46th University of Pennsylvania Tournament
2021 — Philadelphia / Online, PA/US
PF JV Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Parent judge. 1st year judging.
Hi!! My name is Mimansa Bhargava and I am currently a senior at Lexington High School. I have debated in Policy Debate for 4 years now (Varsity for 3 years). I have written out brief descriptions of my ideas on different components in a debate that I keep in mind while judging. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org so you can add me to the email chain and/or if you have any additional questions after the round.
I have always preferred debating in policy. That being said, if you run K arguments (either aff or off case) I will need you to clearly lay out the story of your K argument (impact, alt, what the world looks like post-alt, etc.). That doesn't mean you shouldn't/can't run K arguments. I want you to debate with the arguments that are your strengths and that you most enjoy debating about (after all the point is to have fun and learn). But just clearly explain it to me.
I think to debate well in policy a team needs to advocate for a course of plan that would better solve a specific issue within the resolution or prove that a team is non-topical which has its own impacts within debate rounds. Even within policy, you need to articulate the story of the plan and the impacts that you are trying to sell. As long as you are coherently presenting your arguments, answering key arguments, and going for beneficial strats (which depend on the round), you would be in a good shape.
In any type of debate, there has to be clash for the round to be enjoyable and educational.
I know debate is a competitive activity and often times the debate community can be toxic because of this. But please be kind and respectful to each other in and outside of a round. I will take speaker points off if I witness debaters being disrespectful in any way. Kindess only :)
Experience - Competitive HS: Mostly LD with some other events. Judging: I have been judging for the past three years, mostly LD but I always judge a few PF rounds
Style and Speed - I debated primarily on a traditional circuit, so prefer traditional LD. Don't just throw debate terms at me - explain them, I will probably already understand them but you opponent and future judges may not. DO NOT SPREAD (online tournaments and spreading don't mix). I can follow if you speak quickly, but if you start spreading I will probably miss things. If I put down my pen it means you are speaking too quickly. I don't need a road map before speeches (you can give one if you want) but signposting throughout your speeches helps me with following your speech and flowing. I would like to hear KVIs from both the AFF and NEG.
For PF: all of the same as LD as far as speed (obviously KVIs aren't necessary) and I prefer clearly laid out and numbered arguments.
Evidence - I consider evidence to be a key part of an argument - it provides legitimacy for your claim. That being said, do not just throw a piece of evidence in with out a warrant. Don't treat cards like the end all be all of debate, cards support arguments they are not arguments themselves.
Drops - I hate debaters saying that their opponent dropped a card - you don't drop cards you drop arguments/contentions. If there are actual argument drops make sure you explain why those drops are important.
Framework - I think framework is important in LD as well as framework debate; please don't collapse or kick FW unless its strategic. Make sure your framework is clearly and logically explained so that everyone can follow; especially if it is detailed philosophy. Your arguments need to link back to your framework, if it doesn't its hard for me to prefer it.
For PF: I don't expect a detailed FW but you need to provide some mechanism for weighing the round
Cross-X - Be civil, there is a difference between assertive and aggressive. Cross-examine, know that the cross-examiner can cut you off; Cross-examiner, don't abuse that power. I don't like PF yelling matches.
I will not base the round off decorum, there may be a penalty in speaker points. I like clean, engaging debates filled with clash. Debate the resolution and areas relevant to the resolution, kritiks are generally not relevant.
Don't be problematic/make problematic arguments.
If you have any questions or clarifications, please ask me before your round.
I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy. I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationality that supports an argument or a link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.
RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email should a situation warrant.
I'm a member of the Columbia Debate Society and a current Junior. I used to do PF for Anderson High School.
Please sign post and logically warrant you arguments, in most cases it’s not enough to merely cite someone's opinion. I'm most likely to vote on an argument if the weighing is comparative, tell me why it matters relative to your opponent's impacts. I won't flow cross, if you want an argument to go on the flow you have to mention it in speech.
I won't time you, you all have phones, time yourself and time your opponents. good luck:)
Prefers to hear all sides and great if speaks clearly and thanks you and good luck!
hi! i'm sylvia (she/her)! i debated for duchesne academy ('20) and now attend washington university in stl ('24). i competed locally (texas, unfortunately) the first two years of high school, then on the nat'l circuit my last two!
here's my email — email@example.com
add this address to the email chain too pls :)) — firstname.lastname@example.org
tl;dr: i like early weighing, complete extensions, and collapsing :D
✯¸.•´*¨`*•✿ safety note:
your safety is more important to me than a debate round. what this means is:
i will NOT tolerate sexist/racist/homophobic/etc behavior from debaters. i think that most debaters are good people, so unless you’re a real piece of work, you shouldn’t worry about this. just be respectful!!
sensitive arguments require a content warning. ask everyone in the round if they are comfortable with the argument you are reading. if anyone’s uncomfortable, don’t read the argument. no means no.
if you ever feel unsafe, don’t hesitate to let me know! i will try to accommodate as needed. i loved this activity, but i know how toxic debate can be for a person’s emotional and mental health.
tbh i've had to re-evaluate what might be deemed safe or unsafe for any students involved in the round. i hope that this safety note affirms debaters who want to call out any act of violence that they witness in the space. you can always reach out on FB messenger if you're not comfortable saying anything out loud. i want to work with you to feel safe.
✿•*`¨*`•.¸✯ general pf notes:
i guess i'm tech over truth? but my threshold for acceptable responses decreases the more absurd an argument is.
i looove narrative-style debates. it makes framing, extensions, and weighing a lot easier imo. if i understand the argument as a part of a bigger picture, i'm more inclined to vote on it.
** but i still require full link-warrant-impact extensions. idk why we forget this :(
speak quickly if you want, but i'm human and we debate online. i might miss some responses if you’re unclear, actually spreading, or if your wifi sucks. if you’re that concerned that i’ll miss something, send me and your opponents a speech doc.
i looove when you read card-text! it’s harder to misconstrue evidence this way, considering that you’re directly using the author’s words. here’s what cut cards look like. i’ll still evaluate your hyperlinked evidence but like… idk it’s rly gross lol :(
** i give more credence to weighing the earlier it’s done in the debate. so basicallyyy i'd love if you could start weighing as early as possible (be comparative ofc).
** theory + (whatever pf adaptation of) kritiks is generally ok. BUT ask for verification to be safe since it's hard to vote for something i don't understand. if you think you can explain your arg well (what it is, how it functions in the rd, my role as a judge, etc) then you'll be good :D
✯¸.•´*¨`*•✿ technical notes:
frontline in second rebuttal.
first summary should extend defense.
** please collapse.
final focus should only include info from the summary.
use your final focus as if you were writing my ballot for me!
sorry if it looks like i'm not paying attention in cross. it's bc i'm usually not <3 i vote on stuff in speeches, not in cross lmao.
✯¸.•´*¨`*•✿ speaks notes:
i mostly give 28s to losers and 29-30s to winners.
even if you win the rd, i will drop your speaks (≥ 27.5) if:
you send your opponents a website/pdf/article and say "ctrl-f [word] for what we read." this is really annoying and saying you don't know how to cut a card or that it's the same thing as a card is bs. even if you paraphrase, you need to have cards on hand. at the very least, cut the card before sending.
you run 30 speaks theory (ironic huh). i also won't buy it lmao.
you take 5+ mins to pull up any piece of evidence. online tab will yell at us bruh.
you are super mean (duh). this is not the same as being assertive.
even if you lose the rd, i will pick up your speaks (≤ 29) if:
you disclose before the rd (29.5). bonus if it's open source (30!). tell me if you do this so i reward you properly :D
ultimately, this is your debate round and i hope my preferences aren't too restrictive for you. so don't stress too much, debate how you debate best, and have fun!! you're debating on a computer, after all, so no need for us to be serious all the time :))
I am currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I competed on my high school's varsity debate. I was elected co-captain my senior year and was one of the highest-ranked debate duos in the Philadelphia public league. I do not have much experience with Public Forum debate, but I have done some research on the style and conventions.
I value respectful and factual debating. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, don't interrupt or talk over your opponents during any part of the debate. I prefer coherent and clear speeches over speeches that are fast and attempt to fit in as many words as possible in the allocated time. I tend to reject false dichotomies and logical fallacies. Keep your arguments straightforward, if you can focus on one central argument and really support it throughout the entire debate, that will serve you better than half-supporting several different arguments.
I don't usually keep track of time, but with the new online format we can play it by ear.
I expect all competitors to know the rules of their format, be respectful to each other and the judges, and follow the order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate when the competitors interact with their opponents with polite respect and assistance. Though I am OK with fast speech, I am challenged when the debate moves at lighting fast speed.
I am a parent judge and have only judged a few tournaments before.
Content over presentation, but I am new so slow down. No new arguments too late in the round, it's not fair to all debaters. Signposting is very important, be clear where your starting, road maps are appreciated.
Do not be rude during cross, when you ask a question you need give your opponents time to answer it.
Good day debaters,
I have volunteered as a parent judge for past 2 years. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed. if you are going to use acronyms or technical terms, please take your time to explain as much as possible. Please be respectful and polite to your opponents. I love to see the argument viewed from multiple angles and positions substantiated with facts and figures. good luck!
I am a lay parent judge. Please go slow. I will try my best to take notes of your speeches and write down comments on the online ballot after the debate.
Hi, I'm Casey (she/her/hers)! I’m currently a student at the University of Florida (go gators!). I thoroughly enjoyed debate in high school and was an active participant. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum throughout my four years in high school. I was a traditional debater, so I prefer traditional-level debate.
Conflicts: West Broward HS (Pembroke Pines, FL); Accokeek Academy; DCUDL
Respect your opponents at all times. Regardless of their race, gender, or skill level, show them the same level of respect you wish to receive from any one. Any form of disrespect will be noted on the ballot.
Please provide trigger warnings (TW); I'm pretty chill with any arguments but I don't like being caught off guard so just let me know before the round
Going along with TWs, if you are running a controversial or sensitive topic as an argument, please be respectful. That being said, I don’t like blatantly, offensive arguments at all, especially if they only exist in the world you have created in the round.
If my notes are completed and the tournament allows, I will disclose after the round.
Please keep track of your own timing and hold your opponents accountable for timing as well.
*Notes specific for virtual debate tournaments*
Please keep evidence exchanging brief. I know there are unique challenges with debating online, but please try to minimize time spent sharing evidence. Stopping the flow of the round messes everyone up. A few suggestions would be; to start an email chain before round or share a google doc with everyone and copy and paste cards there.
If possible, please keep your cameras on. If there are wifi/connection challenges that is completely understandable. I just like putting a name to a face :)
Summary of my judging style
I prefer no progressive debate (Ks, theory, etc.). I'm chill with counterplans.
CX is probably one of my favorite parts of debate, so I do flow cross. It won’t overpower your arguments for my decision of the round.
Summaries should focus on FW, warrants, and why you’ve won. Final focus should weigh impacts, don’t try to revive arguments that weren't even touched/mentioned in the summary.
Speed: It is your burden to make sure your speeches are clear and understandable. The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I do prefer slow-medium pace speed, but I can handle faster speed.
Flex Prep: I do not allow flex prep, even if your opponent is mutually consensual of it. There is a time for CX for a reason. And I do flow/note CX and during prep time both teams should be allowed to use their time to prepare, not answer questions.
Speaker Points: Speaker points decrease based upon professionalism in the round. If the round is well debated, regardless of who wins, speaker points will reflect. I’m not in the business of screwing people over through speaker points, trust me I know the pain.
Please ask any questions you may have pre-round. Hope you have a great tournament!
I did PF for four years in high school and competed at multiple tournaments, so I recognize typical debate jargon.
Haven’t debated in a while though, so most likely not too familiar with the topic.
I expect your arguments to be supported by data and statistics.
Don’t spread, this is Public Forum.
Don’t be rude.
If anything important comes up in crossfire, restate it in a later speech.
Signpost and weigh, always.
I am a parent volunteer judge. I am here to listen to both teams, learn, understand, and analyze the topic on hand with a clean slate. I am looking for clear, realistic, and thouroughly articulated arguments presented with evidence, and delivered without spreading. I will likely not buy large scale impacts such as extinction due to the minimal probability. However, I am not here to interpret, so I will interpret your arguments as you tell me to. If you are able to prove extinction to the extent that your opponent's refutations are inadequate, I might buy it.
Be respectful, I encourage passionate debate but any attitude or rude behaviour would result in a deduction of speaker points. Extreme circumstances will result in a loss for the guilty team. If I cannot hear your points, I cannot count them, so please do not spread. Crossfire is for asking questions and finding holes in your opponent's arguments, not reading evidence or going off topic.
I will be flowing the round so make sure to extend your arguments and impacts throughout the round. Good luck to all competitors, I look forward to judging your debate rounds!
Hello I am a parent judge my daughter goes to Brooklyn Technical High school. No spreading please, theory is ok. In general I flow rounds very closely and make my decision off the flow.
Hello! I am Reece and I am with Upward Bound.
To keep it short and simple, the things I look for during the debate are:
1) Team balance from both partners
2) Carefully explained/emphasized impact of each contention
3) Direct response to any major holes pointed out by the opposing team
4) Diplomacy/respectfulness during the round, no direct attacks/try to avoid talking directly over one another
Speed doesn't impact my decision, as long as your argument is coherent, your contentions are identified, and you're not jumping back and forth from one contention/point to another. I do prefer when people identify the organization/a roadmap to their speeches prior to speaking during each round. Try to not spend too much time on any singular piece of evidence, especially if it takes time away from the stronger parts of your argument/is not entirely relevant to the bigger picture.
I am a parent judge.
During the round, please speak clearly and slowly so that I can understand your arguments. Please refrain from using debate jargon and explain your arguments thoroughly; anything that goes unexplained might not be taken into account. Make sure to signpost and clarify if you drop any points. I will prioritize clarity. Also, make sure to time yourselves, and please put evidence in the chat so I can see it as well.
Weighing is vital. Tell me why you believe you won the debate and on what points specifically.
Finally, please be courteous to all participants and have fun.
I am a parent judge, and I appreciate well thought out, intelligent arguments & logic. I am pretty well-versed on this topic, however, I do not have particular biases & will vote for the team who presents the best arguments. I would request you to not use too many technical debate terms or speak too fast, I will be able to follow a medium-speed. I am a good listener, and I am eager to judge your debates!
I am a first time parent judge. Please do not go fast. I will try and take notes on the debate and leave comments on the online ballot.
I am a parent judge. Please do not use debate-technical terminology unless you adequately define it. Please speak slowly and clearly.
Rose's are red
Violets are blue
Ask me my prefs
Otherwise good luck to you
I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.
I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.
Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.
I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).
The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.
Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.
This covers effectively everything you need to know. Sorry, it’s a bit of a rabbit hole.
Tl;dr — content warnings, collapse and weigh, please collapse and weigh, like actually tho collapse and weigh, warrants > cards
Also, I enjoy things that are silly and funny, but please please please please please be nice (I put five pleases, so at least you know I must be nice too)!
I expect all competitors to be respectful to each other with good understanding of the format and order of debate. I would appreciate competitors would turn on the camera while speaking.
No specific preferences.
** Updated in 2021**
I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged both policy and LD since 2016.
TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.
ONLINE DEBATE UPDATES
In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important. I will try to resolve tech issues in the round to the best of my ability.
I use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.
If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Because of this, keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.
In general: I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates but am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.
On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.
A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.
On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.
On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate.
On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.
In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents. Please take care to not misrepresent your evidence. Along those lines, I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence.
On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.
On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.
One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.
On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate.
On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.
On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.
Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow
On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.
One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.
Things i look for in debaters:
-don’t speak too fast
-Try to speak to the audience rather than looking at the screen/paper
- card checking is not most important in the round
Hi! I'm a parent judge, and what you call a lay judge.
Please speak at a moderate, fairly slow pace and explain your arguments thoroughly.
Please remain polite to each other, or else I'll have to take speaker points off.
I will not evaluate new arguments brought up in the final speeches. I will also not evaluate arguments that I don't understand at the end of the debate.
I really like it if you tell me what to vote on in the final focus and why I should vote for that.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing your arguments!
Hi! I am Jenny and I am with Temple University's Upward Bound Program. A good debate team does the following things:
1. Have strong contentions with clear impacts
2. Ask purposeful questions during crossfire to undermine your opponent
3. Address any holes your opponent may have noted about your argument and explain why they are not valid
Try to avoid asking about sources unless necessary as many debaters have valid sources and many times, this has not shown to be useful or effective in the past. A good debate should have meaningful crossfires and this is your time to really poke holes in your opponent so be sure to develop questions that will interrogate the validity of your opponent's arguments. Lastly, be sure to stay respectful and polite during the rounds and stay within the time limits.
Hi! My name is Hannah Wang and I am a current college student at NYU Stern. My pronouns are she/her. In the past, I have competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate, Duo Interpretation, and Original Oratory on the regional and statewide level for all 4 years of high school. FLAY Judge with experience in speech and LD debate.
-As I have not competed in PF, I would suggest you slow down and be clear and concise with your argument
-There is no need to extend your defense in summary
-No spread, no theory, no progressive arguments
- I don't keep track of time, please keep track of your own time
- No new arguments in final
- Please be civil, no cursing, be mindful of your language and volume
- Don't interrupt
-Please be civil, no cursing, be mindful of your language
-I was a Traditional LD debater, open to progressive debate but I am very new so please be clear and concise
-No new arguments in the Affirmative summary
I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Explain technical terms. Don't use debate jargon.
I am a parent judge, please be clear and speak slowly for me!
I am a parent judge. Be respectful during crossfires. Speak slowly and clearly. Please explain your arguments. Good luck.