Hey I'm Akshat

Junior at Alpharetta High School

Been doing PF for around 4-5 years

Varsity PF on the National Circuit

General stuff: speed is fine, please collapse, you don't have to but sending me ur speech doc would be appreciated, I will be timing you no matter what

email for speech doc and email chain: akshatforsoccer@gmail.com

Specifics:

Constructive: speed is fine, don't start drill rapping though

1st Response: Pls pls pls provide me an off-time roadmap, make responses, and impact weigh

2nd response: Pretty much everything I said for the first response applies here except the fact that you have to the frontline and you don't have to weigh impacts

Summary: big speech (no pressure) Impact weigh, frontline, last chance to collapse, extend responses, please tell me how you win by implicating!!!

FF: Final focus can be a really important speech in certain circumstances. Pls extend your offense and defense and tell me why you win

General

Framework weighing needs to be extended

L Theory

Pls warrant your evidence don't just mindlessly read it

Extra speaks:

send me ur speech doc

prereq weighing if it makes sense

make a soccer reference

Good luck

Background:

Very Tech>Truth

Varsity debater. 3 years on the national circuit for PF.

Speed:

Fine with speed. I get annoyed when people spread but if you spread send a doc that is marked.

Speaks:

These come from cross, and I default to 28.7s.

Prog args

I only have experience with Theory and a little with Ks. I can understand both fine, but if you run it (beyond like disclosure theory or para theory) go slow/send a doc. Don't run tricks.

My ballot

Weigh. It'spretty simple. Win your link, internal link, and then weigh. Do that and your chances of winning the debate are at 75%, because most debater can't do it right. Give me some Meta Weighing too and I will sing your praises.

I drop homophobia, transphobia, racism, xenophobia etc

Be smart. Collapse and win your argument before you worry about defense.

I'll vote on conceded frameworks/independent voters readily as well.

Evidence ethics are really bad in PF. If there is abused evidence that is not just a small mistake, I could drop you entirely, so don't lie.

Final stuff:

Be funny (your speaks will skyrocket), debate is a toxic activity, it can help the tension. Last but not least, have fun out there, we do this to be better people.

Add me to the email chain: aanya2cool@gmail.com

I debate at Ivy Bridge Academy, mainly Public Forum but I've watched Congr, Parli, and Policy

History: Went deep in a couple national tournaments

NOTE: If you're novice or jv the only thing that applies to you is general prefs, ignore everything else

General Prefs:

1) Come pre-flowed unless we're flipping right before round

2) Keep off-time roadmaps simple (don't say "first we're talking about their case, then we're talking about why our case still stands, and finally we'll weigh" - a simple "their case, our case, weighing" will do fine)

3) Signpost - flowing becomes 10x as hard when you don't signpost - have mercy

4) Be prepared for me to call for cards after round - DO NOT cite something you don't have a card for

5) If you spread for any of your speeches please send speech doc or else I won't be able to evaluate the things I didn't hear

6) I'll keep time, for both speeches and prep, but I'll give however long you take to pull up a card as prep time for the other team

Case:

1) As long as you have good warranting and DID NOT misrepresent evidence, I can evaluate almost every arg

2) I absolutely love framework debates, but don't run them if you don't know how

Rebuttal:

1) Implicate everything, don't just read a non unique or de link, tell me why it matters

2) I only evaluate turns under two conditions: a - you have to extend a clear warrant for why it's a turn and b - you have to tell me why that helps you in the round by weighing the turn

3) Second rebuttal MUST frontline every argument, or at least turns, or else I'll consider the dropped responses conceded

Summary:

1) Collapse - It helps you extend and weigh your arg better

2) If you're second summary respond to the other teams weighing (if they said they won on pre-req, explain why they don't, or why you win pre-req more cleanly)

3) Weigh with comparison - don't be like "we win on magnitude" be like "we win on magnitude because while they only impact 1 life and we impact 100"

Final Focus:

1) I won't evaluate anything new in final focus

2) Collapse the debate down to the voters - final focus didn't become a speech just to become a mirrored version of summary, it became a speech so that it could be the final word to the judge, on why you win - if you do choose to mirror summary that's fine, I won't count it against you, but I'll boost your speaks if you collapse down to the key issues and why you win

Speaking Philosophy:

I start everyone at 28, and I increase/decrease based on how you did in the round

You'll get +0.5 Speaks if you:

1) were funny

2) did a line by line

3) used final focus to tell me why you won, not just repeat summary

4) had a good amount of topic knowledge in cross

You'll get -0.5 Speaks if you:

1) spread without sending doc

2) were rude in cross, spoke over the other team or interrupted them a lot

3) brought new things up in 2nd summary/1st and 2nd final focus (if you only brought up a couple new things, it won't be flowed, but I won't dock your speaks - that said, if you bring up a LOT of new things I will dock speaks)

You'll get -100000 speaks and possibly and L if you:

1) were openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

2) misrepresented evidence, let's encourage better evidence norms guys

hi, i've been doing public forum debate since middle school - i'm familiar with the technicalities so feel free to adapt to my preferences in a way that's most comfortable for you.

general info:

-tech > truth

-speed is fine - send speech doc if you need to spread

-abusiveness or rudeness in any speech = docked speaks

-please warrant and implicate every argument you read in the round

-frontline in 2nd rebuttal

-i'll try to be as generous as i can with speaks :)

backhalf/weighing specific:

-the backhalf writes my ballot

-everything you want me to evaluate has to be in summary, or it doesn't exist in my rfd

-weighing is no use if it's not comparative

-i like probability weighing, amplifiers and pre-reqs, but any mechanism as long as it's thoroughly explained is cool with me

-weighing is a really easy place for me to vote, take advantage of that

Hey! The number one thing for me is I want everyone to have a good time debating. To make sure this happens here are a couple things I want everyone to do

1. Please be respectful to everyone
2. Wait for people to speak. Do not cut them off. If they are talking too long, it is okay to ask to speak but this shouldn’t be something you do very often.

Experience: This is my first time judging at a national competition. I was a PF debater in middle and high school but I haven’t debated in a while.

I understand a lot of jargon but may not be familiar with any new rules that may have come up. So feel free to let me know if I’m getting a timing wrong or something.

Knowledge on topic: I haven’t done any research on this topic so it will be more helpful for you to explain things rather than assume I understand a specific nuance related to this topic

Speaking: Please speak slowly so I can flow everything you are saying. I prefer clarity over speed. Before every speech, please give me an offtime road map to help with my flowing.

Additional notes: I will flow the speeches but not crossfire. However, I will listen to the crossfire for clarification of arguments or other things as they come necessary. Do not introduce new arguments into final focus. I will not consider them.

If you could send me your speech docs to dasomdasom920@gmail.com, it would help me with flowing. Completely not necessary but would definitely help me!

Hello,

Good luck in the round.

Please send me your speech docs to dasomi04@gmail.com

Just a little bit about me. In terms of background, I debated PF in high school. I am okay with speed, but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I will flow every speech, but not crossfire. If an interesting point is brought up in crossfire, please bring it up in your other speeches or it will not be relevant to the debate.

I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts. Why does your impact matter more than your opponents?

For clarity, I prefer an off time roadmap before your speech, and sign posts during your speech.

And finally, please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.

My background derives mostly from debating in policy for 4 years of high school. I am open to any field of argument (critique, topicality, theory, etc.), as long as it is done effectively. I evaluate debates based on an even combination of tech and truth, but if one team can provide better defense and description of their argument's impacts, almost any argument could win in front of me. Be sure to make comparison between your final advocacy and your opponents in order to persuade me to vote for you. Do not just restate your arguments with no clash with your opponents.

With regards to PF/LD debates - I have judged both divisions extensively. Similar to my policy opinions, I place a substantial importance on articulating the impacts to your argument. Beyond just "economic decline", what are the particular details of that scenario that should convince me to vote for you? Beyond just "fairness in debate", what are the particular repercussions of that lack of fairness in the activity?

Be sure to extend the warrants in your evidence, a simple tag line extension is hardly an argument.

Hi,

I am a flow judge, however, I do appreciate the big picture throughout the debate but specifically through the last 2 speeches on both sides because that, overall, clears things up and helps me decide what to vote on.

My Debate Experience-

• South Forsyth HS Sophomore

• PF Nat Circ Debate with 5 years of experience including multiple national tournaments

Please add prakharg2805@gmail.com to the email chain if there is one created for the round.

Things to watch out for-

What I instantly drop you for (Debate is a safe space)- Cheating (card clipping, stealing prep, somehow hacking into the opponent's computer, etc.) NO BEING MEAN (no racism, homophobia, bullying, profanity, etc.)

What I vote off of- Moving on, I usually vote off of arguments in Summary. Whatever you present to me before the round I usually only flow it. The things before the summary have to be clearly extended in the summary and FF for me to vote for them. I am always trying to vote off of technical arguments made throughout the debate however whatever is not extended don't expect me to evaluate that. If you make a bogus/ bizarre argument I will not take it into account at all.

Rebuttal- 2nd rebuttal is obligated to frontline At least half if not all of the responses made in 1st rebuttal. If there are no frontlines present then I consider them dropped and easy for 1st Summary to extend without much warranting needed. I don't want to hear like 30 responses to your opponents' case because my hands start hurting and that's bad for both teams since then I can get fewer things to vote off of during summary and FF. I also do not like it when you only extend defense so also try to have at least some offense on their case if not a lot.

Extensions- I also do not like spreading but if you do it I won't drop you. If you drop an argument then you still have to answer all the turns on that argument for me to consider it dropped, if all the turns aren't answered then the opponents can still extend those. I do not care if you run a Kritik but I care if you form it in an abusive form. I am going to drop you automatically.

Final Focus- Try to clear up the big picture. I have usually made my decision by summary based on frontlines and extensions but I will still listen and if there is something big that was mentioned in summary and you blow it up I count that since it still counts according to PF rules.

Crossfire- Don't think crossfire doesn't matter in my decision. If I think that the round was a wash then I will look at every cross so I am paying attention to these as well. I do sometimes write down notes during cross if any important arguments are mentioned that were mentioned through the debate. Try to do a good job defending your argument and attacking your opponents' argument at the same time and with good warranting.

Weighing- A lot of judges care about weighing but I am not one of those. I don't like very long weighing and complicated weighing. If you do weigh make it clear and short so I can easily flow it. If you do weigh I also want it to start from Rebuttal whether be 1st or 2nd. If it starts, in summary, I consider it late and if the round comes down to weighing then I will look at it. Whichever side has the better weighing and was easier for me to flow I will vote for that side.

Cards- I will call for cards if need be. And sometimes I might just do it because I want to make sure your paraphrasing is correct and not taken out of context.

Evidence- Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the High School Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss for the round and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome-

• Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).

• Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.

• Taking more than 3 minutes to produce a piece of evidence. Failure to produce a card will not result in me “removing” a card from the flow. You will lose the round, because you have used “non-existent evidence.”

Speaking- Clarity = speed --> I want clarity and not a lot of blank time during speeches. If I don't understand your argument, I don't buy it. If you see me drop my writing utensils through the debate during any of your speeches it means you are going way too fast and I will not evaluate what I can't understand or flow.

Specific Speaker Point evaluations-

<26 --> You need to work on speaking. Not going to give this to a lot of people unless your speaking was honestly bad. Please don't be offended.

<26.1 to 26.9 --> I don't think you were very knowledgeable on the topic. Your speaking skills could be improved.

<27 - 28.9 --> Did a decent amount of job holding onto your arguments during cross. Some amount of stuttering was present but was overall good. However, you did make some bad decisions throughout the round.

<29 - 29.9 --> Smart decisions made throughout the round. I liked your arguments. You were very knowledgeable about the topic. Your speaking could be improved a little bit to just get on the perfect level but overall was good.

30 --> You are very good at defending your arguments during the crossfire. You have no stuttering and/or blank spaces in your speeches. I like your arguments a lot and you are almost an expert on the topic meaning you researched a lot in my opinion.

Thanks,

Prakhar Gupta

I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the Milton High School Debate Team. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:

-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.

-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.

-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.

-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.

-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.

-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.

-Preflow before the round.

-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.

-Speaks: Do not become "insufferable," and you can expect a fair score.

-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.

Any other questions should be addressed before start time.

- tabula rasa

- i mean pretty standard tech judge

- no __ism unless you like L20s and having a talk about things once i end the round

- read literally anything unless its __ist or an identity K that's not your identity

- also i'd prefer you don't read friv theory

- if you read more than 2 interps i'm not gonna count off i'm just gonna dock your speaks because that's annoying and i don't wanna get out that much paper

- actually weigh other than scope/mag thanks

- metaweighing and having impact level clash is something you should probably do

- weigh turns or i'll be sad

- send doc if you're going over 300wpm

- keep track of your own prep/speech times because i'm lazy but don't make me regret letting you do so

- don't be a jerk

- genshin references = -1 speaks each

- if you can rhyme your entire speech i'll not only be impressed but i'll give both of y'all auto 30's and presume to you

ey bro these are my prefs

cross x

- i don't vote off cross and i don't rlly listen to it either

- if u bring up smth from cross in ur speech and attack them on it tho i will listen to that

- don't be rude but asserting urself is fine, if ur opp rants for too long PLS cut them off

frontlining/responses

- frontlining pls!!!!!!!!! if u don't i'll vote for the other side unless u do smth rlly impressive to change my vote later on in the round

- pls use indicts!! i hate back and forth of ev with no interaction (explain why ur ev is better!)

- extend defense and offense in summary or the team has all the offense against ur case

weighing

- weigh pls - must be comparative, if u don't weigh i will be sad

- overall i love love pre-reqs, doing them will def help u win

- if you don't weigh i'll do my own weighing for u which u may or may not like

- extend ur link ALONG WITH ur impacts in weighing

- i actually like framework a lot unless u don't extend it and say how u fit in

- weigh worlds, explain ur world, then say theirs and why its worse

final focus/summary

- don't go for too much pls condense

- big picture BIG PICTURE and NARRATIVE

- weigh worlds/ weighing is a must here

- i vote mainly off summary and ff

- make it very clear for me and tie it all together. line by line is ok but wont give u an advantage

theory/kritiks

- i don't rlly like theory or ks they're too weird (but if the team actually makes a real violation i'll buy it, not smth like paraphrase theory)

- overall just run theory when it's ABSOLUTELY necessary

- personally i feel ppl should actually debate the topic lol

speaks

- be ENTHUSIASTIC, speak with emotion. try to paint a clear picture for what ur world looks like

- spreading is okay, just be clear, if not, i just wont flow

29-30: u did everything above, clean speech, amazing job

27-28: ure decent a lil messy tho

26.1-27: dropped case, poor strategic decisions

<26: u said some rlly offensive things in round (you were racist, homophobic, etc.)

if u say i'm cool in ur speech ill give u .5 more speaker pts

other things

- paraphrasing is ok just dont misrepresent ev

- don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. i'll automatically drop u

- tech>truth

- pls have ev ready, if u take more than 2 mins to find ur card ill tell u guys to move on

- add me to the email chain keeshaomin@gmail.com

- i LOVE DAs pls read them ur speaks will soar

- don't be sticky

- cheating is not okay u'll lose immediately (stealing prep, outside help, etc.)

- i trust ya'll to time ur own prep

Alpharetta '25

Email

---rishakohli@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---adopted from Eshan Momin (and anyone he gives credit to)

---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, judge kick.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything

---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---theory debates are good

K

---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

T

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison will heavily shape my decision

CP

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates (pls have a NB)

---default is judge kick.

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like textual legitimacy

DA

---framing pages are mostly silly. Ks of things the NEG has said > “but the DA has internal links.”

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---yay impact turns

---good impact calc (and turns case) will be rewarded and is always good

Others

---clash is good + have fun!

---not voting for death good

---stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

I'll pretty much vote on anything just try your best, and you're always welcome to ask any questions or "post-round" bc ik debaters work hard :)

AND please add a pun related to this topic somewhere in your speech for +0.1 speaks!

Hi! I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I did a little bit of PF debate in middle school, so I'm relatively inexperienced with it. I’m a flow judge and follow speed, but please be sure to be clear and stay organized. Statistics/facts can only help you if they are backed up with reasoning and good explanations. Overall, I believe PF should be understandable to a general audience and you should be able to explain in a easily understandable manner why your side should win the debate.

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years now. I do college policy now. I'm “tech” (tabula rasa, will vote for pretty much any argument, won't do any work for you, etc etc)

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

Bergen YS is peak

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or racist pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on UNSC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need to You need to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going too new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progressive Args

Ks:

I'm a K debater myself now, I read Beller, SO I'm 100% cool with you running a K. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to. My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it)

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

• Repeatedly cut your opponents off
• Be rude to anyone in the round
• Taking super long to pull up ev
• Extending through ink
• Not signposting
• Calling everything dropped when it's not
• Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

• Throw in a Taylor Swift or Pusha T reference
• Having fun with it
• Bringing me long flow paper
• Signposting well
• Good weighing
• Smart strategy
• Calling states in Eastern Europe "Yugoslavia"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhathonest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, you'll probably lose. I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then I probably would avoid ev challenges.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAQ

1. Can I use speed? Yeah I mean go for it but make sure you're clear, ideally send a doc, and keep in mind that if I can't flow it without looking at your doc then I'm probably not writing it down.
2. Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
3. Can I read new wieghing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
4. Is cross open? Sure we ball
5. Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
6. Does a split panel change my judging prefs? Generally, I still want all of the procedural things to meet my normal prefs BUT I will give y'all a bit more credence on things like extensions or the LbyL just don't be egregious
7. Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

**I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE**

add me to the email chain: stutim304@gmail.com

for context, i’ve done pf debate for 5 years and have been doing policy for 2 years. i’ve taught a couple of kids for summer camp, so i am relatively familiar with the technical side of pf. however, i have not debated pf for 2 years, meaning that i am not familiar with pf kritiks and new theory. please explain those arguments especially well.

case:

cases need to have clear links, impacts, and a uniqueness. if there is no impact, i cannot really evaluate it.

tech > truth in most cases.

summaries & final focuses:

no new ev or arguments in final focus, new arguments in summaries are permitted if the other team doesn’t bring it up. also, since i have no knowledge on this topic, send out analytics.

weighing:

weighing is a super big part of my decision, so i expect it to be in your summary and carried into your final focus. weighing must be extended and fully explained. i prefer pre-req, probability, magnitude, and timeframe in that order.

speaking:

i’m ok with speed, but be clear. if i can’t understand you, i will let you know. however, if i cannot understand you repeatedly, it is not going my flow so i can’t evaluate it.

arguments:

dropped arguments = true arguments. if your opponent drops your argument, bring it up in a speech. for kritiks, i don’t know how these work in pf, but i do understand policy kritiks so explain them well. for theory, again, i’m willing to vote on it but explain it well.

timing:

i will time your speeches but you should as well.

***

hate speech, homophobia, racism, etc. will result in lowest speaks and a loss.

all in all, it’s novice division, i’m going to let a lot slide because this is a learning experience for you all! if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

for +.2 speaker points, buy me a snack before round <3

Tech Judge with a few caveats:

- Tech > truth. The real world isn't a debate round, external factors always play a role in impacts. Debate competitions should be evaluating the debaters on debate skills, not the actual merits of either side of a resolution.

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to answer first rebuttal. All frontlining needs to be in Summary.

- Anything in FF needs to be in Summary, responses must be extended from RT to Summary to FF to count, answering front lining along the way. Start weighing in Summary, Rebuttal has too many burdens on its back already. Weighing is getting more important now that more teams seem to be finally learning how debate works.

-Weigh not at your own peril, for it is a nice way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This isn't a chess tournament. You don't win by moving and capturing pieces. You win on how your impacts relate to your opponents'.

- Extension through ink = a dropped RT/argument.

- Summary needs to answer rebuttal and extend any RTs that want to be used in Final Focus. NSDA ought to rename Summary to “Frontline” or “Second Rebuttal.” May help clear up some doubts.

- X outweighs Y is not really a response. If dropped, I will consider X to outweigh Y unless there are other impacts the team advocating Y has which may combine to end up in a ballot for team arguing Y.

- Turns must be implicated and weighed. The only exception is when you do a direct turn (ex: one team says "XYZ increases econ growth" and you read a turn saying "XYZ decreases econ growth"). Even then, you should weigh it for speaks and to make it easier to evaluate, but I won't drop it off immediately like I will with an indirect turn.

- Framework/Overview needs cards, serious warranting. Too many teams use this as a way to juke out inexperienced teams. CBA default.

- Cleanly outline your arguments when you extend them in summary and final focus. Ideally you are also extending important card names as well, but at minimum uniqueness, links, and impacts should be extended if you want me to evaluate them.

- Keep crossfire polite and use it for its intended purpose. Incorporate general topic knowledge and explain ideas well. Too many teams go all out rude in elims to gain as much dominance as possible (whether early elim rounds at random state tourney all the way to late elims at varsity Harvard/TOC). This harms educational value in debate.

-Progressive argumentation (K, theory) has little place in PF. Sign up for a different event if you don’t like this. Topicality may be fine depending on the topic since some topics allow for different interpretations of implementation methods, which may have different impacts.

- Plans/CPs have no place in PF. They will not be weighed. Existing alternatives/plans may be considered based on their odds of enactment. Definition of counterplan can be debated as well.

- Avoid referring to your opponents using gendered language.

-Speed is cool, but speed is inversely proportional to nuance that I flow. It's your job to ensure I get down what you want me to, not mine. PF isn't policy lite, and some debaters are beginning to push the boundaries a bit too much. Don’t be one of them.

- If evidence is indicted, the evidence in question must be shown to the judge. I may call cards at my discretion.

- In the ridiculously unlikely event that the debate ends in a tie on impacts(may happen if both sides links are both completely destroyed), I take a page from Policy/LD and vote Con on presumption. Don't stress about this, it almost never happens even at the highest levels.

For COVID-19 season:

- Turn your cameras on, stand up, and use gestures like you normally would. If for some reason you can’t do that, tell me BEFORE the round.

- Doesn’t matter if you can’t get on the call, your prep will be running anyway cause I have no way to know if you are lying or not. I keep the official prep, I don't care if your timer is off. Excessive dilly-dallying will cut against your speaker points and may count against your timer.

- Keep the mike close enough so we can all hear.

- I don't do oral RFDs. I drop the speech-by-speech comments into the chat, and then you can ask questions. That forces you to read the speech-by-speech commentary which I spend time and effort writing up. In my experience, this leads to more questions about the reasoning behind the decision and thus improvements that can be made for the future instead of the usual obsession with a W or an L.

Speaks: (Given in 1/10th increments unless tournament rules state otherwise.)

Speaks are getting too inflated, may adjust scale downwards later to help change norms.

<26 means you were disruptive, violated an NSDA rule for which the penalty is a forfeit, or technical forfeit (COVID season). F

26.1-26.9 means you need SIGNIFICANT improvement and/or probably dropped case. Failing to cleanly extend case, responses, or frontline in summary or final focus is an easy way to earn this score. This score means you had absolutely no clue what you were doing in one or more speeches. D

27-27.9 means you missed more than a handful of things on the flow or made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round. You may have had a general idea of what you needed to do, but stumbled through the details. C

28-28.9 means you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing. Maybe a few minor things conceded or extended through ink. You had a general idea of what to do, and got most of the details correct, but the errors were somewhat obvious and detracted from your performance. B

29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, you do comparative weighing. No major tactical or strategic blunders. Nothing is dropped or extended through ink. You got pretty much all of the details correct, and even the most astute observer would have to squint really hard to notice your errors. A

29.8-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments AND THE WEIGHING MECHANISMS, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy. A+

- 2nd speakers: Sometimes, your partner screws stuff up in Summary and you had the skills to do it better, but your speaks are low because of the "no new content in FF" rules. Since Summary and FF are almost identical these days, in a PRELIM ROUND you can bring up new frontlines and weighing in FF and I will keep that in consideration when awarding speaks. However, new stuff will NOT affect the W/L decision. In elims, no speaks are awarded, so don't bother.

- The best debaters transcend the round itself and provide a clear narrative beyond technical jargon. Enough with lay judge, flay judge, tech judge.... The best debaters distinguish themselves in front of all judges. Tell jokes, analogies, give good examples to enhance speaker points. If you know the ins and outs of the topic and your case, you will surprise yourself as to how well you do.

- This paradigm will be adapted as PF debate community norms change. Ask BEFORE the round to clear up doubts about paradigm.

- Embrace the suck. You only get to do competitive debate for so long, you might as well enjoy it. If you find this exhausting or boring, know you’ll probably have to do even more frustrating things in life. Just do yourself a favor and learn how to get through it now.

Alpharetta '23 & Emory '27

Debated at Alpharetta for 4 years as a 2A and qualified to the TOC. Currently not debating in college.

Email chain: anishnayak34@gmail.com

Most of this paradigm is in line with / adapted from my school's debate alum / people I have debated with: Jordan Di, Hargunn Sandhu, Anish Thatiparthi, Eshan Momin.

General

1) I have little-to-no knowledge of the topic. Therefore, explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/community consensus on Topicality or Theory.

2) "Tech > Truth but the less truth, the easier the argument is to answer. Meanwhile, the implication of concessions is only what you make it." - Jordan Di

3) Good debating requires quality evidence, strong logical explanations, aff-specific strategies, and contextualization. Detailed language > debate buzz words.

4) Online debate - please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should definitely not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case the Internet cuts out. Please keep your camera on unless you absolutely cannot.

5) Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in a loss, the lowest speaks, and a written report to Tab.

6) Speaks - if you opensource, let me know, + .1

CPs

Aff -

- Insert perm texts.

- Solvency deficits need impacts.

- I am receptive to intrinsic perms if argued well.

Neg -

- I'll judge kick the CP by default.

- I'll use sufficiency framing by default (it's just cost-benefit analysis)

- I won't reject the team if the aff wins a theory argument unless it's conditionality.

- Not the best with really intricate competition debates

DAs

Neg -

- The bar for going for a DA alone in the 2NR is high - links must be specific and well-explained and the case must be debated

- Turns case is great and makes DA-debating a whole lot better

Aff -

- Use your 1AC!

- 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

Theory

- Conditionality is generally good.

- International CPs, Devolution CPs, and Ctrl + F Word PICs are generally bad. I lean neg on most other theory.

T

- Competing interps is generally > reasonability. However, the more ridiculous your interpretation is, the more I am likely to buy reasonability.

- Predictable limits > other internal links. Cards that define words > cards that just use them in context.

- Internal link debating/comparison is crucial. Both sides usually share the same impact.

Planless affs

- Fairness is an impact.

- I'm more inclined to vote on T-usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model.

- Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

- Not the best at adjudicating these debates

Ks

- Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan

- Don't care if fiat isn't real

- Drawing specific links, quoting the 1AC, and making in-depth explanations at all levels of the debate are important.

- Line-by line > overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

I debated PF for 6 years.

I judge off the flow.

I don't flow crossfire, but if something important comes up I will make notes.

Extend your responses and weigh in summary. If you don't extend in summary then I can't count it in final focus.

Answer turns and warrant arguments well.

Give me clear reason(s) why you win and outweigh the opponent.

Do off-time road maps unless your clearly stating where you are in the flow and make flowing easy for me because if I cant flow it then I'm not going to count it in the round.

Hey Guys,

My name is Harsh Punjabi. My preferences are listed below.

1. Speed doesn't matter as long as i can keep up. I will tell you to slow down if you are speaking too fast.

2. Most important- Be respectful to your opponents and your teammates.

3. keep your own time for debate. i will keep time too, but you should keep your own time and stop when you know. I can deduct points from prep if you go overtime, but i will tell you about it

4. Make sure you weigh impacts or aleast try to because that will be very important as you go on in debate.

5. If you have any questions, be sure to ask before the debate, and i will be happy to answer any questions you have.

6 Tip- Look at all of your judges paradigms to see what their preferences are.

Thats all and Good luck!

Typing this on my phone the morning of so I'll keep it brief I'm an experienced debater with five years of PF, so any argument (san the obvious ones, anything -ist will get you an L26 + report to Tab, so don't try anything) is good with me, trust that I will be flowing everything in speech and will vote on anything on my flow.

I don't listen to cross so anything you want me to consider bring up in next speech.

Weighing is v important and unless you have it in summary, I'm not flowing it final focus, MAKE SURE ITS COMPARATIVE, weighing is at least half my ballot and will decide who wins the round 99.9% of the time.

Nothing is sticky, extend it verbally or it's dropped on the flow.

Speed is fine, but if you're going to spread send a speech doc or disclose online.

Turns should not be dropped

If you bring me food I'll love you forever and will maybe (okay definitely) give you extra speaks

Also if you email aanya2cool@gmail.com and tell her I'm cooler than her I'll give you extra speaks(show me the email)

If you make a joke that makes me laugh I'll give you speaks ????????

Tech > truth

The most important thing is to have fun. Debate is a learning experience and everything you learn from it is valuable. I will give as much constructive feedback as possible to help you out for the rest of your debate rounds.

Make sure to compare arguments and collapse (pick 1-2 arguments to mainly focus on in the second half of the round).

For any specifics, just ask me before the round starts!

Prajwal

I competed on the national circuit for Lambert Debate and coached several TOC-qualifying teams over the past 2 years.

Email: prajwalsaokar@gmail.com

Big Picture stuff

TLDR: tech>truth, if you can give warrants ill vote on anything, please weigh comparatively, and run some entertaining stuff if you know how

- Go as fast as you want, but if you're reading at 280+ wpm please send a doc and please be clear no matter what

- Some people I think are good judges are John Nahas, Max Hardt, Siva Sambasivam, and Nathaniel Yoon

- No matter what offense you go for, I need an EXPLICIT extension of the link, internal link and impact in BOTH Summary and Final Focus otherwise I probably just won't vote on the argument

- If you want me to vote on a turn, make sure to impact it and weigh it like any other piece of offense

- weigh comparatively, don't just tell me why you're impact is good, I need to know why its better than ur opponents. if both sides are going for different mechanisms (ie: magnitude vs probability) I need metaweighing as to which mechanism is better. If you are going for a prereq or link-in, do some link weighing as to why you link into their impact better than them

- frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in the second rebuttal, if you don't frontline defense against an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded

- If you think that your opponent has NO path to the ballot, you can call a TKO, if I think you are right you get a W30, if not you get an L25

- I don't pay attention to CX but be nice

Progressive Stuff

- On theory I default to RVIs and Competing Interps, but I'll evaluate it under whatever paradigm issues you read

-don't read theory on novices, if its anyone else go for it

- weigh your shell vs your opponents shell, the interp vs the counterinterp, etc to help make my decision easier

- I'm stealing this next bit from Siva: I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.

- I'm not familiar with a lot of more complex K lit (Baudrillard) but I understand the stock stuff like Cap K , Securitization, Threat Construction, etc. That being said, I'm willing to evaluate anything as long as you can warrant and explain it

- Tricks: these make for highly entertaining rounds so feel free to read them in front of me, but don't hide them in tags/random places in your speech otherwise I won't flow or evaluate them. If its anything outside the Empiricus/basic skep arguments you might want to slow down and do more explanation in the back half. MAKE SURE TO IMPLICATE THE ARGUMENTS YOU READ otherwise the flow gets very messy very fast

Ev (stole this from my partner)

There is no such thing as bad evidence- only unstrategic evidence. If you "have a card" that says bitcoin saves 3 billion lives then it's on your opponents for not calling you out if that's what you go for. Then again if they call you out now you don't have an impact so sucks to suck. Make it easy on yourself and do the ev comparison in speech to avoid possible intervention. I'm probably not going to read evidence in a round, i think its interventionist in many cases to do so, but if its a major point of contention and both teams say I should I probably will.

tech > truth

did PF for lambert, current freshman doing APDA at Harvard, here’s my competition record if that matters to you

add me to the chain: sahilsood@college.harvard.edu

send me full case and rebuttal docs with cut cards. no exceptions.

order of prefs: good theory>friv theory>traditional K's>meme cases (spark, ddev, etc)>substance>identity K's>non-T aff>trix, but i’ll eval anything

**note if you read a K of any sort: while I am receptive, you need to do adequate research of your own. I've seen K's in PF work and not work because the speech times are so short. if it is obviously stolen off of a policy or LD wiki, I will be much less receptive. if you choose to run these arguments, run them well.

regardless, win the flow and I'll vote for you

would love if you skipped grand cross and took 1:30 of prep

feel free to post round i think it’s educational

someone please call a TKO

speaks:

• 30 to any second speaker who can give a rebuttal off the flow (doc-botted rebuttals are fake smh)
• minimum 29.5's if you read anything that i have preffed higher than substance in my prefs above
• otherwise, i will probably average around 28.7-29 with speaks (i try to be generous)

As a PF Debater, here's my ideology for judging rounds as well as some general preferences:

[1] Framework drives the debate. I like seeing framework debate and I use a well-extended framework as the most important thing to weigh the arguments in a given round. Failure to give me a framework means I revert back to Util CBA.

[2] Extend arguments you want me to vote on. If I vote on it, it has to be in final focus. If it's in final focus, it has to be in summary. I want to see extension of both defense and offense in the summary speech by both teams.

[3] I prefer not to evaluate K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I generally don’t prefer to.

[4] I do not evaluate terminal defense when it comes from spreading on the neg during second constructive.

[5] Please be independent/responsible through the debate. Keep your own speech and prep time, let me know when you start/stop prep, don't go over the time limit, etc.

[6] Edit starting 2021: I am no longer keeping up with resolutions in the PF community and their corresponding arguments.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

I am a public forum debater and I have been debating for 4+ years.

Add me to the email chain no matter what: yajaman.dhanvin@gmail.com

Cheat sheet:

General overview

Tech over truth: Tech ---------------x----------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with speed: Fast, like policy fast -------------------x---------------------------- lay judge/parent judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory -------------------------------x----- not receptive to theory

Impact calculus that I use:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh (PEASE WEIGH YOU MUST WEIGH TO GET MY BALLOT)

Probability: Highly probable weighing x--------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----x------------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact x------------------------------------------------ Not a severe impact

~Speaking: Ok, here is the deal. If you spread it may be somewhat hard to keep up. If you see me drop my writing utensil, it means that you are speaking way too fast.

I encourage enthusiasm rather than speaking monotone. Monotone results in you for speaker points being as high as 26. If you don't weigh your impacts, you won't be able to get higher than 28 speaker points and will most likely lose the round. (Unless the other team does the same thing)

If you go above and beyond and make funny puns, I will increase your speaker point by 0.5 but decrease 0.5 if it is bad.

<26 means you were offensive/rude

26.1-26.9 means you need improvement and/or probably dropped case

27-27.9 means you probably missed things on the flow and might have made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round.

YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 28 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME.

28-28.9 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing.

29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, and, more importantly, you break away from weighing in a vacuum to comparative weighing.

29.8-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy.

~Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal is obliged to frontline all of the opponent's responses (YOU MUST MUST DO THIS). If you don't do so, then I will consider it as DROP. Also, no independent offense in 2nd rebuttal.

~Summary: Both positions must extend both offense and defense for the summary. Again, if you fail to extend defense, it's a clear ballot for the opponents as their offense still stands.

~Final Focus: Focus less on the flow, preferably focus on the big picture.

~Weighing: Please weigh impacts!! It will increase your chances of winning. Also, try to do meta-weighing because it will give you a higher speaks. Try to start weighing in rebuttal.

~Importance of Weighing

-Advance Techniques (Amplifier, Short Circuit, etc.)>Pre-Req

-Pre-Req>Timeframe

-Timefram>Prob

-Prob>Mag

-Mag>Scope

*IMPORTANT: Unless if you can prove to me that your impact weighing is better than theirs or you do comparative weighing, the order doesn't matter.*

~Crossfire: BE Calm and not so abusive although I do like clash and poking holes into the other team's arguments. I will be paying attention, but it won't affect my decision as much. However, I will not be flowing it.

~Paraphrasing: Okay, the new PF rules say it is okay to paraphrase. However, when you do paraphrase an article, do not misrepresent your evidence or I will automatically drop you.

Higher speaks:

A reference to Olive Garden's breadsticks gets you +1 speaker points

If you read a turn and turn/spin around, then you get .5 speaks added every time

You will NOT win if you do not weigh

Hi! I've been debating public forum for 4 years now. Here are some of my preferences:

General:

1. As long as you're clear, I don't mind if you speak fast.

2. Warranting/explaining your arguments is really important and telling me how they impact the round will help you win.

3. Weighing also makes it easy for me to vote for you

4. I don't like super wacky arguments, but if you do run one, just make sure you explain it thoroughly so that a) it's harder for your opponents to respond and b) it makes it easier for me to follow along and buy your argument. However, you will win the argument if your opponent does not respond to it well (but this is unlikely).

5. Please tell me what you are responding to or talking about in your speeches.

6. Be respectful to your opponents; no racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc.

7. I would not like it if you read an argument about a group that is not part of your identity.

8. Ask for my email if you want to share ev.

9. Ask me if you have any questions before the round.

Rebuttal:

1. Weigh your turns (and other offense); even better if you implicate them

2. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal; otherwise, bringing up something completely new in 2nd summary is abusive

3. Please tell me exactly what you're responding to. Make sure you also talk about how your response is applicable to their case/this debate (implicate it); don't just read ev without warranting.

Summary/FF:

1. Extend all parts of your case and rebuttal that you want me to consider in the round.

2. Don't bring up any completely new arguments in 2nd summary besides weighing. 1st summary also shouldn't be bringing up completely new responses to the opponent's case, but frontlines are fine of course.

3. Frontlines shouldn't just be extensions of your case.

4. Anything said in final focus should have been in summary. Make sure you're extending the arguments/weighing/analysis you want me to evaluate on the flow.

5. Weighing is really important; make sure it's actually comparing you and your opponents' arguments. Don't just tell me the mechanism, actually explain how you're a pre-req or why you have greater probability, etc.