Tech judge

Put me on the email chain pls: tbhatnagar@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org and collegeprepdocs@gmail.com

Quick summary,

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is better

Defense is sticky.

Theory and prog args: I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad, etc, but I will evaluate all shells fairly whether or not they fit with my personal beliefs.

K's are fine, I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

If you say Among Us or make a Jojo Reference in any speech I will give you 30 speaks(real)

If you want a long version, look below(totally not stolen from William Pirone)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* * * * *

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has recently become egregiously long so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.

Also,go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

This is by far the most fun to judge. Below are some of my preferences/rules when it comes to tech substance debate, listed from the debate norms most specific to me to the least.

Part I - General Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though.

I like impact turns. A lot. Read them.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm:I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on.

I really value word efficiency– do this well, and you will be rewarded.

"Who what when where why" is not a responseand if your opponents point it out they get auto 30s.

Part II - Evidence:

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

Whether or not the tournament is onlineI will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Part III - Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

—Weighing §1—

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

—Weighing §2—

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech. 4 minutes is 4 minutes, read whatever offense you want in both constructives/rebuttals.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Pleasemake frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Theory is ok, I read it a lot my junior year. We usually read disclosure/paraphrase/round reports, but I'm good with anything as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.

I prefer techy substance rounds thoughso speaks might take a slight dip if you do this in prelims.

—Theory §1—

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.(Tanishq here: This is objectively wrong). No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I’m happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, andreasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

—Theory §2—

I default to spirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure todo weighing between them.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win.

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap/Baudrillard. For anything else please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read the mythical Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks, especially if you can point to specific links from their case.

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K.You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

Perms are OP if you use them effectively. I like when people shotgun them.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Also, totally open to theory against these– just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

If you must, just make sure the other team is cool with them first. Theory against these is smart too.

Make tricks fun, arguments like a prioris or “eval after the 1ac” are meh butparadoxes, skep, etc are great.

Head to the presumption sectionsince it’ll probably be necessary for these rounds.

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise,I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF with my life.

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants.I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first.

Preferences:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 4

Phil - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5

Performance - 5

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points forword efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

If you want a boost:

+0.2 speaks if you're disclosed and you tell me and it’s OS

+0.2 speaks if you don’t paraphrase (+0.2 for rebuttal too)

+0.2 speaks if you read the Keck/Dowd combo

+0.1 speaks if your cards are Times New Roman with green highlighting

+0.1 speaks if you have round reports

I will give you a 30 if you readALL defense/turns in second constructive(first rebuttal must frontline if this happens).

If it’s a prelim and both teams agree before the round, we can switch the resolution to a different one– it can be a previous topic or something new entirely.

hi there! i'm a pf debater at college prep! i am a flow judge, and here are my preferences:

please give a trigger warning if you are mentioning any sensitive subjects in your speech!

1. any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks will not be tolerated and will result in a loss for your team.

2. please speak clearly, and don't spread, it makes it difficult for me to note down all your arguments.

3. please be respectful during crossfire and let your opponents speak! please mention any important arguments brought up in crossfire in your speeches!

4. i do not know enough about theory so please refrain from running it in the round.

5. please keep your speeches organized and easy for me to follow!

6. please make it clear to me why i should vote for you and not your opponents!

please let me know if you have any questions! have fun and good luck!

Congress, extemp and impromptu at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I did policy for over a year and did both parli and pf for a couple tournaments.

For debate

I will flow all the arguments, but I need you to tell me why I should vote for you.

Impact out your arguments; otherwise, why should I care.

If you are rude, you will not win; debate is supposed to be fun, so don't make others hate it because of you.

You can spread but send me the doc. If your spreading you better be clear otherwise I won't flow it.

I like ethos inside of debate.

Bottom line - make whatever argument you want but impact out your arguments and be kind.

Congress

Congress has been my main event the past three years and I've reached sems at Nats, TOC, finaled at state

content: I want to see a very in-depth debate with quality sources. Don't falsify ev. Have clash don't give your speech in a vacuum.

delivery: Be respectful and have good rhetoric. I feel like using rhetoric is undervalued in congress but it's one of the most important aspects.

cross: ask good questions. Don't stall.

My serious paradigm is at the bottom, please just scroll down.

If you would like to win, make a reference to Rao's homemade Marinara Sauce.

This is a link to my partner's tabroom: Abhishek Rao

The sauce and my partners name are completely unrelated. They do not have anything to do with each other and its a complete coincidence.

Very serious....

Always remember, if you are on the pence about talking about trump, please do so as it will be funny. Get it, pence and fence.

You will get lots of speaker points if you ask a whole bunch of questions and don't answer any

If you plan to signpost, bring your own pen.

If you break, please remember to bring some tools to clean the mess up Why are some debates double flighted? Does the NSDA want you to pay for two flights instead of one?

An argument is like a penguin, it may be black and white but it just doesn't fly

Always remember, bots don't lie, humans do.

If you get a bye, don't expect me to say goodbye

Please make up all your evidence on the spot like Nilansh Dey Ghosh did. He smells bad.

Policy and Public Forum> All other debates and extemp> All other speech events. If you disagree then you are wrong

If you are going to turn an argument, make sure it is facing me

Whenever you are going to cross X, please remember to look both ways

The best author is Michael Shank, Adjunct faculty member and NYU. He would be my best friend but my partner called dibs.

Actually real stuff, if you are debating and I am your judge please read this

I am Rhythm Goyal and I have done S&D for 3 years now

Currently i am a freshman at Bellarmine College Preparatory

I have done policy debate, extemp, and public forum

Speak as fast as you want as long as I can understand you

I am a flow judge

I will vote who wins based on arguments, but i will decide speaker points based on how convincing you are

Make sure to extend your arguments and refutations. If an argument is dropped you have to tell me, or else I may not know. In the same way, if a refutation is dropped you have to tell me that.

Speaker points:

If you go overtime by more than 15 seconds you will lose speaker points

If you seem rude to me in cross ex you will lose speaker points

If I cant understand you, you will lose speaker points

Remember: Being loud doesn't make you a better debater

Dear Debaters,

To ensure a fair and productive debate, I'd like to share my judging philosophy and argumentative preferences:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I highly value clear communication. Please speak at a pace that allows for proper articulation and understanding.
   • Maintain a well-organized structure in your speeches. Signpost your arguments and provide clear transitions.

2. Content and Substance:

   • Strong arguments are the cornerstone of any debate. Focus on developing clear, well-researched content.
   • Provide solid evidence to support your claims. Quality trumps quantity - I'd rather hear a few well-supported arguments than a flood of weak ones.

3. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. Show why your case is stronger or provide effective rebuttals.
   • Don't just extend your own arguments; address the key points raised by your opponent.

4. Critical Thinking and Analysis:

   • I appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and the arguments presented by your opponents.

5. Adaptability:

   • Be ready to adapt your strategy if needed. Flexibility in response to the flow of the debate is a sign of effective debating.

6. Evidence Quality:

   • Cite credible, relevant sources to bolster your arguments. I value well-researched positions supported by reputable evidence.

7. Strategic Use of Cross-Examination:

   • Cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and gather information. Utilize it strategically to strengthen your case or expose weaknesses in your opponent's.

8. Impact and Weighing:

   • Clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. Explain why they are more significant or relevant than those of your opponent.
   • Weigh the most important issues in the round. Tell me why your case should take precedence.

9. Time Management:

   • Allocate your time wisely. Ensure you have sufficient opportunity to present your points, engage in rebuttal, and conclude effectively.

10. Ethical Conduct:

    • Maintain a high level of ethical conduct throughout the round. Respect your opponents, the rules of the tournament, and the judging process.
    • Be mindful of the language and content you use. Avoid any form of discrimination, hate speech, or offensive remarks.

Remember, I'm here to evaluate your arguments based on their merits. I don't have any preconceived biases, and I'm open to being persuaded by well-reasoned and well-supported arguments.

Good luck, and let's have a great round!

I'm a pretty experienced PF debater who debates for American High, and I will be an active flow judge.

Here are a few things that I really like to hear from a debate!

1. Speed: You can speak fast as long as it is clear, though don't full-on spread as it will be hard to flow the debate.

2. Weighing: Weighing for me is very important and it is most likely that I will be voting for the side that weighs more or on the more impactful subject.

3. Rebuttal: I should hear a refute or block to each of your opponent's contentions or else there is a strong chance that I will be voting for them. When going second, I highly recommend refuting their blocks.

4. Summary: Here you should go over the main arguments of the case, showing me why you win on them, and ultimately weighing.

5. Final Focus: Everything here should have been mentioned previously. If it has not been mentioned, don't bring it up. In this speech, you should give me key points, or voters, on why you win the debate. Then weigh on your weighing mechanisms and standard. I consider Final Focus's to be the most important speech so give it your all!

6. Cross and Grand Cross: Though I love to see a passionate cross-x, don't let your passion turn into aggression. Both teams should be given a chance to speak. And here, make sure to ask questions rather than cards.

That should be all, and if you have any further questions feel free to ask me before the round! Have fun and good luck!

Bellarmine '24, he/him

I'll flow. Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com.

Speed is fine.

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. Ideologically, I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion.

I don't care how well you can read blocks straight down. Line-by-line arguments, and respond to them in the order presented.

Tech > Truth. No argument is off limits, but don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc.

CX is underutilized. Exploit concessions.

Judge instruction is paramount. Debates without comparative analysis explaining what arguments I should prioritize over others are difficult to resolve. Technical concessions matter, but explain why they implicate my ballot. Be concrete and comparative.

Case debate is a dying art. Doing it well - on either side - will be rewarded.

Hi, I am a debater at James Logan Forensics. I am a flow judge and these are my preferences:

- Please mention a standard and prove to me throughout the debate why your arguments win on the standard

- Impacting is very important in all of your speeches to tell me why your arguments matter

- Please speak at a reasonable pace (no spreading), so I don’t miss any points

- Be respectful in Cross fire and throughout the debate (no racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or remarks)

- Mention trigger warnings before bringing up any potentially triggering topics

- During summary, point out any dropped points

Good Luck!

hey yall, im a current senior at college prep and have been doing pf for a few years now

email: aratna2@college-prep.org

add me to the chain, i'd prefer if you don't use google docs to share evidence, but your choice

dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/any -ist or -phobic, i will intervene, debate should be safe before all else

read the underlined stuff if you're in a rush

Novices

Ignore the entirety of this paradigm — try your best to give concise, good speeches, and don't worry about messing up, debate's a fun activity and yall are so cool for having the courage to try it out, if you have any questions feel free to ask before, in-round, or after

I won't care about small technicalities either — if you don't extend your argument, that's fine! (and if you don't know what "extending" means, that's also fine! my role in novice rounds is to be an educator, so ask/clarify anything)

General

tech >>> truth (literally read whatever you want)

Signpost, collapse, and weigh, it makes everyone's lives so much easier

Feel free to postround, it's a good norm

Pls read trigger warnings on graphic arguments

My decision

I evaluate weighing --> argument winning weighing --> argument losing weighing --> presumption,* in that order (more on this in weighing section)

*I presume neg on policy topics, and 1st on benefits v harms topics (feel free to make your own presumption warrants though)

In round

I can follow speed, but a lot of this comes down to clarity — sometimes I'm able to understand someone going 275 wpm if they enunciate clearly, other times I can't understand someone going 250 wpm — as a guideline, I'd say if you're going over 250 wpm, send a doc (I'd prefer you send a doc regardless though)

If I can't understand you, I'll yell "CLEAR" — after 3 times, I won't intervene, and you'll have to hope I understand what you're saying

Second rebuttal has to frontline all offense and has to frontline any defense on whatever argument they're going for (this is non-negotiable — if you don't frontline in second rebuttal I'm basically signing my ballot for the other team)

If you wanna frontline everything in second rebuttal, go ahead, I personally think it's smart if you can pull it off (but don't read blippy frontlines that can be backlined in two seconds)

I won't flow anything overtime (if it's an online tournament, then I'll flow two seconds over to account for lag, and then I'll stop)

I'm not flowing cross, probably won't listen to it that much, if something important is said bring it up in speech or else it's not in my ballot — this also means please don't be rude in cross, it isn't the end of the world if they get the last word

You can skip grand if you want to take 1 min of prep instead

Open cross is fine

Flex prep is fine

Going for a turn is very cool and will make me happy (as long as you weigh it)

Extending stuff

Defense is not sticky, even if you make an argument why it is, I'm not buying it — if I'm evaluating it in final, it has to be in summary

(a mini rant on extensions — PLEASE READ COMPLETELY)

I personally think case extensions are useless — they're just a waste of time and honestly I don't need to hear your argument again, I just need to know what you're going for — that being said, extensions are the norm, SO, for case extensions, extending a semblance of UQ, link, and impact, is ENOUGH — you do NOT need to extend all internal links* — e.g. nuclear war causing extinction through famine — if they were uncontested**

*note: don't take this as a sign that you can get away without extending arguments, I still need you to extend your argument, but I don't care how blippy it is as long as its there

**i still need to be able to tell which argument you're going for i.e. if you read an argument with two links, it needs to be clear which link you're going for

Example: Syria sells captagon for their civil war, affirming solves via a name-and-shame campaign, else it spills over and causes extinction (that's literally enough for me, ASSUMING ALL THE INTERNAL LINKS TO EXTINCTION WERE CONCEDED — if they weren't, either extend them on the extension or extend them while frontlining, just extend them somewhere if they were contested)

Evidence

You need to have cards — if you send a link for the other team to ctrl-f in, your speaks are plummeting, and a simple "this skews us out of the round blah blah" is gonna be an uphill battle for you to beat back

Please don't misconstrue, if it's bad enough I'll vote off it if the other team brings it up

If you take more than a minute to find evidence, either call it an analytic or take prep to find it

Substance

General

I'll vote on anything(spark, climate change good, etc) as long as you're winning the argument

Squirrelly/blippy arguments are fine with me, but I won't be too happy if you blow up a 1 sentence turn from rebuttal into 30 seconds of summary

Weighing

PLEASE weigh, it makes my decision 10x easier (metaweighing is also highly appreciated)

Carded weighing is pretty cool (especially for metaweighing)

I go prereqs/short-circuits* > link-ins > magnitude/scope** > timeframe > probability > other mechs (clarity, s/ol, etc) if I have no way to adjudicate between mechanisms (which is not nice and I don't like doing that)

*these are the same to me (mini-rant on why: if you read an argument like "war short-circuits economic growth because countries can't focus on their econ etc during a war", that is the EXACT SAME as saying “solving war is a prereq to economic growth because countries can't focus on their econ etc during a war")

**i still have no idea how these are different

If reading a link-in, tell me why I prefer your link-in over their case, otherwise I'll probably default them because they're probably more warranted — this can be super short, such as o/w on scope because it goes global, o/w on timeframe because , etc etc — the possibilities are endless, but just give me something

Pet peeve: pls don't call prereqs link-ins! if its a prereq, it needs to interact with their link

Probability weighing is eh — generally I think if a team is winning their argument they have 100% probability, and at this point people use probability weighing and s/ol synonymously

Please don't read new defense in summary and call it "probability weighing" e.g. reading MAD / hotlines as a reason why nuclear war is unlikely — that's impact defense and should be in rebuttal

New weighing in first and second summary: of course (idk why teams always say "tHiS wEiGhIng iS nEw iN sEcOnD sUmMaRy")

New weighing in first final: only if it's responding to second summary's weighing, or if second rebuttal didn't collapse

New weighing in second final: only if it's responding to first final's new weighing (which should only happen for the exception outlined above), but NO NEW WEIGHING that's your case on their case, that should be in second summary (even if first summary didn't collapse, it doesn't matter, second summary can weigh against two arguments)

Framing

Should be read in constructive (preferable) or rebuttal (at the latest) — if not, I'm not evaluating it, summary is way too late for framing

Read whatever framing you want (extinction, sv, etc)

You don't have to respond to framing in 2nd constructive (unless your opponents read reasons why you do, then either respond to those warrants or to the framing)

Progressive

General

If you read any form of prog in novice or jv (framing is fine), and the other team says "I don't know how to respond," that's sufficient enough of a response for me to kick the argument — if you're good enough to win on the theory/K layer, you're good enough to win on the substance layer (obviously doesn't apply to varsity)

*this is assuming there's a varsity division — if not, then you can read prog stuff in jv BUT NOT IN NOVICE, I genuinely think that it pushes kids out of debate when they get hit with a prog argument at their first or second tournament

A bit unorthodox, but I honestly don't care if you extend your theory/K/whatever in rebuttal (I know some judges care, so do whatever you want, but I won't drop the other team for not extending their stuff in rebuttal)

For theory, topical Ks, and IVIs, these must be read the speech after the violation/link — if your opponents paraphrase in 1st constructive, you can't read a paraphrasing shell in 2nd rebuttal (unless your shell is "Debaters must not paraphrase in rebuttal", then its fine)

Theory

Pretty comfortable evaluating this, I default no RVIs* and competing interps (and drop the debater)

*if you're going for RVIs good, then PLEASE make sure the argument you're going for on the theory layer matches** with the RVI warrant

**Example: the RVI warrant you read is the warrant that "winning a turn on the theory layer is a reason to vote for us just like normal substance", then you go for "counterinterp: teams can paraphrase if they have cut cards" — this CI isn't a turn, an example of stuff that would fall under that warrant would be something like "counterinterp: teams must paraphrase"

Friv theory is fine but my threshold for responses is lower and I'm probably more lenient with reasonability

I defaulttext > spirit, so I'm fine with you reading squirrelly "we meets", etc

I think disclosure is good (OS is slightly better), paraphrasing is bad, trigger warnings are good for graphic arguments (debatable for non-graphic arguments), and round reports are cool (but not amazing) — won't hack for any of these though

I STRONGLY prefer shell format — paragraph format is just a little imprecise and is basically an IVI at that point

The ONLY time 1st summary should have to introduce theory is if 2nd rebuttal paraphrases, otherwise I really don't see a reasonable justification, it just makes the round messy and makes my life a lot harder

Kritiks

General

Please send speech docs regardless of how slow/fast you're going

I default theory/T > K but please do your own weighing

If you read a paraphrased K (why would you ever do this) your speaks are plummeting

Topical Ks

Hit a few, decently comfortable evaluating these but I'm not too familiar with a lot of the literature, so if you're reading high-level stuff, make it really clear to me as a judge (which also means you probably shouldn't spread, at least from rebuttal onwards)

Most comfortable with security and cap, but that shouldn't discourage you from reading other stuff, just be aware that I'm less familiar

Non-topical Ks

Also hit a few, less comfortable here, I know how these function generally but I prefer if you treat me as a lay/flay and make my role as a judge super clear

I've noticed a lot of teams in PF really don't do a good job on the ROTB warrants — I think ballot piks are SUPER strategic when responding to these Ks

Tricks

I used to not like these, but honestly I think these are pretty fun (you probably still won't get good speaks if you read them, but it'll make me smile and I'm totally fine voting for them)

Goes without saying, but tricks must be in constructive

IVIs

These are fine BUT if it's something like a paraphrasing IVI, just please read the shell instead, it makes the round much more precise

Speaks

I'll start at a 28.5-ish and go from there, speaks are super subjective so I hate giving low speaks

In general, your speaks will only go down if you're annoying in cross, or if you do anything else mentioned above in my paradigm (like having URLs instead of cards, etc)

IGNORE BELOW FOR WESTERN

Boring speaks

+0.2 speaks if you send speech docs for constructive

+0.2 speaks if you send speech docs for rebuttal

+0.2 speaks if you disclose (you can just tell me before the round, I'll probably double-check but just to make sure you have a wiki page and there's something there)

+0.2 speaks if you don't paraphrase constructive

+0.2 speaks if you don't paraphrase rebuttal

Fun speaks

+0.5 if you turn when reading a turn

+0.5 if you make a bad pun

+0.5 if you

Other paradigms

This guy knows what he’s saying

hi! im a debater at college prep and i am super excited to judge your round. it is of the upmost importance that you treat your opponents with respect, if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, i will drop you and give you the lowest speaks.

*Remember to put a trigger warning before you start on your case if it applies

1. cross: i listen to cross, but i will not vote off an argument just said in cross. bring it up in a speech if you want me to vote off of it! (please be respectful to your opponents and give them a chance to speak without interruptions when you ask a question, if you do not let your opponents speak during cross I might deduct speaker points)

2. please do not bring up new arguments in final focus, everything in final focus needs to have been said in summary if you want me to put it on my flow!

3. second rebuttal needs to respond to first rebuttal on the responses they made on your case.

4. please don't spread

5. be creative with your arguments, i will vote off LITERALLY ANYTHING if it is weighed effectively but i do not know enough about theory so don't run it in my round.

6. WEIGH! if you don't weigh, i have nothing to base my decision on, leaving me evaluate the entire round on my own and i will probably make decision a you don't like. tell me why your arguments matter and are more important than your opponents' arguments!

7. Don't just restate your impacts when weighing, extend warrants and explain how they interact with your opponents refutes and why you win!

8. I am pretty lenient with speaker scores, how you speak WILL NOT affect how I judge the round, but try to speak at a good pace and volume so everything is understandable.

8. do your best and have fun!

(if you have any questions PLEASE feel free to ask before the round)

GOOD LUCK!!

hi! i'm a pf debater at college prep, competing in varsity for 2 years and was a finalist in the toc.

- be respectful!

- i'm a flow judge and value tech over truth in the round, so i enjoy creative arguments, but i am not comfortable with voting on theory and k's

- collapse! i don't want to hear all of your arguments squeezed into your 2 minute final focus, so collapse on the most important arguments in the round and tell me how you evaluated what was most important. also, no new arguments in final focus

- WEIGH! weigh on the link and impact level, telling me why your arguments matter and why i should vote off of them

- extend links and impacts, not just card names

- i listen to cross, but if you want me to vote off of anything said, bring it up in your speech

lastly, have fun and ask me any questions if you need further clarification :)

Hi!

1. I'd prefer if you don't spread, but I'll understand if there's no other option

2. I don't have any specific preferences for volume but it will need to be clearly audible.

3. Organization in framework is important. I'm not sure if this is a given, but I'd prefer if you list your contentions and subpoints in your introduction so I can take note.

4. Given Zoom challenges, I will not require eye contact.

Good luck!

Qualification/Experience: I did middle school PF in 7th and 8th grade at Stratford San Jose Middle School, and am currently doing PF and Congress (kinda) at Archbishop Mitty High School.

**This paradigm is mostly for PF, but obviously some concepts apply to all events**

What I'm Looking For: I would consider myself a flay judge (somewhere in between flow and lay) because, while I will obviously flow all the arguments in the round and base my decision on overall argumentation skill, I still believe that the delivery of speeches and speaking skill are also key to winning my ballot to some extent. Whether this means adding some hand motions or some emphasis on key words/sentences, anything is much appreciated. While we are on the topic of delivery, I will not tolerate anything remotely close to spreading. If i can't understand what you're saying, the other team pretty much automatically wins. I would recommend somewhere from 150 to 200 WPM. If the debate is online, please enunciate all your words clearly and move your lips a lot.

Please assume that I know absolutely nothing about the topic. If this means "dumbing it down" to elementary level words or using easy analysis, I'm all for it.

Some Pet Peeves:

If somebody asks you a question in crossfire, please do not start giving a 2 minute long summary of your contention unless that's specifically what they asked for. Keep questions under 10 seconds and answers under 30-40. Follow up questions can be useful, but don't ask so many that the other team doesn't get to ask their own questions at all. In Grand Cross, just keep things civil, thats all I ask lol.

Please, please, please do not ask your opponents for more than 1-2 cards at a time. Conversely, if the other team asks you for cards, please find them within 1 minute. If it takes longer than that, I will assume that either your research is not organized at all or that you are making up the card on the spot. Any "evidence delay" will probably lead me to deduct some speaker points on the side that cannot find the card that they used in their speech.

Never ever ever go more than 15 seconds over time. It's honestly just rude to your opponents and will probably lead to me deducting from your speaks. Speech times are there for a reason.

Please don't use frameworks/standards. I know I used them in middle school, but sometimes they can just make the debate sort of ridiculous. For example, if some team says that the standard for this debate is economy, I would have to vote for them even if the other team saves billions of lives. See what I mean? It's just not really fair.

Some preferences:

Offtime roadmaps are very much appreciated because they help everyone in the round stay organized on their flow. But when I say offtime roadmap, I dont mean going over all the contentions you are gonna talk about lol. Just say something like "Their case and then ours".

Weighing is crucial. In summary and final focus, spend at least a good half minute weighing impacts if you want to win my ballot. Not only does comparing impacts help me pick which side to vote for, but it also makes the debate really easy to understand (which is great). Weighing can be done in a number of ways, all of which are discussed in this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs. Alright, here's a website that is actually helpful: Weighing.pdf.

Warrants are just as crucial. If you are not familiar with this term, a warrant is basically how your piece of evidence relates to the topic at hand and a clear reason to support your claim. Without a clearly explained warrant, I really cannot vote on that piece of evidence. For example, if you give me a piece of evidence that says "turtle mortality increased in 2020" as your impact for ocean pollution, I would need to know why this happened. Was it due to an increase in the shark population? Was it because of pollutants being dumped into the ocean? A good warrant for this turtle evidence would be something like: "this increase in turtle mortality is happening because more plastic is falling into the ocean and choking the turtles". In other words, just please thoroughly explain your evidence, how it relates to the topic at hand, and why it is happening.

**VERY IMPORTANT** (If you read anything from this paradigm, please read the following):

If you mention Vladmir Putin in ANY of your speeches, I will automatically DEDUCT 0.1 speaker points from you. On the other hand, if you mention the country of Germany and/or the sport of ice hockey, I will ADD 0.1 speaker points. Sadly, although I would really like to, I will not be deducting any speaker points from those who bring up the Vegas Golden Knights (still please don't do it; I still might report you to Tabroom).

Racism and sexism in your arguments will not be tolerated in any way. If any of your arguments are racist or sexist, you will lose the round and I will probably tell your coach.

In the end, remember that the whole point of Speech and Debate is to have fun! Please stay polite and civil throughout the entire round to ensure that your opponents are having fun also!

Summary of the paradigm: No spreading, weighing and warranting are crucial, stay polite, don't mention Vladmir Putin and/or the Golden Knights, and most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!