I debated PF for four years in HS.

Basically, make good arguments and convince me why you won. That's what debate is about. 

I'm fine with speed (as long as your opponents are). Frontline in the 2nd rebuttal, extend defense in the summary, and collapse the debate in the back half of the round. Tech > truth to some extent. I don't like crazy or unrealistic arguments, as I view Public Forum Debate as a means for discussing real world problems and their practical consequences, nor am I a fan of 5-6 contention cases, in which each argument is underdeveloped and poorly warranted, BUT, if an argument is clean dropped, I am very likely to vote for it. 

Please be respectful during cross. Don't yell. And remember, you are trying to convince the judge that you are right -- not your opponents! 

+0.5 speakers points if you make an Atlanta Hawks reference !! 

Email me at aananbiswas3@gmail.com if you have any questions.

👋 My name is Sudhan Chitgopkar and I'm a judge for Ivy Bridge Academy, River Trail Middle School, and South Forsyth High School. I've also coached and led the South Forsyth High School Debate Team (2017-2019) as well as coached for Ivy Bridge Academy (2018-2019). I'm currently a student at the University of Georgia.

As a PF Debater for the last 6 years, here's my ideology for judging rounds as well as some general preferences:

[1] Stock/run-of-the-mill arguments are boring. While I won't penalize stock args, I prefer to see unique ones.

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

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

[4] Having cut cards ready is important to me. If I hear a piece of evidence that's either too good to be true or is heavily debated through the round I will call for it. If it can't be provided, the team that claimed to have the evidence will be docked significant speaker points and I will disregard all arguments that are dependent on the card. I also believe that card-organization speaks to team preparedness. Being able to present a called-for card quickly will increase your speaks. Taking too long will drop your speaks.

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

[6] Be polite but passionate. Don't get into a shouting match with your opponents but show that you care about the debate and what you're arguing for. Without this, the debate gets very boring very quickly.

[7] Read my paradigm. Proactively reading paradigms is important and shows that you are responsible and care about the debate. If you let me know before the round that you read my paradigm I'll probably bump your speaker points a bit.

[8] I don't like seeing K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

[9] I never evaluate terminal defense when it comes from spreading on the neg during second constructive. I view this act as abusive and will drop your speaks accordingly.

[10] Edit starting Dec 2019: I am no longer keeping up with resolutions in the PF community and their corresponding arguments. Please do not assume that I will automatically know any abbreviations and technical, resolution-related terminology for any topics hereafter.

[11] Edit for Zoom rounds: Speech docs make my life significantly easier and will help you make sure all your most important cards are on the flow. Ask me about my contact details for this in round

Social

Follow me anywhere :)

[Instagram] not.sudhan

[LinkedIn] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Spotify] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Website] sudhanchitgopkar.com

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

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

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

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

-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.

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

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

-Preflow before the round.

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

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

-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.

Any other questions should be addressed before start time.

Heyo! I'm Revin, and I'm a former PF debater. I'm a current undergrad who debated starting from early middle school, so I do have a fair bit of experience. Below I've listed some things that may help you when I judge you.

1. Speed is ok, but no spreading. You can read at a generally fast pace, and I'll most likely understand what your points are if you signpost. However, don't spread - I need to hear at least some clarity and inflection.

2. Signpost. Self-explanatory.

3. Bringing things up in final focus that were not in the summary is heavily discouraged. While not a rule, articulating and organizing your summary is important, and a final focus is meant to wrap up your case, not introduce new arguments.

4. High theory. Not very familiar with this kind of stuff, but explain it WELL if you choose to use it.

That's it for how I judge. A couple of common things that are addressed:

1. Off-time roadmaps are preferred. Just give a brief outline of your contentions and/or responses, but make sure you say something indicating that it is off-time so I don't start timing you.

2. Frontlines + paraphrasing is ok. Just make sure you have the evidence/cards on call.

3. Giving cases is preferred. I would like to have both sides' cases in front of me so I can follow along easily. +0.5 speaker points if done.

4. Preflow your arguments. Self-explanatory.

5. Extra speaker points. Any Riot Games/anime references give +0.5 speaker points. More if done consistently/well :D

I also make music on YouTube if that interests you. Have fun!

Hi! I just graduated from college (engineering) and am entering law school in the fall. I debated in middle school and have some high school/college public speaking experience.

I like logical arguments with robust reasoning (specific examples are of secondary importance to me). I am OK with speed for the most part, but please enunciate so that I can follow your case. Also, a pet peeve of mine is when debaters try to cram a speech in during crossfire.

I debated PF for 6 years.

I judge off the flow.

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

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

Answer turns and warrant arguments well.

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

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

Supri Sama
3rd year debater 
Chattahoochee High School

put me on the email chain: suprajasama@gmail.com


Do what works for you. Debate is ultimately a game of persuasion, stick with the style of debate that works best for you. My philosophy is just a random collection of my thoughts on debate, not hard rules that you should or must follow. I do my best to resolve the central questions of the debate using the arguments that are supplied by both teams. I try not to intervene and will stick to my flow as much as possible this way I weigh the warrants that are actually communicated in the round rather than tagline extensions.

Debating versus Evidence 
I think that it is very important for debaters to be proficient in line-by-line debating while also being able to explain and develop the warrants for their arguments. With that said, I believe that debate is also somewhat of a referendum on the quality of evidence researched and the quality of argument constructed. To me, it is important both to have a good argument and to have the ability to debate that argument well. 

It is difficult to develop a uniform standard for judging debates in which debaters do a great job on an argument that is not substantiated with great evidence. At the margins, however, my flow dictates the degree to which evidence matters. 

None of this should give you the impression that I require every argument to be supported with evidence. On the contrary, analytic arguments are extremely useful and often under-utilized in debates. 

Paperless Debate 
First -- I'm pretty lax about prep time and I don't take prep for saving and sending, this being said, if it starts to get egregiously bad, then I will intervene. 

Second -- Flowing is monumentally important in a debate round, and, if it's clear to me that you are not flowing, I will call you out for it and probably dock your speaks. 

Topicality 
It does not make much sense to me for topicality to be evaluated entirely via risk or offense/defense. If the affirmative meets a good interpretation of the topic, it is difficult to persuade me that they need to meet the best possible interpretation of the topic. Negatives can convince me otherwise by doing a good job impacting their limits / predictability / ground claims. 

CP/DA
I thoroughly enjoy a good CP/DA debate, especially when it's specific to the affirmative

A counterplan is competitive if there is a functional difference between what the counterplan mandates and what the plan mandates as determined by their texts. If a counterplan includes all of the mandates of the plan, it is not competitive. 

The following is a list of counterplans that I have come to regard as probably illegitimate: 
-Counterplans that are wholly plan inclusive 
-Counterplans that are not functionally distinct from the plan 
-Counterplans that compete off of the certainty or immediacy of the plan

Hopefully your DA has a link specific to the affirmative, the more specific and well-researched, the better.


No risk of a link is definitely a thing, however, a clearly articulated link threshold is less arbitrary and therefore more convincing to me.

Impact work is especially important when the neg is defending the status quo. Don't just tell me that your impact has a larger magnitude, tell me why that's true and why magnitude is more important that the aff's framing choice.

Kritik
Interact with the aff well or be overwhelmingly good at not interacting with the aff. 

I enjoy debates that treat the K like a CP/disad debate - the K cannot be an excuse not to be technical, nor an excuse to evade concepts like uniqueness, comparative impact calc, etc. "No value to life" is borderline-completely meaningless to me the vast majority of times it's referenced. Debate the K like a disad - impacts need a unique link to the aff, and then need to actually be impacts - "epistemology first means vote neg on presumption" is not an impact. Value to life presumptively does not outweigh extinction. 

I think if the neg can garner a significant risk of the link and that the impact to the kritik outweighs any impact the aff may have, the the alternative doesn't necessarily need to have 100% solvency (see above). This doesn't mean that you don't need an alt in the 2NR, just that if you do enough impact analysis between the aff and the K to convince me that the aff causes more harm than good, I will probably vote for you. 


Theory 
As a 2N, I firmly believe that conditionality is beneficial. However, I am not sure if this gives the negative the right to introduce arguments that directly contradict with one another and if the aff can make a cohesive argument that is well thought out and can provide me with specific examples of in-round abuse, I may be persuaded to vote aff. 

It is difficult to persuade me that theoretical objections are voting issues. It seems that there is always a more appropriate remedy. This is true even if a theory argument is dropped. For example, dropping “multiple perms are illegitimate – voting issue” in the 1AR does not mean that the negative automatically wins; these cheap shots are silly and I think it is pedagogically unsound for the debate to be decided on them. 


Performance 
The affirmative team should defend a plan that affirms the resolution. 

Warning
Don't be rude. 
Cheating is bad, don't do it.

Prajwal

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

Email: prajwalsaokar@gmail.com

Big Picture stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ev (stole this from my partner)

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

I am a lay judge.

I dont mind if you speak fast or slow but I should be able to understand what you say

I like evidence base... truth>tech

I will informally flow

I focus on crossfire answers

Maintain respect throughout the round

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

tech > truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

feel free to post round i think it’s educational

someone please call a TKO

speaks:

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

send speech docs

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

I flow

Alpharetta 23, Michigan 27

Email: anish.thatiparthi@gmail.com

Debated at Alpharetta for 4 years as a 2N. Not debating in college.

Top Level:

I do not know anything about the topic. Please keep that in mind if you choose to go for any arguments centered around community consensus (topicality, various competition arguments, etc.).

The debate should look like what the debaters want it to be . Anything not in this section can be changed through good debating. My paradigm is intentionally brief to prevent debaters from over adapting. Anything is fair game barring blatant instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. and any other actions that make someone in the room feel unsafe. Such instances will be an auto L + report to tab.

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

Out of round actions have no implication on my ballot.

Rehighlightings can be only inserted if it is using the ALL of the same words highlighted by the opponent. I will disregard it otherwise.

If you do not explicitly stake the debate (i.e., stop the round and provide proof) on an evidence ethics violation, the most I will do is reject the piece of evidence in question.

Topicality:

Plan text in a vacuum is dumb but it still needs a counter interpretation to answer it.

Precision is irrelevant without context.

No solvency advocates and/or specific examples with a case list make me think you are making stuff up.

Predictable limits matter a lot to me.

Theory:

Neg terrorism is usually good but I recognize when it leaves the Aff with no other choice but theory.

It's hard to a win a "reject the team" argument for anything but conditionality.

2NRs get a lot more leeway for answering theory if the 2ACs theory argument was barely a sentence long.

A lot of creative counter-interpretations can solve Neg offense.

Planless Affs:

I have exclusively gone for T-USFG against every planless aff and have never defended a planless aff.

Fairness is an impact.

Most planless affs lack a solid answer to predictability.

Counter interpretation + explaining a model of debate > impact turning everything.

T-USFG is a substantive disagreement with the 1AC.

Ks:

Extinction outweighs + impact turning links is an easy way out against a lot of Ks.

K tricks are good but must be somewhat fleshed out in the block.

Links to the implementation of the plan are always better than links to the 1AC.

Ontological arguments do not eliminate the necessity for an actual link argument.

Evidence is under utilized by both sides in these debates.

CPs:

I have never been comfortable in super intricate competition debates and will probably be bad at judging these type of debates.

2NC CPs are awesome and should be used more.

Send perm texts.

Public forum

1. don't extend through ink

2. weigh weigh COMPARATIVE WEIGHING

3. highly encourage frontlining in second rebuttal

4. paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't misconstrue evidence

5. crossfire: I'll listen to it but won't impact the debate unless you bring it up in speech

6. summary and final focus must mirror each other; I like voting issues--> explicitly say it

7. I'm a flow/lay judge. Just do what you think personally that will win you the round.

8. you need to signpost; will deduct speaker points if you don't (either before or during speech)

Most importantly, have fun and good luck!

Add me to your email chain careeryen@gmail.com

My paradigm

What is your debate/judge experience?

Former debater/judge/coach in HS and in College.

What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?

Articulate measurable outcome(s) delivered by feasible solution(s) aligned with the nature of the objective(s). They should not become unmoored from reality.

Establish cause-and-effect relationship between upstream action(s) and downstream impact(s) through facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc.

Root-cause followed by correlation and attribution.

What kind(s) of performance is counter productive?

"Spreading" inane arguments.

Dumping statements without logically linking the root-causes driving the symptoms.

Rude, talk over opponents.