Hi! I competed for four years in PF at Newton South and am a first year out.

Short version

I’ll vote on the flow but slower debates are appreciated.

Warrants are crucial.

Please do comparative weighing.

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense/turns on any arguments that will be extended.

I’d prefer not to judge prog.

Tech > truth, but in the words of Nilesh Chander, “the best teams win on both fronts”.

Long version

How I judge:

- I will only evaluate what is extended in the second half. This means that if you want me to vote on an argument, you should extend both warrants and impacts. Missing warrants to me means that your argument isn’t true. Also new implications/responses late in round won’t be evaluated.

- Please, please frontline all defense on what you’re going for in second rebuttal. Also please collapse and don't extend your entire case.

- Doing comparative weighing will help me differentiate between arguments and also increase the chance that you’re happy with my decision.

- I won’t kick an argument for being too tech but I’ll accept weaker responses the more unrealistic it is.

- I default to and would prefer to use a util framework.

Speed:

- I can handle most speeds, but would prefer rounds to be slower overall as I’ll be less likely to miss things. When in doubt, send a speech doc.

Evidence:

- Paraphrasing is fine but direct quotes are better.

- I’ll only read cards at the end of the round if teams request it.

- If you can't find a card that's called, I'll treat it as an analytic.

- I will boost your speaks for disclosing on the PF NDCA wiki but there is absolutely no penalty for not disclosing.

Other stuff you might want to know:

- I don't flow cross, so if you get an important concession that you want me to evaluate you should bring it up in a later speech.

- I do time speeches. If you go overtime, I won't stop you but I will also stop flowing.

- I generally give high speaks, and I will also disclose if the tournament allows and both teams are okay with it.

- I don’t think I will ever presume, but if I did I would presume for the team that lost the coin flip.

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

Prog:

I think progressive arguments make the activity more confusing and am generally opposed to them.

On theory specifically: I dealt with a lot of theory when I was competing. I really don’t want to deal with theory as a judge unless there’s an actual violation that occurs in the round like a piece of evidence being seriously misconstrued, and even then I would prefer an IVI instead of a shell that kicks the substance completely. I’ll raise your speaks if you disclose but I don’t want to hear disclosure theory.

I feel uncomfortable in my ability to evaluate Ks and would highly prefer it if they are not read. Tricks etc are also too much for me.

I will not evaluate any kind of progressive argumentation in a novice round.

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

If you’re confused about anything or have additional questions, please ask me before the round!

Former captain of the Sharon debate team. I know nothing about this topic, but feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. PLEASE WEIGH DURING SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS it will make my decision as a judge so much easier

I debated PF at Shrewsbury High for four years, and was relatively competitive my junior and senior year. Despite the many debate-centered comments about my judging style below, as long as you are respectful and go for it, I'm willing to follow the debate wherever you want to take it.

In case the above is too vague, here's how I judge:

- I identify as a 'flay' judge. I generally evaluate rounds on the flow but have a soft spot for lay appeal. I can flow speed, but spreading won't do you (or me) any favors. If I miss specific evidence that later could be what makes or breaks the round, it's likely due to rushed speeches with too much content.

- You don't have to extend terminal defense in first summary, unless it was responded to. However, offense should be extended in summary if you want me to evaluate in FF.

-You should frontline in first rebuttal if speaking second. At least respond to turns - I believe that new responses to turns in second summary is a bit abusive.

- I'll assume utilitarian FW if no alternative is provided.

- Huge on weighing; give me some mechanism to evaluate the importance of your arguments against your opponents. Weighing in summary and FF is streamlined in PF, but any preemptive weighing given in rebuttal is something I appreciate.

- To try and rectify the subjective nature of speaks, and how they often put debaters at an unfair disadvantage, I give 30's to all. The one caveat is lying about evidence and/or being rude. If you say anything sexist, racist, ablest, transphobic, homophobic, etc., I reserve the right to tank your speaks and drop you.

- I usually can logic my way through rounds without getting lost. That being said, I appreciate solid warranting in every speech. If I don't understand an argument by FF, then something's gone wrong. At that point I'd rather see quality weighing. Solidify your links early so I'm not scrambling to justify your logic by the end.

- I don't flow cross, but will note significant concessions. If you want me to really evaluate something from cx then mention it in a speech. And, while most of the PF community has agreed that cross is pointless, that does not give you an excuse to be rude or excessively domineering. Just be cool and respectful.

- Please don't start with the "my opponents dropped this contention..." if it's not true. Like, you and I both know they put down a response. Don't extend through ink.

- If there's heavy in-round dispute about evidence, I'll probably call for it. Don't be sketchy! There is also the possibility that I'll call for evidence in a completely clean round with no evidence disputes. Reading it won't factor into my decision, but sometimes I'm genuinely curious about evidence I find interesting. If so, I'll call for it...for fun.

- I will flow any argument and even enjoy hearing unique, progressive debate that I haven't heard before. That being said, I don't have much experience with k's, theory, etc., so I probably won't be inclined to vote on it. If you're going to run it you may need to over-explain any major complexities.

- If you plan on presenting sensitive topics, such as sexual assault, suicide, or trauma within case, I highly recommend you issue a trigger warning out of respect for your opponents and the people your argument represents. If you are not sure on how to verbalize this kind of content warning, feel free to ask me before the round. I'd much rather take the time to explain the importance of a TW than enter a round where not everyone is comfortable having that conversation.

Misc:

- Wear whatever you want! If your feet hurt from running around in heels/dress shoes all day, you can debate in your slippers. I don't really care.

- Do NOT be demeaning toward anyone in the round. I.e. do not belittle your opponents, always treat every debater equally, etc. I appreciate round sarcasm, puns, and jokes, but only when they're attacking an argument, not a person.

Hi! I am currently a senior at Newton South and have done PF for four years. A couple things:

1. Please don't say "just a quick off time road map." Please.

2. In rebuttal, the second speaking team should frontline turns. Not required, but I like when teams collapse in second rebuttal.

3. I don't just care that your card says something—explain to me why it says that.

4. PLEASE WEIGH! Make my decision easy by telling me why your argument is more important.

5. I can't vote for you if in your second half speeches you aren't extending a warrant and an impact (and weighing and frontlining). Please please collapse.

6. I don't like theory and will probably evaluate it wrong. Would *strongly* advise against running it.

7. Make me laugh and I'll boost your speaks:) If you are mean to your opponents, expect your speaks to reflect that.

Let me know if you have any questions! Excited to judge!

No Debate.

Firstly, If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it (this includes not flowing/being a lay judge lol I am g-d tier mom judge and won't intervene)

Here is how you should read my paradigm: at the top of each section is the most important stuff. If you only have a few mins read that. reading below those parts will provide a more in-depth take into my judging philosophy.

Update for Online Tourneys

I rlly can't follow like REAL spreading but I can take 99% of PF speed. I'll clear u if i need it. also ask questions if u have them and I'll answer as honestly as possible!

Most important part of my paradigm:

If you make or buy me a chicken parm or mac and cheese, I will get you prep on a topic or coach you for a round or something. I rlly like chicken parm and mac and cheese....

My name is Sam and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA. Was a meh first speaker and got carried imo. Now I'm a member of the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta.

TLDR: Normal circuit tech judge who likes warrants and logic and needs you to collapse on args

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before round or my RFD after round. (thx @Kate Selig for this idea: I'd rather you postround me than tell everyone I'm a bad judge )

Also, ask questions before the round starts! I might have thoughts on the topic you'll wanna hear. tbh also might not cuz I'm kinda dumb

Speed:

u can go fast, but don't like SPREAD SPREAD plz plz. i will try to keep up and clear u if need be.

I can flow it but only if you articulate well enough. 300 wpm and up I need a speech doc. The faster you go the more work I have to do and I'm lazy. I will always flow ur speed, but chances are if you feel the need to go too fast, then your time allocation was bad/you made bad strategic decisions. Also like fr just cuz u can go fast doesn't mean u should. Speed kills

Theory/Progressive args:

read whatever you want. i ran a cap k during medicare for all and loved it lol. I'd rather you not read random theory args just bc you want to win. if you're doing that, ASK YOUR OPPONENTS/DISCLOSE BEFORE ROUND. its rlly sh1tty if you don't. i can't emphasize it enough, reading theory on novices or people that don't understand what's going on = :(

don't run theory if u wanna get high speaks (or win bc i VERY much prefer substance)tbh --> i judged a team who read disclosure against an international team that clearly didn't understand how to debate it and it angered me to my soul. that's just really not cool. don't be mean. :(

but like if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it just like not happily

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

d-d-d-d-disclosure theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very (like actually completely 50-50) tab ras about disclosure, i do not think it is good or bad, just that it exists.

p-p-p-p-paraphrase theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very slightly biased (55-45) for paraphrasing good but its not hard to win paraphrasing bad.

all other theory/k stuff: if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

Cross:

it doesn't matter

Its useless to me. If you want to use an answer your opponent gives in cross, then say it in a speech. Don't be rude. Hug your opponent for a 30.

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to stand up and yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and your partner each get 30's. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get 26's for interrupting cross.

Framework:

I default util.

Explain it well and how I'm supposed to evaluate offense under it. the more complex, the more explaining u need. Framework debates aren't my absolute favorite but hey, you do you!!

Evidence disputes:

read ev if u want. don't miscut but i won't drop u for it.

I value all evidence equally unless you weigh it, which you should. You should ALWAYS tell me why I need to value your evidence more. also, evidence doesn't matter nearly as much as logical warranting. also like in general i won't call for cards unless ur like "sam call for this card" in speech. I think that calling for ev in any other circumstance is intervening.

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

You will get better speaks if: You make jokes. You give good speeches and make good strategic decisions. You aren't a dick. You make me laugh. I am extremely generous and tend to give out 29's routinely. I will give you a 30 if you are exceptional. *Send me a speech doc for an extra .3 speaks (sgoldstone514@gmail.com). Also extra .3 speaks for collapsing (if u do it correctly and it makes me happy) in 2nd rebutal. I guess I'm receptive to 30s theory but like it shouldn't be hard to get a 29.5 from me. I good example of really good strategy is what Jason Luo did in first final focus of TOC finals. also i will give speaks relative to the round and the level of competitors in the debate.

Here is an itemized list of my favorite speakers in no particular order:

- Rahul Shah (his voice is soothing and he's so damn cute)

- Claudia Leduc (gives summary without looking at the flow at all, hella impressive)

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

collapse in 2nd rebuttal. at least frontline offense and stuff. anything not frontlined is conceded.

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

I like roadmaps. I don't need defense in first summary. Don't extend too much in Summary, thats my biggest pet peeve FOR JESUS' (or any g-d u may or may not believe in, but if u wanna win the round do this lol) SAKE: COLLAPSE. When extending the argument you're going for, please extend the uniqueness, link, and impact in both speeches. An incomplete/ghost extension would a) make me sad and b) possibly lose you the round.

Please impact out turns in summary (although its better if this is done in rebuttal) if you plan on going for them. It is 100% okay to just go for a dropped turn. Also, u can go either line by line or give voters/do what you usually do. Don't extend through ink lol. Defense isn't rlly sticky it (unless u make an arg that it is in speech) but I'm less inclined to vote for a team that doesn't frontline at all even if their opponents don't extend defense.

Weighing:

Please weigh, and give me good analysis. It makes my job 1000x easier.

Earlier you weigh, the better. Weighing is very helpful in rebuttal, but NEEDED for me to vote in Summary and FF. With the new 3 min summaries, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to weigh in summary. No new weighing in 2nd FF, new weighing in 1st FF is unfavorable but if it's the only weighing in the round and they don't respond to it then like eh. If both teams win their weighing and cases and there is no meta weighing then I will vote for the team whose weighing was introduced earlier in the round (prereq/link ins weighing doesn't apply here bc if one case is a prereq to another then u vote for the prereq/link in). Does this favor the 1st speaking team? No, you can weigh (and do other fun things) in 2nd constructive. Unrelated but remember to weigh turns over contentions. If nobody weighs then i honestly won't know what to do. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args. jUsT mAk3 mY lyfE eAs1eR!!!

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

I vote on the weighed args first but if nobody weighs then i be big sad, but I'll vote on cleanest/clearest path to the ballot. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args and the paths are both clear/clean. If there is no offense in the round then I flip a coin to decide who picks up cuz choosing any other way is interventionist, but feel free to make warranted arguments abt defaulting to one side or speaking order. I will always disclose after the round and give an RFD. also PS lmfao u need to win the link into the impact that u weighed.

Other:

I will reward you for taking risks like collapsing on only a turn. Please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. I hate dumb analogies, chances are, even if you think you're funny, you're not. Don’t call me judge, that’s weird. If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

for every link into tourism you read, +.5 speaks lol.

i will never ever ever make any comments abt what you're wearing or how you speak. if a judge ever does, that's pretty messedup. i don't care if u show up in designer clothes or sweats. i enjoyed debating in sweats, it's comfy.

in outs, if i'm on a panel that's 2 other lays, u can tell me to judge it like a lay round and i will. (this means voting for the team that better establishes a narrative and is more convincing lol)

Do crazy sh1t fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

tbh unpopular opinion but evidence is dumb, debate should be logical. obvi like use evidence if u want but warrants/analytics are perfecto. I genuinely think that debate would be better if it was just logical warranting, evidence is bad. (obviously evidence matters but: warrant + authors name vs. just warrant? meh p equal unless u give me good reasoning to prefer the evidence. unless the evidence is like a fact like "x has increased y 200%" is obviously better than a reason why x doesn't increase y)

If at any point you believe that you have won the round with no way for the opponents to win, you can call a TKO, if you are correct it will be an auto W with 30s, but if you are incorrect it is a loss with 25s.

Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lol.

Above all, just have fun! Debate can get stressful so just try to breathe, chill and relax in round.

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

plz remind me of how many speaks you should win based all the crazy stuff in here lol i'll forget what i put here

no

Middle School Paradigm:

• Choose a few arguments and make it very clear why they’re the most important

• Weigh your impacts!

• Explain everything (and remember to re-explain your argument from the resolution to the impact in Summary and FF)

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

• Use they/them pronouns unless your opponents tell you otherwise

• If you are racist, LGBTQ+-phobic, ableist, rude, sexist, or are discriminatory in any other way, you will lose the round and may be reported

My longer paradigm - https://docs.google.com/document/d/17teFyL5H25AsRRIW5DLGVcL5NeqJjk4UPxy8e-RUKeE/edit?usp=sharing

I'm a parent judge that's judged a couple debates before. Please speak slowly so I can understand your points and follow your arguments. I have no background knowledge on the Arctic topic and have no personal experience as a debater. Please be courteous to each other.

-I will flow. I appreciate a clear narrative across arguments! It's okay to collapse.

-Significant impacts are awesome, especially quantifiable ones! Explain the gravity of the situation!

-Signposting is always really helpful.

-Spreading is okay, but make sure we can actually understand you. Don't speak super fast against an obviously less experienced team (this helps no one!)

-Don't be rude in cross-ex, especially don't be patronizing or condescending toward female debaters

-If evidence is requested, please pull it up quickly for the other team

-If you're running complex theory, please break it down and explain it.

I am a lay parent judge but do my best to flow. I do not disclose winners. My modal speaker score is a 28. I have not met a speed limit, but if you find it I will let you know. I find that speed hurts debaters as frequently as it helps, so use it carefully. My career has spanned corporate strategy, public sector policy advisory, higher education and entrepreneurship.

More of a flow judge than not, but don't spread and don't assume all jargon will be understood. I value extended arguments, will not pick up any new arguments brought in FF, and weighing is greatly appreciated. My advice as a coach and request as a judge is to tell me what is important and then tell me why you've won those points.

I value consistently extended arguments over arguments that were not extended throughout, but that doesn't mean I won't value them if all else is equal.

Crossfire is a place for actual questions, not BS excuses to make an argument, and never a place for reading cards.

Don't be rude or demeaning to anyone in the round, and failure to do so will be heavily reflected in speaker points. Humor always appreciated when appropriate.

Time management: Please follow the time constraints for each block. I expect debaters to self manage the slots including prep time. If any team take significantly more time (say 15+ sec) and the opposing team points that out you get penalized. Exchanging evidence is fine but be considerate of how long it takes

Key Points: If the opening round highlight your top 3-4 points by saying point 1 is xx followed by point (2) etc. It helps me follow those and see how it builds up or gets dropped as the debate progresses

Speed/Pace: Keep the pace of speech close to normal as possible. I see debaters speed up so much that I have a hard time following and will cut points for that. I value clarity and focused points over cramming 8-10 different streams of thought and speaking at the speed of light to get those said

2AR/2NR: Highlight why you are winning and which arguments you think are helping you. Highlight the impact with data points like "$100million saved" etc.

Crossfire: I do not give points for what is said is crossfire. I will listen to see what arguments are clarified and rebutted but more importantly how those arguments are then incorporated into the subsequent round(s)

Etiquette: Be courteous to the other team. Please do not be toxic or yell over each other in Cross-Ex.

I am a parent judge. When debating, I prefer clear speakers (not too fast). Contentions need to be clearly stated. Speak with confidence (avoid um's and uh's). Present your cases clearly. Be mindful of the time between speakers. Treat one another with respect.

I'm honestly too lazy to write a full paradigm, so I'll just make it quick.

I'm a senior at Lexington High school and Ive debated a year of policy and 3 of PF. Speed doesn't matter to me as long as you are clear in what you're saying. I will also vote off of the flow, so make clean extensions and weigh!!! Please please PLEASE do some comparative weighing as early on in the debate round as possible. I will literally give you higher speaks if you give a clear roadmap and/or signpost.

Also I really am not a huge fan of cross, so please please be nice to each other when asking questions (and in general throughout the round). I'm just here for a chill time:)

Have fun, and I'll see you all on the other side of the flow

- Jamin <3

In bold is just for Mardi Gras:

1. IF YOU VOTE FOR ME FOR MARDI GRAS KING I WILL GIVE YOU 30 SPEAKS!

2. If you say ENYA at all in your speech or randomly in round I'll boost your speaker points by .5

Normal paradigm:

Hello! I'm Jane, a senior at Newton South high school and I debate PF.

I use she/her/hers pronouns :)

I am flow but please don't speak too quickly because I'm lazy

I LOVE warranting and weighing! So please do that; otherwise, I'm probably gonna vote for the team that extends their argument the best :)

Collapsing: Do it.

Please frontline in second rebuttal! I think it makes the round sooooo much nicer:)

Have fun and be nice!

Feel free to ask me any questions!

If you're homophobic, sexist, racist, disrespectful of any kind, or just plain rude, I'll drop you and tank your speaks ;)

Hi! I'm a senior at Newton South and a third-year PF debater. My most distinguished accomplishment is placing last out of (I think) 8 teams at a local Big Questions Debate event.

Overall:

The most important thing is to be nice and respectful to each other. If you're mean, I'll be sad.

I appreciate smart debating. For example, don't read 10 responses to a contention that's 100 words. Also, if you're word efficient but speak slowly, I value that more than speaking really quickly but having a lot of filler words.

Example of smart debating: implicating a dropped response on one contention as terminal defense on another contention later in the round. Do things like that!

IMPLICATE RESPONSES AND WEIGH TURNS

Lay [----------*-] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth

General:

My least favorite thing is unwarranted claims. Do not abandon logic. Even if you extend a warrant in rebuttal in summary, it must be in final focus too. Don't make assertions without warranting them.

The flow is still important to me, so make sure you don't drop anything important.

Make sure you implicate arguments the way you want to me understand them. If you don't make a connection for me, I won't make it for you.

Make sure you have a narrative that you extend through summary and final focus (second rebuttal is a good place to explain your narrative too).

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine, and I will only call for evidence if someone tells me to.

**I also think that you can find evidence for a lot of things that aren't true, so when you read evidence you must warrant it**.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but that doesn't mean you should speak quickly. I value the quality of argument over the quantity of them, so if you're speaking quickly to get a lot down on the flow, it's better to speak slower and go for fewer but more fleshed out argument.

Weighing:

Please do it. At the end of the round, you probably won't be winning every single argument, so weighing makes my job easier and will probably make you happier with my decision.

Second Rebuttal:

Frontline all offense (link+impact turns, dis-ads, offensive overviews). You don't need to respond to defense, but it can be very strategic to do so in rebuttal.

Summary/Final Focus:

Collapse in summary and convince me why that argument is the most important one. Final focus should mirror summary, with the only exception being that first final focus can have defense from rebuttal that wasn't extended in first summary.

Cross:

Ask questions and don't steamroll over each other. I will listen to cross, and if you're all speaking over each other I can't understand.

Speaks:

If you're rude in cross, personally attack your opponents, or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything else offensive, I'll give you low speaks.

Theory:

I think that running theory in PF is extremely exclusive. Not everyone has the resources to learn about these arguments and how to respond to them.

If you want to run it, you must extend it throughout all speeches or else I will think that you are just running the theory to win rounds. You also must define the terms you use, like "role of the ballot" or "permutation." This is not only helpful to your opponents, who may not know what these terms mean, but it's also helpful for me to understand what you're saying.

Be Polite and respectful.

Do your homework, be prepared to send the evidence to support your statement.

Don't speak too fast.

Bullet points are helpful.

Don't use much debate jargon.

Have fun and good luck.

Hi! I am a PF Debater and debated at Wayland High School for three years.

Experience: Putting up with Sam Goldstone's shit and living by the grace of Kevin Wang.

If you manage to fit the correct pronunciation of falafel into your speech I'll give you 30s.

- I am tech over truth, so as long as you extend and weigh your arguments it's fine by me.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will default Con

- I do not take notes during crossfire

- I will only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it.

- No new responses is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence/responses introduced in the first summary.

- First summary has to extend defense, turns, disads/etc, the extra minute gives you ample time.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it's never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- I don't evaluate Kritik's, I think they are ruining the activity I love, however I am open to theory, but due to me not being well versed in Theory run it at your own digression.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language.

Hey, I'm Atharva and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA for four (more like three) years.

Off the bat, I don't have time for racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. I will drop you and tank your speaks. I also understand that we as debaters can often get heated in round (believe me, I've been there), but I would really appreciate it if you could try to maintain civility so that everyone feels comfortable. Please read trigger warnings when necessary and contact me if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you: atharvaweling@gmail.com

My preferences:

I am primarily tech over truth. That being said, I have a low bar for responses to outlandish arguments (i.e. death good). I will only call for evidence if it is pertinent to my decision and highly contested.

I want clear extensions in the latter half of the round. This means warrants, impacts, and any cards that you think are important for either. I'm not going to vote off of the general idea of your case.

The number one thing that you can do to win my ballot is provide a clear narrative throughout the round, which means consistency between speeches and well-explained arguments.

I will always prefer good logic to bad evidence. Every argument you make should have both a warrant and an implication or else it becomes meaningless to me.

WEIGH. From rebuttal onwards, preferably. Good weighing > bad defense in my opinion, so please extend comparative weighing throughout the round.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is a must; at the very least, get turns. I am also highly skeptical of long disads or offensive overviews in second rebuttal and would advise against it.

Similarly, if defense you want to collapse on is frontlined in second rebuttal, it has to be backlined in first summary. However, if it is dropped in second rebuttal, it may be brought up in first final focus.

If you're going to spread, strike me. I cannot handle speed, plain and simple, even with a speech doc. The bottom line is that I would love it if you spoke to me like a parent judge who knows tech jargon.

I have very little experience with progressive argumentation. I won't ask you not to read it, but I do ask that you explain it slowly and in-depth if you do, so no full-blown shells. I will not evaluate plans, CPs, or tricks.

Unless you really screw up on anything from the first paragraph, your speaks likely won't fall below a 28. You can raise them by feeding my ego with insincere compliments.

Lastly, have fun. I want the round to be as enjoyable as possible for everyone involved, so crack a few jokes and feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm or my decision whenever you want to.

I am new to judging. Let me know if there is something specific I am doing that should be clarified with tournament staff.

Hi everyone!

Some facts about me:

-I am a freshman at WPI pursuing a BS/MS in Data Science.

-I competed in PF debate for all 4 years of high school, I was part of the team at Newton South High School, and then started PF at Natick High School when I moved in my sophomore year.

-I have also competed in Congressional Debate, Big Questions Debate (2020 state champ!), World Schools Debate (at NSDAs), and Group Discussion.

-I am a flay judge (more flow than lay, though).

-tech > truth

-I'm okay with speed but I prefer it if you didn't spread

Some general things (mainly for novices):

-DO NOT BE SEXIST, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, ETC. (this one should be obvious).

-Please don't spread in summary and final focus, do your best to collapse and tell me what to focus on.

-Weighing is really important, start as early into the round as you can!

-Please explain the warranting behind your cards, I prefer a couple quality responses backed by good evidence and logic over 20 arbitrary cards being thrown into the speech

-I am not a huge fan of theory so please avoid it if you can

Good luck!!

Hello, I have 4 years of debate experience on the national circuit debating for Wayland High School

Likes:

- New arguments in second final focus. I love to be surprised when a team pulls out a surprise victory with a new argument late in the round.

- Unwarranted assertions. Who cares if there's any reason why your argument is true? All it needs to do is sound good.

- I prefer that debaters stare at each other during cross, not when they look at me. I want to feel like a spectator, not like I'm involved.

- Crossfire. This is debate, so I value crossfire above all else. Unlike "tech" judges, I will be on my phone during speeches, but be taking extensive notes on crossfire.

- If you want 30s, end every speech with "please clap"

Dislikes:

- Speed. I cannot follow anything about 100 words per minute.

- Collapsing. To me, it looks like you have given up on several of your arguments. Good debaters should be able to cover the entire 16 min of the first half into 3 minutes.

- English. Lingua latina maxima est.

Good Luck! and have fun!

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

Here's the real paradigm. I think that I am a fairly traditional tech judge and there isn't that much out of the ordinary here.

- When I'm making my decision, I look for a team that's winning offense and weighing. In the events that both teams are winning weighing, then I expect metaweighing or I will be forced to intervene (you don't want that).

- If there are two contradicting pieces of evidence in the round, I need a reason to prefer one piece of evidence over another. If no comparison is given, I will be forced to call for the evidence and intervene (you don't want that).

- Anything that's in FF must be in summary.

- Please don't be rude especially in cross

- I played around w Ks and little bit as a debater, so I have like a very baseline understanding of them, and I will evaluate them; however, if you plan on reading a K, I expect two things

1. If you're reading an argument about spreading discourse, I expect you to flip for whatever side the K is on, and I expect you to read the K in every round that you are able to

2. I think that you should only read a K if you genuinely believe in it. I won't be able to tell in the round, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you don't believe in it, I feel like you're just reading it to win a round.

- I am willing to vote on theory. I never ran it as a debater, but I think I understand it enough to vote off of it. Please only read theory on legitimate violations on the rules of debate. If you read something like mouthwash theory, I won't vote off of it.

- Please ask any other questions before the round.

she/her

i am a freshman studying computer science and economics at NYU. i debated at the high school level for 3 years at Acton Boxborough and this is my second season judging debate. i am currently debating on NYU's parlimentary debate team (very lax, though).

a couple of things:

- please preflow before round

- go at a slow/normal speed

-idrc about cross unless you bring it up in speech. however, please be respectful during crosss.

- warranted response + card>warranted response> card dump. your reasoning is more important than this random article you found that agrees with you.

- no new responses starting second summary for me plz (this includes frontlines disads etc)

- signpost, weigh, collapse on the same thing during summary and ff

- most importantly, please do not be discriminatory/rude or that is auto L and lowest speaks possible. please read a trigger warning if you are running sensitive topics for case/any argument. if you read something sensitive wo the warning and the opponents point this out, you will lose the round. if you're not sure if something is triggering ask me and your opponents.

- i don't know how theory, kritiks, any progressive debate works. if your opponents agree that you can run progressive arguments and you make sure that I understand what you are doing (a risk that you can take), then you can run them. however, do not have high expectations that i understand anything. if i don't understand what you are doing, i probably will let the other team win.

- have fun! enjoy debate, make new friends, and learn something new, whether you win or lose. i know debate can be rly competitive and tough but as long as you are learning and becoming a better debater, you win in the long run :))

im excited to judge your round! good luck and see you soon. if you have any questions, concerns, etc. you want me to know before or after the round, please email me at gloriazhu66@gmail.com (if you are asking me for flows after round please let me know what team you are on and what round i judged you).

- bonus tbd