UC Berkeley undergrad, debated british parli for a bit but mostly PF in HS for about 4-5 years. I haven’t judged in 3 years so be clear on all your args

There a few things to keep in mind:

I like:

• weighing
• sign post always
• be nice to ur opponents and me
• send me speech docs before (ahead) don't send me multiple files of your cards
• articulate very clearly, speak at a reasonable pace, don't spread but i can handle speed
• i don't know much about the topic so only say what is key and important to win your case
• If it’s not in summary, it won’t count in your final focus. Please weigh and use impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc).
• tell me clearly where to vote and why. don't go for everything by the end. collapse.
• Tech > truth
• be respectful, nice, don't be rude. and i mean this.
• Announce when your prep time is starting/ending.
• Don’t just read author names for cards, remind me what the card said and why it matters.
• never lie of evidence: I expect all evidence to be fully carded, not just a link. I will call for cards if they may largely impact the vote or sound sketchy.

I am a mainly a PF Debater but have some experience in CNDF.

General Things:

1. I am fine with speed but make sure it's articulate, although if you can express your thoughts going conversation speed, it could boost speaker points.

2. I flow and expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches.

3. Although it is good to be critical and I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

4. Make sure you're asking questions during crossfire rather than give speeches. And I appreciate questions that are asked in a way that is super chill.

5. I appreciate theories. No one expects it and you win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.

6. I think Impact turns > Link turns (no risk of a link)

7. I typically vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know.

Online debate: Technical difficulties are bound to happen and all i ask is that you are patient as we work them out! If you're a very fast speaker, i ask that you slow down a bit because computer audio can be bad, and I don't want you to lose because I couldn't hear what you said.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 8 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.