General Shi:
1) I am tab

2) Extend everything and frontline damning offense.

3) I evaluate and appreciate frameworks

4) I am 50 50 on sticky defense depending on the argument made

5) If your gonna go fast, send speech doc ( I don't care about the cut cards on there if u don't ready any).

6) I do TKO's.

7) If you are getting nuked in a round, and would like to end the round early, you can forfeit the round (prior to grand cross) and I'll give you the L but give you double 30's.

8) Tag Team CX is allowed, I think it's a good thing.

Weighing:
1) Make sure I get COMPARATIVE weighing and you do the work for me. I will not intervene
2) Warrant your weighing (aka. tell me why your high probability impact matters more than the opponents' scope weighing)

Speaks Boost Stuff:
1) Speak clearly, especially since we are online. I will add a speaker point if you have Brent Faiyaz or Drake playing in the background during the constructive
2) You can say whatever (aka. accidentally cussing). I won't really care unless its explicitly racist, ableist, homophobic, etc.
3) If the debate round is legit interesting -- auto 30s for both sides

Evidence

I'll never call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and nobody called it out. I think that's stupid and interventionist. I'll even evaluate evidence I literally know you wrote, if you're not called out on it. I don't care. I have a low threshold, however, for BS evidence if it's called out.

Theory Stuff

1) I think I am the wrong type of judge to read incredibly phil-rooted arguments or otherwise hyper-technical arguments that would be considered wildly outside of the realm of PF. This is not to say that you can't read theory, framing arguments or other technical arguments adapted to PF, but please be cognizant of this if you pick up my ballot, and explain your collapse better.
2) Make it interesting

I’ve done PF for four years. x3

Email for chain: olaxson3846@stu.neisd.net

Truth > Tech

My Framework for judging is CBA

No Off Resolution Theory/K

Cross has no weight in round

Voters given in Final Focus needs to be extended from summary

Hi! My name is Simran Patel and I debated Public Forum for 6 years in San Antonio Texas, qualifying to the TFA State tournament three times. I am currently a freshman at the University of Michigan. I am a mix between flow and lay judge. I will pay attention to drops and tech on the flow, however I will also listen to logical analysis and argumentation. You must have evidence to back up what you're saying. List out your voters and weigh throughout the round! Extend major arguments if unresponded to.

A couple of things for Yale '21- Given my background as a PFer, I am not super fond of spreading. I can understand it, but it is not my favorite. If I miss something, which I might, I will not backflow for you. I am tech over truth and will keep a flow of the arguments in the round. Win the contention level debate and why it matters under a framework and you will win my ballot.

Email: simiradha26@gmail.com

Hi! I’m Georgia, I’m a junior at St. Edward’s University in Austin. In high school I competed in mostly PF but also did info, oratory, extemp, CX, and world schools.

For the debate side, I would consider myself a tab judge. I’m fine with speed, counterplans, turns, etc. I also am fine with using more logical arguments than cards, as long as you utilize both. I’m more so looking for which side can uphold their own case while successfully hitting the other’s in a respectful way, as opposed to who has the most techy case.

For the speech side, I don’t have many paradigms other than to be respectful to others when they are performing, be engaging, and be thoughtful in what and how you are presenting.

Thank you!