hi everyone! i'm pearl berzin and i'm one of the captains of the pf debate team at newton south and i've been debating for four years!

pronouns: she/her

email: pearlesd23@gmail.com

facebook: pearlberzin

before i give preferences i just want to remind y'all that debate is all about having fun and learning, so remember that during the round! also don't feel any pressure to tailor your speaking to me; do what you feel comfortable with!

preferences:

speed is ok, but if you plan on spreading, send me a speech doc and ask your opponents if they're ok with it.

i’m not flowing your card names, so saying something like “flow through Smith 22” and not explaining the argument is not a good strategy if you want me to understand your arg.

i will pay attention to cross, so please don't be rude! however, i won't evaluate it in my decision.

i expect all turns to be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

PLEASE COLLAPSE! my flow and your narrative get way too confusing if you don't.

nothing new in either final focus.

WEIGH! please don't make me try to weigh the arguments in my head.

if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, i will give you the LOWEST speaks possible.

try not to stress! y'all are going to do great and i'm excited to see what you can do :)

if you have any questions about my paradigm or rfd, pls reach out!

p.s. if you bring me snacks or reference taylor swift in a speech, i will give you +1 speaker point

Hi, I'm Alisha!! (she/her)

Email me before the round: abhattsmith23@concordcarlisle.org for any questions or concerns on my paradigm or anything I can do to make the round more comfortable/safe.

Overall (everyone must do this)

• Be nice to your partner and opponents. (no racism homophobia etc)

• You will be dropped if I see this happening.

• Ask your opponents before running progressive arguments (theory, k’s, etc) (unless it's trigger/content warnings then go for it)

• If you think there should be a content warning, there should be one with an anonymous opt-out form for everybody in the round.

If you are a novice:

• You rock!

• Debate can seem daunting at first. Just remember we are all here to learn from one another so please don’t be stressed and try to have some fun :)))

• If at any point during the round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, ask me.

• Weighing the easiest way you can win my ballot. Make sure, however, you are doing this comparatively.

• I don’t vote off of your crossfires. That doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention. If you have something to say about a crossfire, make sure you are bringing it up in a later speech so it goes on my flow.

• Collapse! I (and many other judges) do not evaluate rounds by counting how many things you bring up about the round. It simply is not a good use of your time. Pick your strongest arguments and extend the warrant and impact.

Be nice please. A lot of people think perceptual domination in debate is incredibly important, but in my eyes it is not nearly as important as being respectful and kind.

I have debated pf for 3 years, so I understand how a flow works, and I can handle speed to an extent(I will let you know if you are going too fast).

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will not be willing to vote off of theory, so please do not try it. I feel like most of the time it is poorly done and unintentionally insensitive, so rather than subject myself to that dice roll of doom, I would rather you just not run theory.

I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

d.c. Jay Garg <3

Decision basis:

• well spoken arguments
• only evidence carried from start to finish will be taking into consideration (no new evidence in final focus)
• will not take crossfire info into consideration

Other Notes:

• don't worry about how fast your speaking as long as it's articulate
• will flow during speeches
• be civil; keep it relevant to the topic

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

It's been a long time since I debated/judged/coached on the circuit. I can't follow spreading like I used to. Please slow down a tad (especially if I look visibly confused) and explain stuff thoroughly.

Prefs cheat sheet:

1: fast, technical debate. good K debate (not pomo).

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

• Andrea, she/they. La Reina HS & Yale. Earth & Planetary Science major.
• Include me on the email chain andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
• I have debated and coached for 10 years now - 7 of which were circuit LD & policy in SoCal and 3 years of lay parli in New Haven. Also dabbled in speech & slam poetry - so I have a soft spot for performance... take from that what you will...
• I was coached by Leo Kim. I understand debate very similarly to him, but not exactly the same. Anything not answered in my paradigm can be answered in his.
• I was a K debater and am most familiar with set col & fem. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and go stupid. I think K's need to have some alt or offense or something or at least have an outstanding defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Miscellaneous notes:

• Ways to improve your speaks: emailing me a picture of your flow after the round (and it's a good flow) (tell me you are planning I do this so I can look at your flows before submitting my ballot), telling me to read a specific piece of evidence (and it's good evidence), making puns or jokes (and they're funny)
• NON-CIRCUIT DEBATERS: I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed," then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
• If your opponent asks you not to spread, you better not spread!!!
• If your opponent reads tricks, you can respond by saying "silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" and that will be a sufficient response for me.
• Include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of identity-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide. For example, reading set col pain narratives cause you're thirsty for a ballot is kind of hard to listen to. When you read these positions, ask yourself - how are you showing up for these communities outside of the round? Are you kind to other marginalized debaters? Do you donate to mutual aid funds with your resources? What books and sources do you read to learn more about the arguments, even when it doesn't benefit your case? The consequence of ignoring this is an L-25. If you are confused, ask before the round.
• If you are a circuit/varsity debater, and you are debating a traditional/novice debater, and you do some ridiculous behavior, act rude and condescending, spread them out, read 6 off, use tons of jargon, push them to disclose, etc., you will also receive an L-25. I have no qualms about judge intervention in this respect. I'm so sick of watching these types of rounds. You probably don't deserve to win anyway if you have to revert to these strategies; it's so embarrassing. Practice kindness.
• Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
• I flow primarily from your mouth and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics.
• Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

• You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability and try to adjudicate fairly.
• You read a critical affirmative.
• You mostly go for critical arguments.
• Your positions are creative and entertaining.
• You like fast, technical debate.
• You display a ton of personality in your debates.
• You are great at the topicality debate.
• You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
• You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

• You read an affirmative.
• You negate the affirmative.
• You default to generic negative strategies.
• You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

• You assume I am following along with the speech doc as you go.
• You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique, so you don't have to explain it thoroughly.
• You're bad at debating the critique.
• You don't warrant your arguments.
• You expect high speaker points in every debate unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
• You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
• You like satire.
• You go for tricks.
• You think of human suffering as a tool to help you win the ballot.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

• You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc., arguments.
• You think death is good.
• You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
• Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
• You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
• You speak unclearly.
• Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
• You're disrespectful to your opponents.
• Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Alanna Cronk

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

Hello!

I did PF for four years at Bronx, so I am good with flow stuff but fine either way. I'm good with speed and jargon, but don't use either to be obnoxious to your opponents.

Please please please weigh everything in the round, or if you drop something, tell me why so I don't have to do that myself!

Puns are always appreciated.

This was super general, so if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before round, I didn't really know what stylistic things to specify here but am happy to answer more specific questions.

Hi! My name is Cam (He/They) and I'm the captain of the Waring Debate Team from Beverly, MA. I'm a senior and have been debating since my freshman year.

I come into the round with a fair assumption that you are following NSDA code of conduct rules. Essentially, be respectful and attentive. If you are offensive in any way in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, etc., I'll give you a loss, 24s, report you to tabroom and contact your coach.

Just because I'm also a debater doesn't mean you should disregard the premise of public forum: that every round should be comprehensible to everyone. Public forum is meant to be accessible, and when it's filled with jargon and spreading, the round is thus made inaccessible and the premise is defeated.

Specifics

-Spreading is a no-go in my book. PF was formed as a direct response to it, and to how arguments and research got lost in rheotoric and speed. In PF we don't spread, we make our rounds accessible. If you have any questions about speed, please talk to me.

-I will not vote for one team just because they have more ink on the flow. I'm not tech>truth or truth>tech, debate is about a balance of them both. Debate is evidence and rhetoric, not one or the other. I'm tabula-rasa, as each round should be.

-Use your knowledge of the topic. Trust yourself, trust your partner. You know your stuff, now let me know that you know. As my coach says, use the Kansas Rule of Three: "tell me what you're going to tell me, tell me and tell me that you told me." In short, use off-time roadmaps and signpost. Please sign-post, tell me where you're going. If I don't know this, I won't know where to go on my flow and the ink will get messy.

-In terms of taglines...don't expect me to remember who Jones18 is in your summary, when you brought the card up once in your case. Explain your link-chain, don't simply name drop evidence. Otherwise, I'll be focusing on trying to find out who Jones18 is, and not on your arguments. You want me to pay attention to your arguments. That's why we're here, isn't it?

-Cross fires are for your own sake. I will not flow them. If your opponent makes a concession in cross, bring it up in your speeches if you want me to consider it on my flow. If I look like I'm ignorning you during cross, I'm not, I'm tracking things on my flow and trying to figure out elements that I'm confused about.

-Please me to evidence exchanges cam.gimbrere@gmail.com

If you have any questions, please ask me! If there is anything that I can to to make this round more accessible for you, please let me know. Post-round, if you have any questions, or believe that I made the wrong choice, I am open to conversation. PLEASE talk to me!

And for real, have fun. I know this is super stressful and we often don't want to wake up at 5am on a Saturday to get a van to a tournament to spend all day as anxious wrecks drinking too much coffee, to get home late, but we can make the best of it :)

Hi, I'm Natalie! I'm a freshman at Harvard, and I debated PF for four years at Newton South. I am a flow judge, but sometimes I flow in my head.

Preferences

• I won’t vote for theory
• No spreading (I won’t read speech docs, I only flow what I hear and understand)
• I like clearly explained warrants and thorough comparative analysis
• I don’t like blippy arguments and evidence or statistics that are not clearly explained

Speaks

• +0.5 speaker points if you work in a Taylor Swift reference
• -0.5 speaker points each time you're disrespectful in cross

Good luck and good debating! Let me know before the round begins if you have any questions or need any accommodations.

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Indiana University.

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I am not that familiar with progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.) so I might have a bit more trouble understanding them. If there is an abuse in round, you can just call it out in speech; it doesn't have to be formatted as a shell.

• I default to the first speaking team.

• A lot of times (I did it too) debaters will see that their judge is a past debater and just spread random cards without warrants. Understand that I still know the topic a lot less than you do. You still have to read warrants and explicate them for me to understand what your argument is.

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 in my opinion.

• 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 my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

• Disads/offensive overviews are yucky, especially in second rebuttal. It gives insecure energy, like "I don't know how to respond to an argument so you're just reading another piece of offense to crowd it out on the flow". My threshold for responses to these are low.

• I do not like new responses in final focus that are disguised as “JuSt WeiGhiNg.” I will notice and it will not be on my flow.

• 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 always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

I am pretty lenient with speaks but there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

• I was pretty aggressive in crossfire so I am fine with that as well but just be conscious of your opponents. This means letting them respond to your questions, ask their own questions, and overall just have an equal opportunity to talk.

• Talking over someone never won a debate and I can assure you that winning perceptually doesn't really win my ballot.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue (honestly quit debate, too <3)

This paradigm doesn't cover everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Have fun!

I am a senoir at Waring school and have been debating since the beginning of my freshman year. I vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning, though a strong and understandable presentation also reflects well. New evidence brought up in grand cross and final focus speeches won't be considered. Additionally, when it comes to cross, what is said during cross with only affect my decision if points are brought into speeches. Also, I'll make sure to include plenty of comments relating both to speaking and your actual points in on the ballot

Also some preferences:

1. I'm ok with fast speeches, as long as both I and your opponents can understand what is being said. Annunciate well when you're speaking and you'll be fine.

2. Don't yell during crossfire

3. Overall be respectful to your opponents. I am ok with you interrupting your opponent during crossfire if they have been speaking for a while and not responding directly/directly asking a question; just do this in a way that is assertive but not rude.

"i think the longer judges take to come to a decision the more incorrect their ballot is"

- saikumar gantla

Carmel Valley/Canyon Crest '21; UCLA '25

Add me to the chain - syon.mansur@gmail.com

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

be nice to each other!

Tech > Truth

I'll vote on anything as long as its warranted (no racist/sexist/etc. args)

Any offense you go for should have a link and impact extended in both summary and final

Second rebuttal needs to answer all offense

Defense is sticky

You can kick out of turns by conceding defense in the speech after

Weigh/meta weigh

Speed is chill

I appreciate it when you send docs

Not super experienced with progressive argumentation but I'm comfortable voting on everything. Make sure to explain stuff well and flesh out your extensions.

i really hate when ppl make casual conversation like "how was ur day" during cross, especially grand cross. id rather you j take prep or skip it. also when people count "3 2 1" before giving their speech.

feel free to ask me about my own debate history! i love talking about myself :)

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

Specific to MSTOC '22

I have not been super involved in debate this year, meaning I've watched very few rounds and judged even fewer. I won't know much about the topic, especially early in the tournament-- make sure to explain well and explain acronyms/jargon. I also probably can't handle speed to the same level as before (though I doubt this will be an issue). Good luck and remember you're here to have fun!!

Conflicts: Carmel Valley, Canyon Crest, Pacific Trails, Del Mar Montessori

I use she/her pronouns.

For some background, I'm a first year college student and I have experience in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Here are some of my preferences/expectations:

General Important Stuff (everyone):

Be polite! Remember that debating =/= arguing; you should not be yelling at your opponents. I'm typically generous with speaks, but if you aren't civil to your opponents, I will dock points.

If your case discusses sensitive topics, you must read a trigger warning and make sure your opponents feel comfortable. Remember that the issues you debate about more often than not affect people in the real world. This means that discussing certain topics can be more stressful and personal to certain debaters.

If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, antisemitic, islamophobic, etc. I will automatically drop you.

Don't misgender your opponents! Mistakes happen, but make sure you correct yourself and apologize. If it continues, I will drop you.

Debate is supposed to be a fun an engaging activity. Don't make unsafe spaces for people!

Public Forum Stuff (everyone in PF):

Flow ---|------ Lay

Tech ----|-----Truth

I vibe with a good narrative and consistent rhetoric.

Signpost!!

Speed is fine, but warranting>card dumping with little explanation.

Please have your evidence ready so there aren't delays.

Frontline in second rebuttal! Second summary is too late.

Other than frontlining in first summary, there shouldn't be new responses or offense after rebuttals. If there are, I won't flow them (with the exception of new weighing, which is fine before second FF).

Crossfire is pretty irrelevant. If you want a concession on my flow, mention it in a speech.

I probably won't call for evidence, so if you want me to look at something, say so in a speech.

When two pieces of evidence contradict, explain why your point makes more sense, or why your evidence is better. This is always smart, even if you're completely sure their source is unreliable or misconstrued.

Make sure to weigh all the arguments you collapse on, including turns. Don't forget to tell me why your weighing is better than theirs. I'm way too lazy to do analysis for you, and it probably won't end well for you if I have to.

Progressive Argument Stuff (not for novices):

I very limited exposure to progressive debate, so if your opponent does something problematic, it's much more strategic for you to tell me in your own words than read theory or a K.

With that being said, if you do choose to read theory or a K, generally stay away from more obscure jargon if you want me to understand. Since I don't have much experience, it's in your best interest to warrant and weigh thoroughly. Explain to me exactly what decision I should make and why.

Other Stuff (everyone):

If you do a spin while saying turn, bring me food, or make high quality puns, I will give you 30 speaks.

I prefer chill and friendly rounds with lighthearted banter.

However, if someone mansplains, whitesplains, or is overall rude or condescending, feel free to sass them back. I will give you high speaks for roasting them.

Fist bumps are the move.

I'm like 19 so I will probably cringe if you call me "judge" or anything formal.

Please try to come to round with preflows so there aren't delays.

Hey Debaters!

I am a flow judge. Here’s what I want to see in round

• Matching summaries and FF

• I allow extensions from rebuttal to FF

• I want to see defending case in 2nd rebuttal

• I can flow fast speaking, but I will NOT flow spreading or excessively quick speech.

• I want to hear constructive, calm questions asked in cross. No shouting!

• No theory, for pete's sake. (And for my sake too)

I will vote off of everything, but I like voting off of case more than turns, but whatever offense there is, I will take into account.

don't be an ass lol

Hi! My name is Lily Smith and this is my third year debating at Newton South High School. My pronouns are she/her/hers.

How I judge:

I will flow everything you say in a speech, and I can handle speed. I don't flow cross, but I will be listening. I will time your speeches, but please time them yourself too. Don't be mean or condescending in cross, it's really not going to get you anywhere.

Sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. gets you dropped.

What I want to see from you:

-Weigh in summary and final focus! Compare your argument to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.

-Use logic and evidence to back up your points. Don't just read a card name with no explanation or warranting. Logic alone is okay if you warrant it out.

-Collapse on your arguments!!! In summary and final focus, extend one (or two) links/subpoints, re-explain them, and clarify any clash surrounding the argument.

-Don't bring up new arguments in final focus. It's a huge pet peeve!

-Frontline! Directly respond to your opponent's rebuttal in second rebuttal or first summary.

-Signpost and number your responses. Tell me which argument you're talking about so that I can follow along.

Good luck! Feel free to reach out to me with any questions before or after round! My email is lilyjsmith05@gmail.com.

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

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

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

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

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

- I do not take notes during crossfire

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m from Lincoln-Sudbury High School. I competed all four years of high school and have been judging for two years, exclusively in pf. I’m a college student at UMass Amherst, just having returned from a four month study abroad trip to Thailand (aka I have a tattoo).

I’m fine with fast speaking speeds but if you’re spreading I definitely won’t catch everything and will spend more time piecing together your argument than evaluating its impact.

I want to see both summary and final focus be similar in length (each around 2 minutes). In summary, please summarize the round. In FF, please provide me with a focus I should have at the end of the round. In addition, each speech should cover similar points of argumentation. I can’t vote off contention 1 in FF if it’s not in summary.

I try my best to flow but sometimes my pen runs out of ink. If this is the case, I will stop flowing for the rest of the round to make it fair for both teams. I call it equality inc.

No plans, kritiks or theories.

I go for argumentation over style.

2nd speaking team doesn’t have to cover its own case in rebuttal. I’ll flow it if you do but it’s not required.

No new arguments in grand cross and final focus.

As a member of the prestigious Lincoln-Sudbury SW team, I feel it’s my responsibility to give back to the community that allowed me to reach new heights. God Bless America, God Bless the NSDA, and God Bless the TOC. Good luck.

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

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

My preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes:

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

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

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

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

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

Dislikes:

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

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

- English. Lingua latina maxima est.

Good Luck! and have fun!

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

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

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

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

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

- Please don't be rude especially in cross

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

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

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

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

- Please ask any other questions before the round.