Tabroom.com

Potomac Fall Championships

2020 — MD/US

Debate judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Gaurav Asthana Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 1, 2020 at 3:50 PM EDT

Background:

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University and I've coached for a variety of camps and schools over the past couple of years. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. This also means full extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure it's comparative, not just general reasons your argument matters. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I think the best teams go deeper with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

- Frontlining in the second rebuttal. I don't think you need to do a full 2-2 split in the second rebuttal but you are obligated to respond to any new offense brought up in the first rebuttal. I definitely think it is strategic to frontline the argument you are going for.

- Extensions of defense. Every back-half speech is obligated to respond to your opponents' case and with a three-minute summary, this is certainly doable.

- Jokes. Making me laugh gives you a nice bump in speaks, just don't try to be funny if you're not.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred slower debate. Along the same lines, I have never been a fan of really blippy rebuttals where you read a lot of random cards.

- New offense in the second rebuttal. I am not a fan of new offense being read in rebuttal as an overview (weighing overviews are nice though). I think turns are great, but if you're speaking second in the round, I require that you weigh any turns that you read. This is specifically to encourage you to not read a bunch of blippy turns in second rebuttal. I think it is strategic for the first rebuttal to weigh their turns as well, but I don't require it.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). If you think something abusive happens, call it out. In general though, I don't have a lot of experience with critical argumentation and those types of debates will probably naturally end up with you getting a) a worse decision and b) less educational value from me as a judge.

- Tabletotes. They honestly just look silly and are a pretty weird flex.

Dana Ayebare Hire 8 rounds

Sreejato Chatterjee Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 19, 2020 at 3:59 AM EDT

Background:

-Been debating PF for about 2.5 years. I debated nocember and did decent on it so I have topic knowledge.

-Email for email chain (put me on): sreejato.chatterjee@gmail.com

Good Stuff:

-If I laugh or smile kinda weird, just ignore that, I do that sometimes, it's not you. On the other hand, if I make angry or sad expressions, also ignore that. I'm probably feeling tired and stuff, so don't worry about.

-Tech>Truth sorta, if you're running something very squirrelly, you're gonna have to do some amazing warranting. Otherwise, I'll vote on anything that's not offensive.

-Please signpost so I know where you are. If you're going to give a roadmap, make sure to follow it.

-I can handle a little speed so DON’T SPREAD!!! Spreading no bueno. If you spread, I will say clear, and if you continue I will tank your speaks.

-Novices/MS: Please try to use all of your speech time. It is very valuable.

-I don’t flow cross, in fact I don’t like it that much anyway. If something is said that you think is important bring it back up in a speech. I'll give extra speaks if you can make cross fun and entertaining (for the right reasons) :)

-Second rebuttal should frontline. I think it's a good strategy and will help a lot.

-You don't need a piece of evidence for everything. I'm fine with and prefer warranted analysis over an unwarranted card.

-Things in Final Focus need to be in summary.

-Collapse. I do not want to see you bringing up every single contention and trying to win off of it. Choose an important argument, explain it to me, and tell me why it matters.

-Also, when collapsing, extend your argument fully, with uniqueness, link, warrant and impact. To make it easy, treat extensions as a mini summary of your argument. When extending evidence, don't just tell me "extend x card," actually tell me the warranting of the card and what it says.

-WEIGH!!! AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE!! I don't really accept new weighing in final focus unless both sides didn't weigh in summary or its responding to weighing from the opposing speech.

-Please also make the weighing comparative, don't just throw things and see what sticks the landing.

-If you're gonna give a framework, warrant it and extend it if its responded to. I look at the framework debate first when evaluating the flow. But also, don't make your framework lives, cost benefit analysis, util or anything similar. I get annoyed by that since most judges default to that framework.

-Look let's be honest here, I doubt middle schoolers are going to run theory or k's. My honest opinion is kinda mixed on this subject (I think certain theory is ok to check against abuse, but not others). I hit k's before so I'm mostly fine with it, but still treat me kinda lay when running them. I'm also ok with most theory but am still not completely knowledgable about it, but I'll probably accept it. Also, if I can tell that your opponents don't know how to respond to theory and aren't familiar with it, I will drop you immediately with 23's. Don't be that cool obnoxious kid who thinks they know how to debate theory/k's!

-I won't call for evidence unless someone tells me to or it becomes a "he said, she said" match in which case I'd need to see the evidence to make a decision on that front. This means that I would prefer if you did evidence comparision/weighing to make my job easier.

Speaks:

-Don’t be abusive, it’s bad. I will end the round and drop you immediately, with 23's, no questions asked.

-My speaks are generally aligned with the actual speaker point rank, 26 if u goofed, 27 for avg/meh, 28 if u were pretty decent overall, 29 if u were very good, and 30 if you were amazing. Take this with a grain of salt though, since speak rules change in tourneys.

Elisa Chen Hire 8 rounds None

Eric Chen Hire 8 rounds

Kirsten Craft Hire 8 rounds

Ruth Dai Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:52 PM EDT

debated for 4 years for thomas s. wootton ('23) on nat circuit, 2x toc

tldr:

speed ok, theory eh (see below if planning on running), tech > truth

start an email chain before round starts & add me: ruthdai077@gmail.com

please label said chain "tournament name, year, round, flight, team 1 code vs team 2 code"

in round:

preflow before round

no offtime roadmaps needed, just tell me where you're starting & signpost

i heavily prefer fw be extended in every speech but i won't hold it against u if you dont

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u spread: send speech docs (put in chain--don't put a locked doc). however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow--i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go ultra fast(but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be impacted out and implicated in rebuttal to be voted for. id also strongly strongly strongly prefer them to be weighed when introduced

i have a pretty low threshold for what i consider turns--but 10 word blips labeled as one wont be voted on

if you aren't using your opponents uniqueness for your turn, you have to introduce your own

defense is not sticky and must be implicated in every speech--i wont do it for you

*do not try to blow something up in the next speech when it wasn't implicated in the prior one--i will not evaluate it

i don't believe in uniqueness + probability + clarity of link/impact weighing but if its the only weighing i get ill evaluate it (the only time probability weighing exists is on the link level when the link chain is conceded. otherwise, it exclusively operates as defense)

comparative + meta weighing makes me happy

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics, otherwise, i default first (i am open to any alt presumption if this becomes a debate)

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

cross:

cross goes to the flow if brought up in next speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

open cross is fine

evidence:

carded warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or just cause

i don't accept cards that aren't cut

miscut ev gets speaks dropped and is knocked off the flow

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

start off every cross with a good knock-knock joke (bad jokes get bad speaks)

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

bring me a dunkin chai latte + hashbrowns and u will have my firstborn child

give me a 1 page mla format letter of rec for you from any of my old partners for 30 speaks

evidence challenges:

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

prog:

in all honesty i started off on the traditional circuit and never fully adapted to new tech and am not great at evaluating progressive. that being said, its the judges obligation to adapt so read (so long as it is inclusive) what you want, just know my best attempt at an rfd will probably not make you super happy.

theory:

if i believe there's an actual violation that endangers people in the round, the shell doesn't matter to me atp, ill just down the team

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

running theory just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

don't read paraphrasing overviews, just run theory atp

things i wont evaluate:

- tricks

- tko's

- 30 speaks theory

- an identity k that does not apply to u but applies to ur opponents

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (regardless of tourney rules) and im happy to disclose speaks, just ask

postrounding and being a sore loser are not mutually exclusive, im fine with the former not the latter

if you have any questions prior to the round or after feel free to email me(preferably ask me in the room, im a very lazy typer)

*side note: debate should be fun--run whatever makes you laugh (so long as your opponents are also okay with that type of round)

Carol Dembicki Hire 8 rounds None

Riya Dev Hire 8 rounds

Vinay Durbhakula Hire 8 rounds None

Rochelle Fink Hire 8 rounds None

Daniel Fu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 30, 2021 at 1:09 PM EDT

daniel (he/him)

if you have any specific questions ask me before round.

==========================================================================================

<< ONLINE DEBATE >>

1. evidence: if an email chain is made make sure to add me on it

2. general: mute yourself when not talking, keep track of your prep when reading cards (be honest !!)

==========================================================================================

<< PF >>

general stuff:

- tech > truth but the more squirrely an argument becomes the more work you'll have to do to convince me that it's a valid argument

- signpost throughout your speeches

- speed is fine but just make sure i can understand you, if you speak too fast, i'll stop flowing and just stare at you. please don't do that. it'll be awkward for the both of us.

- i think CX is binding but i won't flow it, if something important happens tell me in the later speech

- i presume neg by default but this should never happen, am open to other presumption args (e.g. 2nd, aff)

- if i am told to call for a card and i find that it contradicts what the person running it says i'll toss it out and pretend it was never mentioned

- i average 28 speaks

- please preflow before round, i won't let you do it in the room if the round should've started already because delays suck

- i like off-time roadmaps but it make it quick

good stuff

- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal

- comparative weighing -- simply throwing out buzzwords doesn't count, interact with your opponent's offense!

- warranting your evidence

"bad" stuff (avoid!)

- progressive args (theory, kritiks, etc.): not a "bad" thing perse but i don't have much experience with these at all so i can't promise i'll make a good decision over them (if theory is run make sure it's in response to actual abuse)

- don't call me judge, i think it's weird; speeches are directed towards me anyways

- don't read a framework that's just util (cost-benefit)

- card dumping

- just reading an author tag when extending evidence is not enough -- explain what the evidence says

- being rude during CX is very lame

Jonathan Gong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 20, 2020 at 11:16 AM EDT

I debated for four years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.

General Stuff:

I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.
I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.
You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.
I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.
I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.

Things I Like:

Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.
I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.
Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.

I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.

Please time each other. Keep each other accountable, don't rely on me for that.

Things I Do Not Like:

I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.
A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.
If you are blatantly racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks.
Please be civil in crossfire (to a reasonable degree). Trust that I can recognize if someone is being abusive but also stand your ground when you feel it's appropriate.

If you have any questions please ask me before the round starts.

Angela Gu Hire

Brent Halliburton Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 26, 2022 at 9:30 AM EDT

I am a parent judge, my son is a junior in high school. He did not write my paradigm.

And awayyyyyy we go!

TLDR: Tech > Truth, Line-by-Line good, Signposting good, writing my ballot good, progressive good.

I have found the best thing to do from an evidence sharing perspective is to put a link to a google doc in the chat that we can all edit and view. Please do this.

I self-identify as a progressive tabula rasa flow judge.

Tech > Truth. Underdeveloped or ridiculous arguments are hard to vote on (low bar for !truth).

Speed: I will clear you if I feel the need. I like a speech doc as much as anybody, but I feel like it is intellectual laziness on my part or poor speechifying on your part if I rely on it. I should be able to understand and flow what you are saying, right? But I do like to spell an author's name correctly when flowing citations.

Theory and T are fine. I am a bit out of touch with reasonableness vs. competing interps debates. I am a bit out of touch with modern CP theory, so make sure you are clear on your advocacy. I am familiar-ish with K but not up to speed on my Heidegger or whatever. You will need to make sure your argument is extremely clear. Frivolous theory or tricks seem easy to vote against, but you are welcome to try your luck.

I sometimes judge Novice and JV rounds. If I had to identify the thing I have enjoyed the least in these rounds, it would be the technical lack of proficiency most commonly expressed through the cliche “two ships passing in the night”. Good flowing leads to good line-by-line. Good line-by-line leads to a good story. Write my ballot for me. If any of this is unclear, make sure you ask before the round. If this is a novice round or JV, if you show me a good flow after the round, I will bump your speaks.

A common pre-round question I am asked is how I feel about tag-team CX. If your partner is about to give away the farm, by all means jump in. If you have a question prior to your speech that you just really need to ask, jump in. Otherwise, why not just let the appropriate people interact in the usual way? Do you enjoy CX that much? Also, I'm probably not listening.

This is an educational activity and I don't like a hostile environment. Let's keep it fun.

Public Forum:

Everything above applies. If it is in Final Focus, it was in Summary, right? People ask me if defense is sticky and while these terms of art are somewhat confusing to me, my response is that if you want to do stuff in the Final Focus, it should be in Summary, but you can extend dropped arguments very, very quickly. I don't need you to do this (common in PF) line-by-line, card-by-card extension in Summary. You can tell the story in Final Focus.

I expect, starting in Rebuttals, people to answer arguments in prior speeches. I know this makes the 2nd Rebuttal hard, but I believe in you and can think of no reasonable alternative. Happy to discuss.

I see people saying they will bump speaks if you read cards instead of paraphrasing. I am on the train: If you show me before the round that you are reading carded constructives, I will bump your speaks. Paraphrasing may have started as an attempt to increase persuasion, but I feel like it devolves to blippy args. I am considering transitioning to "paraphrase = lower speaks".

I find that with the volume of paraphrasing, people can blur through tags and authors. Please be articulate on the tag and author so I know what you want me to flow. In policy, I feel like I have the time they spend reading the card to write down the tag and author and the tag/citation/card model makes it easy to differentiate between tags and cards. PF seems to be somewhat sub-optimized for flowing by blurring the tag and content via paraphrase. I assume you want me to flow a tag and author if you go to the trouble to say something, but I probably can't write as fast as you read.

After judging several rounds at a recent tournament where I had a problem, let me say this: If your 1st constructive is paraphrased and has more than 20 citations, you are probably over paraphrasing and/or going too fast. I write down your citations. I have seen multiple instances where cases or arguments are so heavily paraphrased that there are two or more citations in a single sentence. I will not be able to write down your argument if you are expecting me to write down two arguments and two citations in a single sentence. And it is probably abusive to the other team. This is a real opinion. If you think this is an unfair standard, I would love to discuss.

Progressive PF is fine.

And I just want to say, for whoever happens to be reading this: It's strange to me that a judge would say that they don't like theory or progressive arguments. I understand if you say you have a bias against tricks, but if people can't feel comfortable making an argument about abuse in round in front of you, that opens the door for off-topic advocacy. Why would we want that? Policy debaters didn't have theory day one, theory evolved to check abuse. I get that people may not have experience with theory, but close-mindedness and a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable seems super meh and interventionist. Just putting it out there as a check against all the judges that try to actively discourage theory, which I dislike. Happy to advocate for theory before or after round if people want to shoot the breeze.

I have more opinions, just ask.

Abigail Hill Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 2:16 AM EDT

Some background stuff about me that you don't need to know: I debated for Winston Churchill High School for four years, obtaining eleven bids to the tournament of champions. I octo-finaled the 2022 Gold Tournament of Champions and reached late elimination rounds at 2023 NSDA Nationals. I've coached at NSD/Delta, Public Forum Academy, VBI, and Potomac Debate Academy.

Short Version:

Please give me good warranting, implicate your arguments, and PLEASE weigh. Like seriously- please weigh.

Feel free to go as fast as you want, but if you spread, just send a speech document.

If you do not extend your link, I will be sad.

Extend defense in summary.

Things I Do Not Like:

- rude or offensive behavior (i.e. sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.)

- complaining about your opponents calling evidence because it "slows down the round." It's not their fault if you don't have your cards organized

- new overviews in summary

--- SOME RANDOM STUFF ABOUT WEIGHING ---

Probability weighing is kind of fake.

--- SPEECHES ---

Crossfire:

I will listen to crossfire, but I won't vote off of anything said in cross unless brought up in another speech.

Signposting:

Do it, please. Thanks.

Rebuttal:

Im fine with a ton of offensive/DAs, just please warrant, weigh, and implicate them. Weigh links. Second rebuttal NEEDS to frontline.

Final Focus:

First final focus can do new weighing (within reason).

--- LOGISTICS ---

Speech Times:

Please say within speech times. Going 5-10 seconds over is alright if you are finishing your thought. Do not go, "can I finish my sentence?" and then proceed to "finish" the longest sentence in the word.

Content Warnings:

If you plan on reading something potentially triggering, read a content warning. Please read an opt-out of a triggering case. Have an alternative case ready to run.

Post-rounding:

Do what you want... I don't really care.

--- HOW TO GET HIGH SPEAKS ---

- show me your cat before round. if you don't have a cat, you should get a cat. 10/10 recommend.

- if you hold a pet during speech, you will get a 30 (probably).

- a reference to the Lorax.

- make a dad joke in a speech or in crossfire. (i.e. Q: what did the fish say when it swam into the wall? A: dam. don't poach this one, use your own)

- Flow in crayon.

--- PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ---

Theory:

Go for it.

Kritiks:

I haven't run Ks in the past, so run these at your own risk. I am NOT the best judge to run Kritiks with, though I will try my best to evaluate them. I am most familiar with imperialism and security Ks, but I'm willing to evaluate other Ks.

Tricks:

I have no idea how to evaluate these, so if you run them and I drop you, its your fault.

If you have any questions about this paradigm, feel free to ask before round.

Amy Hu Hire 8 rounds

Jason Hu Hire 8 rounds

Leavy Hu Hire 8 rounds

Teresa Huang Hire 8 rounds

Kari Jin Hire 8 rounds None

Gopal Kailad Hire 8 rounds

Christine M Kim Hire 8 rounds

Sabeen Kirwi Hire 8 rounds

Georgia Levine Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 10:06 AM EDT

Email: georgialevine@gmail.com

^ please put me on the email chains, feel free to contact with either if you need something, like speaks or whatnot

THIS IS A LONG PARADIGM AND I PUT A QUICK TL;DR BUT I RECOMMEND YOU SKIM THE FULL THING

Background on me:

she/her
Varsity debater (3 years of modified parli, 3 years of PF)
HS senior
I always disclose and give rfd (time permitting)
I've been judging for 3 years
I’m tech > truth so call people out on incorrect things, don't just assume that I'll intervene

TL;DR (I recommend you actually read/skim the full thing though)

Frontline in second rebuttal, you can run theory but not Ks, you can talk fast but don't spread, weigh!!!, trigger warnings if applicable

Round things:

No: (as in put "don't" in front of all of these)

Frontline in second summary instead of second rebuttal. I know it’stechnically allowed but it’s not good debating, don't do it.
Run Ks; tbh I do not understand how these are run well enough for you to be able to successfully run them with me, so just don't.
Expect me to flow what you say during cross. If it's important, say it in a speech (cross does affect speaks, though!)
Read possibly triggering content without trigger warnings. Please read trigger warnings before the speech if needed and offer an opt-out, it's an important norm to set!

Yes:

Talking fast is fine (but don't spread, which I define as 300wpm. Stay at like ~250wpm or so max please! Especially with topic-specific abbreviations/terms, if it's r1 of the tournament or early in the month I might not know right away!)
Weigh. Please don't make me do this myself, use clear and signposted weighing mechanisms that actually compare your cases (do not be 'two ships passing in the night'! interact!)
Off-time roadmaps aren’t required and I’m not gonna take off speaks if you don’t do them, but for summary especially it’s nice to know what part of the flow you’re starting on
Signpost! If you're just reading a straight block of text without any headlines or sign posting it is 10x easier for me to miss a response. Number & name your responses! (i.e. "on contention 1, I have 3 responses. first is a de-link [blah blah blah]")
Repeat data points in multiple speeches if they're important
Use warranting/analytics, not just random cards that don’t explain why something is true/false
Running theory is fine (I'm not always the biggest fan of disclosure/paraphrase but if you're a real believer in it then feel free to run it and, as long as it's argued well, I won't just vote against it!)
Also, defense is sticky (so you don't have to extend defense 2nd summary if you don't wanna waste time)

How to get speaks: (default to 28)

Let your opponent talk in cross
+0.5 (i.e. default to 28.5) - Tell me your favorite anything (ice cream flavor, color, movie/show, song, etc.) before the round so I know you read this (you can tell me on zoom chat if you'd prefer)

Anita Li Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 6, 2022 at 10:47 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Anita (she/her), a freshman at Northwestern University. I recently graduated from National Cathedral School in Washington D.C., where I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm definitely not a lay judge but i'm also not super comfortable with speed/prog. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know! My email is anitali2002@yahoo.com.

Please keep track of prep! Also I don't flow card names so if you say "extend Bob," i'm not gonna know what you're referring to.

Some things I like:

· Second Rebuttal has to frontline everything you're collapsing on and address all turns your opponents put on your case or concede to the delink.

· Weighing is super important! Weighing needs to be comparative (don’t just tell me why your impacts are important, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s impacts). Please start weighing in summary. No new weighing in Second FF.

· Please signpost + give off time road maps! Tell me what you're responding to.

· Please explain your arguments! Don’t just read statistics and then expect that to stand on itself, explain to me why that statistic is true. (warrants are important!)

· If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be in speech and extended across all speeches

· In second half, tell me what you're winning off of, whyyou’re winning, and tell me why I should be voting for you!

. 1st summary is the last speech where I will accept new arguments. New weighing and cross-apps are still okay after tho. New implications? I'll think about it.

. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!

Theories/Ks

· I don’t really understand Ks and Theories well so if you do run one please explain it well and in a manageable speed.

· If I feel like you’re running theory/ a weird overview/underview just to get a easy win, the chance of me voting for it is pretty low, especially if your opponents point out that it's abusive and explain why. But if you’re running theory because your opponents are actually being abusive, I can vote for it.

Behavior

· There’s a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. If I see you being overly aggressive, especially during cross, I’ll take off speaks and I’ll comment on it in my RFD. Also it can decrease your chances of winning.

· If you’re speaking quickly and make sure you ask your opponents if that's okay. I will try to flow to the best of my ability but I will most likely end up missing stuff. Having a speech doc is not an excuse to speak as fast as you want. I will only look at your speech doc for the duration of the speech.

.I'll only look at a card if you tell me to look at it.

. If you incorporate a tiktok dance or kpop choreo into a speech, I will increase your speaks up to 3 points.

. If you can guess my BTS bias or Blackpink bias, I will boost your speaks (prob only like 0.5 max lol)

Joanne Li Hire 8 rounds

Sophie Lin Hire 8 rounds

Meina Liu Hire 8 rounds

Richard Luo Hire 8 rounds

Raymond Ma Hire 8 rounds

Eden Medina Hire 8 rounds

Allison Moon Hire 8 rounds

Catherine Nan Hire 8 rounds

Li Ni Hire 8 rounds None

Ram Peri Hire 8 rounds None

Amitha Prabhu Hire 8 rounds None

Kate Kim Selig Hire None

Yucheng Shao Hire 8 rounds

Varun Sharma Hire 8 rounds None

Viveka Sinha Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 16, 2021 at 7:02 AM EDT

Short Version:

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine

Collapse & extend, weigh, signpost

be nice B)

Debate/Topic History:

High School PF debater, 3 years of experience debating, judged 4 tourneys

I've researched and debated the NATO topic.

Speed:

Speed is fine but send a speech doc if ur gonna spread, if your opponents or I miss something bc ur spreading, that's on u

Rebuttal:

Quality > Quantity, don't dump 100 args, that's not gonna help u, 3 or 4 well explained args will help u a lot more

Warranting > Cards, preferably both, i'll be upset if all ur responses are uncarded but a well-explained analytical arg goes a lot further than u just reading a card and not explaining it to me.

2nd rebuttal has to frontline

Early weighing is always a bonus.

Summary:

COLLAPSE! If you try to win everything, ur gonna end up winning nothing. Just flesh out a few args to set up ur partner for ff.

W E I G H please. comparative or there's no point.

extend everything you want me to consider (no sticky defense).

no new args in 2nd summary

Final Focus:

just lay out the reasons why u win and weigh.

Speaks:

I'm gonna default 28.5 unless u really impress me or annoy me.

If you're reading all this, tell me ur favorite ice cream flavour before the round and i'll boost ur speaks bc it proves to me that u read my paradigm.

Other things:

Don't run theory/Ks pls & ty

Please try to actually convince me, i can tell if ur just reading off a doc and i won't rly be happy

Speak confidently, the more confident u r, the more convinced i'll be

Don't be problematic (no racism, sexism, homophobia etc.)

Be respectful and nice to each other :/

Being rude/laughing at your opponents = speaks tanked (roasting in cross is encouraged tho ;))

I won't flow cross unless something phenomenal happens.

I'll disclose and i'll probably have a lot of things to say so feel free to stay behind and ask questions.

Email me at vivekasinha3@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after the round.

Robert Sun Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 14, 2020 at 7:16 AM EDT

Hello debaters!

A little bit about me: I'm a high schooler and I've debated for about two years now in Public Forum. I would say I'm fairly experienced with debate, the format, and the terminology.

I'm comfortable with some spreading, but if you do talk too fast, I may either ask for you to repeat something if I believe it is crucial to the round, or I won't write it down on my flow.

Because I am currently doing my own prep for the topics you are debating, I have done topic research and I do know some of the stock arguments that some of you might be running.

I strongly believe that public forum debate should be a fair and fun experience for all debaters. That means I will not have my own personal thoughts or biases influence my decision. However, here are some of the things that I do look for:

-If you go beyond your speaking time, I will signal you. You will then have 30 seconds remaining to finish your speech before I won't flow anything after that.

-I'm fairly lenient with prep time, if you do end up going over by more than 30 seconds, I will force you to stop because it won't be fair to the other side.

-Signposting is not required, but it would be nice if you could. To me when one does signpost they are signaling me to pay closer attention to this area, which may help you in my decision.

-An offroad map is not required either, but it would be nice if you could.

*I'm totally okay if both teams agree to skip grand crossfire for 45 seconds of extra prep time

Voting-wise:

I believe any argument can be a fair argument to present, as long as it is relevant to the resolution. How I vote on it comes down to how you end up using your argument to try to win the round.

I prefer the QUALITY of your side, not the QUANTITY of your side. I'd rather listen to a debate where your argument has solid reasoning and structure, rather than a debate where one compares whose evidence is better and how much evidence they have.

That being said, I'm not that familiar with theory or K debates. You can run it, and I'll be happy to listen to it, but you may not be satisfied with how I will evaluate it

There is one exception to the stuff listed above: As a personal debater, I'm am not fond of an argument solely based on political controversy, a morality debate, or ethics. (Ex. If you simply accuse the opponent side of being racist, I will not buy a single thing you say related to that, and I will deduct speaker points)

If you are disrespectful or appear condescending to your opponents, I will automatically give you L20.

Content-wise:

There are three things that make a strong argument and they will be something I will consider

1) Organization (The side that is clearer to vote on is something important for any judge)

2) Link, Warrant, and Impact (I cannot leave this out of an evaluation. I can't simply buy something if you can't give me a reason for it. Also if you don't have a clear impact, I'm afraid I don't know what to vote on for your side)

3) WEIGHING (This is important, especially if the argument becomes muddled. Tell me why your side is better than your opponents. Another pointer: I'm not really fond of weighing only in final focus, if you weigh earlier in summary it will stand out more strongly to me)

Other Pointers:

*If a card is called, I do expect the team who needs to give the card to provide the card.

*If a card seems too good to be true, I may ask for it at the end of the round.

*I will give a speaker point to your side if I find your argument interesting or if you make me laugh.

*Do NOT worry about anything debate-tech related, your own arguments, terminology, or other concerns. I can assure you I will provide each side with sufficient feedback about all of the following at the end of the round. Just make with what you know and have.

That's it from me! Don't stress too much about my paradigm, what matters most is that you take your time, have belief in yourself and what you have prepared, and strive to do your best!

Benjamin Tang Hire 8 rounds

Carter Tegen Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 11:01 AM EDT

I debated for Thomas S. Wootton and I'm currently studying Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech. I use he/him pronouns.

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, have questions, or think I'm missing something, ask me before the round. I'm hesitant to answer things once the round has started.

- Don't extend through ink. If your opponents read defensive responses to your argument, you should probably respond to them if you want to go for that argument. If they read an offensive response, you need to respond to it or explain why your link/impact outweighs their turn. 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to offense or I will consider it conceded.

- Collapse. The fewer arguments for me to evaluate the better. I'd rather have each side making 2 weighed arguments vs 4 unweighed ones. Also, spend your extra time explaining your argument very clearly for me and walk me through your link chain. If I can't listen to your final focus alone and understand what your argument is, I will have a harder time voting for it.

- Extension: Offensive arguments need to be in both summary and final focus for me to vote on it. Weighing must be in final focus to be evaluated but should come out earlier in the round.

- Weigh. This is the easiest way to win the round. Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponents and I will vote for you. This means your weighing has to be comparative, don't just state "We outweigh on magnitude because we impact to x people." You should also try to implicate why your weighing is important; if you state that you outweigh on clarity of impact or a more obscure weighing mechanism, tell me why I should care about how clear an impact is.

- Probability Weighing. I, 1. Think that this is generally just a way to make new responses later in the round and 2. Probability weighing generally clashes with my belief in debate that if you win your argument, you win probability that it's happening. The latter applies to claims such as "there is 100% probability x happens!!" Well, if you are winning your argument, yes; if you're not, no.

- Analysis vs Evidence. I haven't read your evidence before and likely your opponents haven't either. Unless your evidence is stating a fact, you need to be able to defend the warrants of your evidence instead of stating "thats what our card says." Uncarded analysis can be just as good as carded. I believe that debaters should be able to respond to arguments logically as well as reading down their block file.

- Speed. My partner and I generally went pretty quickly and I'm okay with moderate-fast speed if it is clear (I'll be flowing on my computer). That said, using speed as a way to make debate inaccessible or "spread out" your opponents is not okay. If you're going to be going at a speed that people can't understand you at, you should give a speech doc (I don't think PF should need speech docs). Do not sacrifice clarity for speed, it is less about me being able to write things down quickly and more about debaters being able to maintain clarity while speaking clearly. You should also be cognizant of the fact that online debate creates a myriad of clarity issues that could involve microphone quality or internet strength.

- Defense. If second rebuttal chooses not to frontline defense, first summary may extend it from rebuttal to final focus. However, I think frontlining in second rebuttal is strategic and key to developing a cohesive narrative through the round. All up to you. Otherwise, defense should be in both summary and final focus.

- Roadmaps/Signposting. Unless you're doing something crazy, a roadmap doesn't need to be anything more than where you are starting. Signposting is an absolute must. If you don't signpost I will be confused and probably cry. If you don't want me to be confused, you need to tell me when you're moving on the flow such as: numbering your responses, stating what contention you're on, if you start responding to their impact, etc.

- Theory/Ks. My role as a judge is simply to evaluate the arguments in the round. As such, I'm willing to evaluate and vote on theory and Ks in rounds; however, I don't particularly like the use of these arguments to pick up ballots on opponents inexperienced with this type of debate — e.g. shoe theory or something intentionally frivolous.

- Evidence. I will call for evidence if a team asks me to call for it and I believe it changes the way I evaluate the round. Let me know if I forget to call for something before I have made my decision.

- Intervention: I hope the round is clean and doesn't require any intervention, however, sloppy debating inevitably forces judges to intervene. If there is no weighing, I'll default to magnitude. If both sides completely take out each other's offense, I will default neg (I'm willing to hear default 1st argumentation). You don't want me to intervene on either of these things; for your own sake please weigh and make risk of offense/mitigatory analysis for me.

- Speaker Points. I give good speaks to debaters that can make good arguments, are fluid and convincing, and do well on the flow. Bad speaks are given to debaters who say problematic and offensive things and can result in me dropping them. If you make me laugh too I will help your speaks :)))).

- Postrounding. As an educational activity, I believe it is my responsibility to pay full attention to the round and thus am willing to answer questions regarding my decision. This means I'm willing to further justify my decision beyond my RFD if you have any questions AS LONG as its purpose is to further your learning and progress in this activity. If you use post rounding as a means of undermining your opponent's success you are a sore loser and I will hurt your speaks and end the post-round discussion. To add to this, I've never seen a situation where a coach asking questions to a judge had any purpose but to belittle the judge. (If the delineation of productive vs unproductive post rounding is unclear to you, ask me before the round for examples)

Ethan Wang Hire 8 rounds

Hailong Wang Hire

Kristen Wang Hire 8 rounds

Rachel Wang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 14, 2020 at 11:07 AM EDT

Hello! I'm a sophomore at Richard Montgomery High School. If you have any additional questions, feel free to email me :)

General Info:

- Tech > Truth, but don't run any overly strange arguments. DO fully extend your arguments through the flow.

- Please SIGNPOST. If I don't know where you are on the flow, I'll have a really hard time following you.

- Novices: Please try to use all of your given speech time to the best of your ability! Time is super important in debate when it comes to strategy.

- Don't use offensive overviews in second rebuttal because I find them to be abusive

- If you're speaking second, please try to frontline first rebuttal to the best of your ability. Prioritize responding to any turns.

- I don't flow cross. If you want to use something from cross, make sure you tell me during a speech.

- I won't vote off of theory/Ks.

Speaks:

- High speaks will be given to teams with good strategy, follow the flow, and are verbally convincing.

- Be nice and respectful to your opponents! Your speaks will take a hit if you aren't.

- Please refrain from saying any racist, sexist, discriminatory, generally problematic things.

Summary/FF:

- Extend all warrants and impacts.

- Summary and FF should be close mirrors of each other.

- PLEASE WEIGH! Try to do a lot of comparative weighing. (explain why your impacts are more important or why your links are more sturdy.) If I have to weigh for you, then it'll be a lot harder for me to vote for you.

- Any defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to in first summary, but defense that is unresponded to does not need to be extended into first summary.

Speed:

- Especially since we're online, if you sacrifice clarity for speed or spread poorly, your speaks may be lowered.

- Generally, please try to speak at a comprehensible pace.

Overall, don't stress too much during round. Debate is an awesome learning experience so don't forget to have fun while you're at it!

David Wong Hire 8 rounds

Lindsey Wu Hire 8 rounds

Luke Wu Hire 8 rounds

Isabelle Yang Hire 8 rounds

David Yao Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2019 at 1:21 PM EDT

Background:

Currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I have experience with APDA and I used to compete in the PF national circuit under Thomas S. Wootton High School.

TLDR: I flow. I like it when teams interact with their opponents' args. Warrant and impact things out. DO the work and you are more likely to get my ballot.

Preferences:

1. Speed:

I can handle 800-word cases but if you plan on going faster, don't expect my flow to be perfect unless you provided a speech doc. If you plan on spreading, please provide speech docs to everyone.

2. Extensions:

Everything in final focus should be in summary if you want me to evaluate it. The only exception to this is the 1st speaking team does not have to extend defense in summary. I'm not a big fan of new responses in 2nd summary. If you make new responses and your opponents call you out for it, there's a big chance I won't give it full weight.

Also, don't just extend card names. Extend the warrants.

3. Evidence:

Make it clear in speech if you want me to call a card. I will drop cards that I feel are misconstrued from the flow.

4. Cross:

I generally don't flow cross. If you get any concessions out of your opponents during this time please point it out in speech.

5. K's:

Not very familiar with them. I'm also very skeptical about whether they should be used in PF or not. I would advise not running them unless you can explain it really well.

6. Theory:

I'm more familiar with theory but I will only vote off it if something was actually abusive. I'm more receptive to things like condo bad but not such much to things like disclosure theory. Like K's, you need to explain this well if you want me to vote on this.

What I want to see:

1. Extend Impacts:

It is hard to evaluate an argument if the impacts are not extended. Don't make me do work for you.

2. Weighing:

The less weighing that is done the more I have to evaluate the importance of impacts based on my own beliefs. Tell me why your impacts matter more. Things like magnitude, scope, time frame, urgency, uniqueness, clarity of link, etc are all very helpful (although don't just use them as buzzwords actually explain to me how they apply).

3. Signpost:

Please be clear on where you are on the flow. A roadmap also helps especially if you're going to be reading overviews or starting with frontlines in rebuttal.

4. Clash:

Please interact with your opponents' arguments. Otherwise, I will have to intervene to resolve debates which will result in a decision you are probably unhappy with.

5. Warrants:

Provide clear reasoning for your arguments. I am more inclined to buy an argument the better warranted it is.

How I tend to vote:

I tend to find myself voting more on probability/link level when I find no distinguishable difference in the impacts.

I'm more inclined to vote for a team that has a stronger link story that is well warranted and/or has done more work to frontline responses on the link.

I also tend to lean towards teams that engage with their opponents' arguments. I hate it when teams extend through ink. Even if your opponents are being nonresponsive, still explain to me why those arguments are nonresponsive.

I only vote off of risk of offense as a last resort in scenarios in which both team's links get super muddled.

I generally evaluate the round by going in order of highest impact args to lowest and asking myself if I feel comfortable voting there or not. I usually don't feel comfortable voting on certain args if there are very glaring responses that you dropped/did not frontline.

Misc:

I tend to be more tech > truth.

I also default to util unless you provide a different way of weighing that is well warranted.

Speaker points will be based on how well you debated rather than how pretty you spoke.

Please don't be rude or offensive.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Andy Ying Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue December 27, 2022 at 4:54 PM EDT

TL;DR: Mostly flow

I've done 3 years of PF and judged 3 tourneys

andy.ying.412@gmail.com Follow me on insta @andyying412 if you haven't and I'll boost speaks

SHORT VERSION:

Don't spread, frontline in 2nd rebuttal, weigh, don't dump blips, mostly tech>truth, no theory/Ks, signpost, don't be a turd during cross.

LONG VERSION:

Don't SPREAD, if I cannot flow it, it is dropped. Send a speech doc if you want to spread.

Tech > Truth, but nothing nutty. Don't make me vote on dedev/death good.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Defense from 1st rebuttal is sticky in 1st summary.

A solid warrant always beats an unimplicated card. Paraphrasing is ok if you have a cut card ready.

I don't like theory. Disclosure is only good for disclosing interps, extremely squirrely args, and progressive stuff. Paraphrasing is good and RVIs are good.

Don't run theory to get a cheap win or kick it to time skew.

I can't evaluate Ks and I don't feel comfortable voting off them. Tricks are L20.

PLEASE WEIGH, EXTEND LINKS and WARRANTS, and IMPLICATE IT

Misc:

I like well warranted squirrely/nuanced args with a solid story and link chain.

Point out concessions and weigh them, which makes it easier for me to evaluate the flow.

Clarity is real. If you don't contextualize an impact by some number, it will be very difficult for me to evaluate it.

I will try to adapt to your style and be understanding but do your best to be audible and coherent.

To prove you've read my paradigm, tell me what pets you have and I will give +.5 speaks.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Don't:

Bring up politics/religion as a key component of your args. Nuke war is dumb(unless it's like NFU or THAAD)

Dump blips.

Use crossfire as a rebuttal(I don't flow cross)

READ BOSTROM: It's lazy and I hate extinction framing.

Run tricks.

________________________________________________________________

Speaks:

I do appreciate good enunciation, delivery, and confidence, but those will only reflect in your speaks.

I start at a 28.5 and go up/down from there.

If u get a 25 or lower: either u pissed me off, you ran Bostrom, your name is Michael Chen, or you were totally unprepared

How to get good speaks:

- Do: Be extremely polite at all times, speak clearly and do good weighing/implication, and analysis

- Don't: curse, extend through ink, cut people off, go over/under time(5 sec grace period, after that I will stop flowing), be a jerk, run tricks

________________________________________________________________

After round: Postround me. It's a good norm. I'll answer any question. Judges should be able to answer any questions asked politely.

I will always disclose and I give all of my comments orally. Write. It. Down. Feel free to contact me after the round whenever.

Kevin Zeng Hire 8 rounds

Allison Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Faith Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Hercules Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:26 PM EDT

Senior debater at Georgetown Day School

Please add me to the email chain(add both email please): hzhang24@gds.org, georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com

I’m primarily a kritikal debater on both sides, but I’ve run policy affs before and went for cps and das as well.

For HS novice: You should read a plan until you can give a coherent explanation of your alternative model of debate and its implications for the debate community.

In general:

Tech vs. truth. A dropped argument is not automatically assumed as truth unless extended and explained. I will not vote on arguments that are incoherent, even if it is dropped.
2AR and 2NRs need to write the ballot for me. It should paint a picture of the round rather than line by line.
Credible evidence is important, but it won’t matter unless you flash out the warrant and its implication for the round.
I find it troublesome that debaters tend to hyper-tag their cards to make claims unsupported by the card itself. If your opponent is doing so, point that out, and it will reward you greatly.

CP: You need to have a NB and extend it in the block. For competition: I’m less familiar with the competition debate. I can keep up with textual and functional, but beyond that, i.e. positional, you need to explain it to me as if I'm new to debate.

DA: Do whatever you want; I can keep up with them. Do impact comparison.

Kritiks: I will likely be familiar with most of your K lit base, so read whatever you want. But do not expect me to do any work for you. You need to explain them thoroughly to me instead of throwing out jargon. I find links that are specific to the plan more compelling than the generic usfg bad ones, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Going for the k doesn’t mean you can neglect case. Dropped case often means the aff gets access to extinction o/w, which is risky for you even when your strategy is going for “you link, you lose.”

Hui Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Rebecca Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Vivian Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Kelly Zheng Hire

Last changed on Mon April 19, 2021 at 3:02 PM PDT

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook, email me (kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com), or ask me before the round.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. If some form of abuse or violence occurs in round and I don't immediately react, please feel free to FB PM me or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com. [I say this because as a cis het woman, I may not be able to pick up on certain types of violence and I believe debaters should determine their level of safety and/or comfort

General Stuff:

- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could trigger someone

- use people's pronouns or gender neutral language in the case pronouns aren't disclosed

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary abusive

- Be nice

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. Feel free to FB message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary. First summary should frontline turns

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision

Progressive Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round or you feel unsafe, please feel free to use these forms of argumentation. Just explain your argument well. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!

Yaping Zhou Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Potomac Fall Championships

2020 — MD/US

Debate judges Paradigm List

Judges