Hi.

I'm a pog judge. Consider me a flay judge, but I will flow the round. I am willing to buy arguments such as nuclear war is good, so you can run anything. I have done 4 years of PF, I've qualified to TOC (1 gold, 1 silver).

+1 speaks for any Minecraft / TikTok / Current Event references

Please be nice to your opponents.

See you soon.

Speed:

I can handle most speeds, but I would like words to be well enunciated.

Crossfire:

I will listen to crossfire, but you need to bring up your points in speech.

Weighing:

Please provide weighing in at least your final focus.

Extensions:

There is no need to waste precious speaking seconds repeating a block if it has not been responded to yet. For entire arguments, please extend them if you want to keep them.

Evidence / Ideology:

Truth > tech. However, evidence comes first, so make sure cards are well cut and say what you would like them to say. I will call for pieces of evidence I know to be false or I suspect. However, I will not do anything about slightly wrong cards, as it is your job to catch your opponents. For example, there was a card that said "9 out of 10 start ups fail," but there were many debaters who said that 9 out of 10 small businesses fail. I will be mildly annoyed, but there is a limit to how much I will intervene.

Further Clarification:

Please ask me questions before round. Do not ask me to vote for you because you want another bid and are trying to qualify to TOC (my opponents mentioned this to the judge once).

I am a former varsity PF debater and Impromptu speaker. I also won the Big Questions Tournament 2022 (as my teammates requested I put in here). I use she/her pronouns. I don't really care about formality (clothes, shoes, setup, whatever, although don't be ridiculous for both our sakes). If you have tech issues, let me know and we can figure it out. Call me dude if you want to, I'll find it fun.

I won't dispute unless you tell me to, be nice, don't make me intervene. I'm fairly flow but I'm also literally a high schooler. Speed is fine, but please organize and signpost well. Have good evidence. Don't be rude. Tech over truth. Theory/K is fine, but needs to be explained thoroughly. Make puns.

I don't have all that much experience in anything other than PF but I have a pretty good gist of the other events.

Hi I'm Isha! I'm a high school senior who has been doing PF debate for almost 5 years now. Make sure to read through my paradigm before round.

Important: Kindness is a virtue. Do not be rude or aggressive towards your opponent. Do not treat your opponent as lesser than yourself -- I expect a formal and polite debate.

Speed:

Do not spread. Feel free to talk fast but at an understandable pace. Your speaking pace will not improve or worsen your speaks but I will judge off of what I can understand. I flow on paper (and I'm kinda bad at catching things) so talking clearly at a moderate pace will help me take your arguments into account.

Signposting:

Signpost please! Clearly state your contentions in constructive so I know exactly what your arguments are. When responding, numbered responses aren’t mandatory but are appreciated so I can better organize my flow.

Before rebuttal, summary, and final focus, an off-time roadmap would be great so I can figure out where to flow beforehand. This will also help me catch more of your speech.

Evidence:

If you bring up any numbers, I expect it to be supported by reliable evidence (it can't be biased!). I may even call for a card or two so have them ready. A solid card should include the author's name, date, link to article, and section from which the evidence was taken (preferably bolded or highlighted).

Feel free to ask your opponents for cards but read them during your prep time.

Any evidence you use to lead to another piece of evidence should have a clear link. If I can’t follow the link, I will most likely disregard the evidence.

Timing:

Time your own speeches and prep. I don’t always have the energy to time both sides. Be honest about your time because I might catch you off guard by timing. It really depends on my mood.

Crossfire:

I don’t care much for cross when it comes to the verdict of the round so if you get your opponent to concede to something, make sure to bring it up in later speeches because there is a big chance I might not catch it.

As mentioned earlier, being rude will not be tolerated. If you are demeaning your opponent in any way, form, or matter during cross, I will tank your speaks.

There is also a chance that cross will cause me to raise your speaks. Answer questions honestly, confidently, and clearly. Keep everything as concise as possible and give your opponent a chance to ask questions. Do not spend cross going on about your own case -- it’s a time for both sides to ask questions.

Theory:

I don’t love it. Don’t run unnecessary theory because I won’t take it into account. Don’t make theory your entire case during the round. I once had an opponent who ran Content Warning Theory and wouldn’t talk to us about anything but that. If you do run theory, keep it concise and move on.

Weighing:

I LOVE weighing. Solid impacts are the way to go. Even if you mention your impacts in your constructive, they are more likely to be taken into consideration if they are brought up in summary and final focus. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents -- not just that they don’t have any impacts. The only cases in which you can say they don’t have impacts is if they actually don’t or if you’ve proved that their evidence was misconstrued.

If you don’t have any impacts there is a 0.0001% chance that I’ll vote for you. I am more likely to use your impacts in your favor if they are quantifiable.

Speaker Points:

The lowest I’ll go is 24.5. It’s not likely to get that low of points unless you do something really bad. I give an average of 27 for the losing team and 28 for the winning. You can earn or lose speaks depending on what you do during the round.

To get higher speaks: speak clearly, organize your speeches, be confident, and make me laugh.

Reference these (make it clear, like an analogy to a situation) for + 0.5 speaker point:

Kim’s Convenience; The Office; The Flash; Community; Lucifer; Stranger Things; Harry Potter; Crazy Rich Asians; Dork Diaries; Liv and Maddie; The Princess Switch; The Umbrella Academy; Gilmore Girls; High School Musical: The Musical: The Series; New Amsterdam; WandaVision; Any Marvel Movie; New Girl; H2O: Just Add Water

Good luck everyone!

Hey all, I graduated from Mountain View High School in 2022 and octafinaled at silver TOC in PF

ask me for my email when making the email chain please

treat me like a techy flay

---if you're new to debate, read this:

I really like arguments that have clear warranting (why something happens / is true, not just stating that it is true even if it's from a card [unless it's a statistic about the status quo, like something being at some percent]) and I really like when you use magnitude / timeframe / probability to compare your case with your opponents. good luck and have fun!

---otherwise, general:

speed is fine just don't go Grand Prix on me, bring up important things from cx in speeches for me to flow it, I will almost always give an oral rfd so don't leave right when the round ends, wear whatever you want, off-time roadmaps are fine just make them quick, I will only write a few broad takeaways in the specific feedback sections for each team but if you want more feedback just ask me

---tech specific:

tech > truth unless your case is wildly squirrelly, if you do have a weird case there should be good warranting & I'll look at you funny & I'll be susceptible to probability weighing from your opponents but I'll rely on your opponents to call out your wack argument, pls signpost, pls extend, when extending arguments extend uniqueness/warrant/impact/implication/really key cards not just taglines, 2nd rebuttal must frontline, dropped defense is probably terminal and dropped turns probably conceded but your opponents have to a) bring that up and b) properly weigh it, no sticky defense, collapse in summary, numbers are awesome but I can go for any well-explained and well-weighed impact, implicate impacts/responses on opponent's case, when explaining link/impact turns b sure to explain why I should prefer the turn over the opponent's case, weighing is so awesome please do it ideally starting in summary, starting weighing in 2nd FF is too late, be comparative when you weigh, anything in final focus should be in summary, please please please have solid internal links into your impact / have a solid impact scenario, if i don't think either team has offense at the end of the round I intervene and do my own analysis probably on the narrative clash, card with warranting > no card with warranting > card without warranting > no card with no warranting

---

On another note, I would not recommend running progressive debate with me. In my experience, it makes debate less accessible to casual debaters as smaller/newer teams don't know how to respond, it makes opponents feel terrible for arguing against it, and it diverts attention away from learning about the (mostly) cool topics we get to explore in debate. That being said, I understand that sometimes topics aren't the best, so if you really have a strong desire to run theory/K's/etc and have a really good reason to, I will evaluate it. Just keep in mind I will be very lenient to your opponents if it is clear they have no idea what is happening and I will be easily persuaded by a substance > theory counter argument (especially if your opponents run no RVIs).

---speaks: definitions will scale with tournament, general case:

30: you're crazy, what kind of milk are you drinking

29.5: delivery very well done: inflection of voice, signposting, slowing on on key facts and when moving to a new side of the case, etc. overall very easy to follow and understand, the structure is clear and consistent

29: delivery pretty clean, few filler words or gaps in speech, appropriate tactical plays made, posts are being signed

28.5: understand well the role that each speech plays in the round, do well at fulfilling that role as well as setting up later speeches

28: you definitely get the gist of the purpose of each speech

27.5: you understand well how debate works and the purpose of each speech

27: catch-all score for some areas of improvement

-- ONLY VALID IF I AM THE ONLY JUDGE PRESENT --

+.1 speaks if you end both your speeches with "Badabap boomp, POW" instead of "Vote Aff/Neg"

+.2 speaks if you refer to your partner as "Scoob" instead of "my partner" and your partner refers to you as "Shaggy" for the duration of the round. To be clear, one of you should be Scoob and one of you should be Shaggy

+.1 speaks if you have a conversation with your opponents before the round starts about how their day is going / an interesting fact about them / what they do for fun aside from debate (cuz we're all here for fun and debate is so fun...right?...)

+.1 speaks if you include "bingo bango bongo" in your speech in a way that makes sense

Hi y'all! I'm Rhea, a frosh @ Stanford studying human biology. I debated parli @ Washington for 4 years, & now coach for MVLA & Juniper.

TL;DR: I'm a flow judge. I enjoy efficient and warranted debate with clean collapsing, extensions, and two world analysis. I LOVE Ks, but am happy to listen to interesting case or T debate.

Thoughts on:

• Case: Reading 2 swag contentions > 5 random short ones. Write good warrants and don’t rely solely on the internet. Line by line args and make smart responses. Collapse (!!!), make clean extensions, and weigh well in the rebuttals. I love overviews at the tops of cases/args & I think golden turns are cool, but have a high threshold for new args in last speeches.
• Theory/Topicality: Cool with good T shells. I default to competing interps > reasonability, education > fairness, and theory being a priori but I can be convinced otherwise! Make your interps good & as specific as possible! Friv shells/tricks are funny (I read tropicality in HS lol) but pls don’t use them to skew out your opps, & I’d need a really good justification for why they’re a voting issue. If you read blippy args (i.e. a claim with zero warranting or justification) and expect me to buy it, think again. This is true for all args, but especially tech.
• Ks: Love them! I wrote & read Ks on feminism/gender, queer futurism, and cap/necrocap, so I’m most familiar w/ those literature bases. I love a thoughtful, well-warranted K when it’s run properly, but it’s not an auto path to the ballot (so don’t treat it as such). I’m somewhat familiar w/ more phil args like Buddhism, Daoism, pomo, etc, but down to listen if you explain them well (especially if you can tell me what your alt ACTUALLY does). Down to vote for K Affs, performance Ks, etc if that’s something you want to read. I dislike Ks that force a debate about the personal identities of the debaters in the room instead of a critique of society. I have a low threshold for FW-T on the aff, and a high one for the neg.
• Other thoughts:
• Don’t call POOs just to annoy your opponents. If you’re calling more than 3 and you don’t have a good reason, I will be a tad sad.
• I can handle your speed, but don’t sacrifice clarity and don’t use it to exclude your opponents!
• I dislike presumption args and will almost certainly not vote on it; there will always be *some* offense in 99.9% of debates unless no one speaks the entire round.
• Off-time roadmaps (that don't exceed 15 seconds) are great.
• Don't contradict yourself.
• Please read content warnings if needed.
• Don’t be racist / sexist / homophobic etc, I will auto drop you to maintain a safe and equitable debate space.

Feel free to message me with any questions or ask me about it before or after the round! At the end of the day, this is YOUR space to debate how you want, and to the best of your ability. Be brave, be kind, and have an educational and fun debate.

Hi there -

Follow these guidelines and you will be successful with me as a judge.

1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!

Be nice to your opponents in the round. If you are rude in crossfire or speeches, I will drop your speaker points.

2. Provide full cards.

When giving cards, please send the link to the website, the authors name and date, and the paragraph from the website.

3. Weigh it.

Make sure to weigh your impacts to show why you are winning the round and tell me what you are weighing off of.

4. Make sure to time yourself.

5. Don’t spread.

Happy debating!

I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.

What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:

1. Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).

2. Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.

3. Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.

4. Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.

5. Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.

6. Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.

7. Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.

Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.

Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.

I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.

some ppls paradigms are getting too long...

• high school PF debater, flow judge (competed for 4ish years)
• Don't spread, I'll let you know if it gets super unclear.
• have your evidence prepared in cut cards
• not a huge fan of theory and Ks so don't run them unless you warrant them really really well. (not really applicable to novice)
• i will not flow cross (or listen that closely) - but be nice (ad hominem attacks are a big no). let ur opps answer ur questions and also give them questions
• Please signpost, off-time roadmaps would be greatly appreciated if you stick to them.
• I'm mostly tech over truth, but be reasonable.
• Please weigh!!

Bonus things to boost speaks/make me like you

• throwing in a cool metaphor
• quoting famous people/movies/songs
• correctly identifying a logical fallacy made by your opponents
• being funny/making jokes/doing anything to lighten the mood

I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, English is not my first language. If you bring me an energy drink the lwoest u can go on speaks is 28 (preferably rockstar or bang).

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

Hey yall, I'm Yvo (she/her)! I'm a current PF debater and I'm also a coach for middle schoolers.

Update for 2020-2021

Don't break COVID guidelines to debate with your partner. It's dangerous, unfair, and generally a bad move. I'm going to vote on 6 feet theory pretty easily.

Speaker points

My usual score for a relatively clear, effective speaker is a 28. Signpost, especially for first speakers. Be clear, loud, and concise, and you'll be good. If you're excessively rude, cursing people out, racist/sexist/transphobic/anything, you will be dropped. I've never given below a 27, but I will go as low as possible for offensive speech.

How to get 30 speaks

I play fast and loose with speaker points, i.e. they don't matter to me, so why not have fun! There are lots of ways to get 30s from me, but here's a short list:

- Puns (the worse the better)

- Snacks! (no pressure on this one)

- Incorporate the first line of "All Star" by Smash Mouth into your rebuttal or summary in a way that makes sense

- Clearly reference a TV show, movie, musical, or singer (list of things I'm a fan of is at the bottom)

- Rap your summary or FF

Spreading (anything over like 800 words)

I'm in high school, I'm perpetually sleep deprived, and I'm a slow writer. Don't spread.

Crossfire

I'll listen to your cross, but I won't judge off of it if you don't bring up damning points in your speech. You don't have the obligation to respond to anything brought up in cross during your next speech unless they extend it through their speech.

I do absolutely notice when yall are cutting off your opponents and not letting them answer. I will not hesitate to drop your speaks, even if you win the round. This is mostly for the toxic male debaters but I'm equal opportunity on this one.

BE RESPECTFUL!!! Don't yell, cut each other off, or be rude. Don't try to make your opponents look stupid. If you've got the answer/info you need, back off.

Arguments

Run whatever you want. As long as it makes sense, isn't overtly offensive or problematic, I'm good with it. Explain your links well, make sure your arguments are unique, and talk about your impacts in all your speeches. I'll call for cards at the end if I think I need to, or if one team has a serious request for it. I don't want to vote for an argument I don't understand, so rare args need a good logical flow to it. Be clear on uniqueness.

I like moral arguments over big stick impacts, as long as there's evidence for it. So prioritizing impacts for certain populations that aren't prioritized for traditional debates.

Theory/Ks

I'm good with it, but keep in mind the skill of your opponents. Don't be abusive. I'll still judge on frivolous theory, but please note I hate disclosure theory and think it's a waste of time. I prefer theory related to issues I can solve in the round (ie, dropping the debater fixes the problem).

I'm not as familiar with Ks as I am with theory, so just explain the argument well. Same goes here, I prefer issues that can be solved in round.

Links

Make sure they're logical, explained clearly, and not dropped in later speeches. You must win the link-level debate before I'll even consider your impacts. That is, if your opponent turns you or delinks you, explain why they're wrong before jumping to "we outweigh."

Impacts

Please do good, clear weighing. Tell me why your impact is better/worse than theirs. Tell me why poverty is more important than the economy. Even if it seems clear why your impacts outweigh, you still have to explain it. Card your impacts.

Other Stuff

Second rebuttal should frontline, but second summary can bring up new frontlines. If second summary does new frontlines, then they can't complain if first ff addresses those.

Defense isn't sticky or terminal. If you read a turn on them and then don't bring it up in summary, I assume you concede it and they don't have to respond to it anymore.

Case doesn't need to be extended in rebuttals, but it does have to be fully extended in summary or I drop whatever you don't read.

I try not to intervene as much as possible since the round should speak for itself. However, if I feel like it's needed or I just have to (for very messy debates), I'll note it in the RFD and explain why.

If you ask, I'll probably disclose if you give me a minute to collect my thoughts. I'll always submit my ballot before disclosing, so if you get argumentative it won't fix anything.

Welcome to the part where I tell you all my favorite TV shows and stuff:

The Office, Parks & Rec, Brooklyn 99, Good Place, Umbrella Academy, anything from the MCU, Kim's Convenience, Hamilton, Dear Evan Hansen, anything from Harry Potter (books or movies), Real Genius, Some Kind of Wonderful, Yuri on Ice, Skam, the Politician, Feel Good, Great British Baking Show, She-ra, Conan Gray, Carry On (30s for the whole team if you do this one)

Hello!

I'm a junior at Mountain View High School and I've been doing PF for three years.

I'm a mostly flow judge, especially for PF. I've never judged LD or Parli before, but I am familiar with the events in general.

I don't know how relevant this is for non-PF events, but I default to weighing carded and analytical responses relatively equally - however, if you are making an analytical response, warranting is extra important. I know you can find an article that says basically anything on ~the interwebs~ so actually explaining why the effect detailed in the response happens is key.

hey y'all!

a little background on me: i was a public forum debater all throughout high school and captain of the team for two years, so i have a fairly thorough (though rusty) understanding of PF and a general sense of speech/other debate events. i have not debated in around 3-4 years now so take that as you will.

things i think are super important:

• signposting (and offtime roadmaps if you're planning on switching between flows) is a MUST!! it helps me flow arguments easier and allows for a more productive debate
• extend links and warrants through the whole round or else there's a 50/50 chance i lose them in my flow
• make sure to give me clear voters and weigh - the aim is for me to do as little work as possible. i hate intervening
• tech > truth
• i do call for cards. sometimes im just curious (it typically won't play into my decision) but if there's obvious violation of evidence ethics its a 20 L. and on this note, don't just throw cards at me and hope one of them sticks - tell me why they matter! give me good analytics!
• i know nothing about Ks and theory. i don't mind them and i am okay to evaluate off of them but you have to explain them super super thoroughly
• BE KIND in cross! that doesn't mean you have to let them walk all over you but be respectful and mindful of how you are treating your opponents

baseline is, make everything clear for me. don't assume i am going to remember big parts of your argument just because you think they are important!

definitely less important but i give 27.5-28 speaks on average. bonuses if you bring candy or snacks (i dont have allergies) and/or if you do something fun (e.g. incorporating merriam webster's word of the day). I think debate at its core is meant to be fun and educational so don't be afraid to get silly :)

sorry this got a little long but absolutely feel free to ask me questions before the round about any specifics! good luck!!

if you want to reach out to me for any reason my email is nataliekatran@gmail.com :)