UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

umich '27, debated 4 years for thomas s. wootton '23 on nat circuit, 2x toc

tldr:

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

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

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

in round:

preflow before round

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

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

spend more time explaining wonky args

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

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

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

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

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

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

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

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

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

comparative + meta weighing makes me happy

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

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

flex prep is fine

cross:

cross goes to the flow if brought up in next speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

open cross is fine

evidence:

carded warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev

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

i don't accept cards that aren't cut

miscut ev gets speaks dropped and is knocked off the flow

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

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

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

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

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

evidence challenges:

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

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

prog:

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

theory:

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

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

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

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

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

don't read paraphrasing overviews, just run theory atp

things i wont evaluate:

- tricks

- tko's

- 30 speaks theory

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

out of round:

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

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

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

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

Please speak clear and not too fast! Keep track of your time.

Be nice to your opponents and your partner!

Let's have a good time.

Hello teams,

Iam looking for clarity and constructive arguments.

Be nice to opponent team and let us have fun.

All the best

Here are the things that I value most in a debate tournament:

1) Be respectful!

2) Be clear on your reasoning!

3) I am particularly interested in how you can elaborate the impacts.

daniel (he/him)

if you have any specific questions ask me before round.

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

<< ONLINE DEBATE >>

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

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

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

<< PF >>

general stuff:

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

- signpost throughout your speeches

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

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

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

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

- i average 28 speaks

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

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

good stuff

- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal

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

- warranting your evidence

"bad" stuff (avoid!)

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

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

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

- card dumping

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

- being rude during CX is very lame

I am a parent judge. I prefer debaters to speak clearly, slowly, and preferably in short sentences.

When presenting data, please call out the source of the data.

Be respectful to your opponents, to allow them to finish their sentence before beginning to speak.

hey! long paradigms hurt my eyes so this is gonna be kinda short.

i think i am flow.

tech>truth

i'm a high school debater currently a sophomore but i've been debating for a couple years.

why is this funny to u ruth. stop laughing...

general:

1. i will evaluate any argument brought up by teams, won't do extra work, pretty self-explanatory

2. i am good with speed

3. usually won't call for ev, but if u tell me to i will

4. any sensitive topics pls read a TW

5. don't be sexist, ableist, racist, homophobic or exclusive in any way, i will intervene and most likely drop u. pls never compromise the safety of a debater :)

round:

1. signpost so I know where you are

2. good with roadmaps, just make it quick.

3. collapse. i'll only evaluate comparative weighing

4. second rebuttal pls frontline

5. rebuttalists, go line by line it's easier for both of us.

6. whatever you want me to flow and consider a voter in the round should be in summary and extended into ff. Defense sticky for 1st summary.

theory/prog

if ur case is triggering, PLEASE read a tw AND an opt out option.

i have hit theory but my rfd won't be great.

good speaks

good strat and fluency

make fun of ruth dai and her egg obsession and send video evidence.

use grand cross to roast lindsey wu's silver toc flex on her rfd.

take a series of pictures of abigail hill fixing her hair (it will happen a lot) and send pic evidence.

if u crack an amazing appropriate joke during cross and make me laugh

but i generally give high speaks tho

extra stuff

I'll always disclose

please time yourselves. I usually time but just end up forgetting.

If you have any further questions feel free to email me, angiegu822@gmail.com

post round me if u want to

biggest takeway is to roast ruth and have fun :))

Hi! I debated for 3 years on the circuit for Churchill (MD) and am now a sophomore at Penn.

tl;dr

I haven't seen a PF round in 2+ years and am not updated on the norms/trends, so you should probably treat me as a flay judge.

Here are some key points:

• Please be clear, signpost, and warrant well
• Collapse and weigh comparatively in the second half
• I'm probably worse at flowing than the average flow judge, so don't go too fast or you'll lose me
• Don't extend through ink
• Be nice
• I'm really not a fan of theory/Ks and don't understand them at all, so I'd strongly prefer if you stick to substance and will probably be biased against you if you run it for no reason. Like below, if there's a real violation, just explain it plainly

Feel free to read the rest of my old paradigm if you want, but the above points are the most relevant. If you do all of that I'll try to be generous with speaks. Let me know if you have any questions before round, and have fun!

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

I'd consider myself a normal flow judge, so just debate how you like.

General

- I like well-warranted and well-explained arguments. It makes it easier for me to understand and thus vote on.

- Please weigh your arguments comparatively! If you don't weigh (or its not comparative), I will have to do my own weighing, which might not turn out how you like.

- Tech > Truth, but the more ridiculous the argument the lower the threshold I have for acceptable responses to it.

- Collapse pls

- If you want me to vote on it, you should be extending it, not just saying "extend X, extend Y"

Speed

- I kinda suck at flowing, so try not to go tooooo fast. Generally, I can keep up, as long as you remain clear. If I think you're going too fast, I'll say "clear".

In Round

- Don't make new arguments in final focus.

- You should extend arguments that you want me to vote on in summary and final focus.

- Signpost

- I think it's strategic if second rebuttal frontlines responses in first rebuttal (but it's not necessary if you aren't comfortable with it)

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless its frontlined in second rebuttal), but if it's important you should still extend it in summary

- "They don't provide a warrant/the impact isn't contextualized" is a sufficient response for me.

Evidence

- I think paraphrasing is okay, as long as you have a card to back it up.

- I won't call for evidence unless I think it's important to the outcome of the round or unless I am explicitly told to.

Progressive Arguments (K, Theory, etc.)

- I don't think progressive arguments are good for the direction of the PF, and I would discourage you from running one in front of me. With that being said, if you choose to read a progressive argument,

1. You should explain it very well

2. I never had much experience with it in high school, so I will probably make a decision that reflects my lack of knowledge

- If you think there is a real violation in round, I think you should just explain and warrant it like any other argument (paragraph theory), and I will be inclined to vote on it.

Finally,

don't be rude, sexist, abelist, racist, etc.

Good luck and have fun!

This is my first time judging the debate.

Little bit nervous and little bit excited!!

Please speak slowly and clearly. Good luck and have fun!

Email: georgialevine@gmail.com

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

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

Background on me:

• she/her

• Varsity debater (3 years of modified parli, 3 years of PF)

• HS senior

• I always disclose and give rfd (time permitting)

• I've been judging for 3 years

• I’m tech > truth so call people out on incorrect things, don't just assume that I'll intervene

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

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

Round things:

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

• Frontline in second summary instead of second rebuttal. I know it’stechnically allowed but it’s not good debating, don't do it.

• Run Ks; tbh I do not understand how these are run well enough for you to be able to successfully run them with me, so just don't.

• Expect me to flow what you say during cross. If it's important, say it in a speech (cross does affect speaks, though!)

• Read possibly triggering content without trigger warnings. Please read trigger warnings before the speech if needed and offer an opt-out, it's an important norm to set!

Yes:

• Talking fast is fine (but don't spread, which I define as 300wpm. Stay at like ~250wpm or so max please! Especially with topic-specific abbreviations/terms, if it's r1 of the tournament or early in the month I might not know right away!)

• Weigh. Please don't make me do this myself, use clear and signposted weighing mechanisms that actually compare your cases (do not be 'two ships passing in the night'! interact!)

• Off-time roadmaps aren’t required and I’m not gonna take off speaks if you don’t do them, but for summary especially it’s nice to know what part of the flow you’re starting on

• Signpost! If you're just reading a straight block of text without any headlines or sign posting it is 10x easier for me to miss a response. Number & name your responses! (i.e. "on contention 1, I have 3 responses. first is a de-link [blah blah blah]")

• Repeat data points in multiple speeches if they're important

• Use warranting/analytics, not just random cards that don’t explain why something is true/false

• Running theory is fine (I'm not always the biggest fan of disclosure/paraphrase but if you're a real believer in it then feel free to run it and, as long as it's argued well, I won't just vote against it!)

• Also, defense is sticky (so you don't have to extend defense 2nd summary if you don't wanna waste time)

How to get speaks: (default to 28)

• Let your opponent talk in cross

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

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

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

Some things I like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!

Theories/Ks

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

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

Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

tjhsst '24 he/him (some parts of my paradigm are stolen from alec boulton)

Add me to the email chain dli447890@gmail.com (feel free to email after with questions!)

tech = truth (a dropped argument is true, unless it's just plain wrong. The more goofy an argument, the lower my threshold for responses is)

grand cross is a grand waste of time. if you skip it +0.5 speaks, and no, you don't get any extra prep time if you skip it. In terms of the other crossfires, I don't pay attention to them, so tell me if something important happens.

Speed trades off with clarity, the faster you go, the less likely I am to be able to flow everything you say. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist, and I don't flow off docs. So basically, don't spread.

-Traditional-

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Dump if you want, but at least be responsive. I don't care for your other contentions or "DAs," get good at debate and use your brain. All your responses should be warranted and implicated. Turns or link-ins need to be weighed.

Second rebuttal needs to frontline. It may be strategic to collapse.

Defense isn't sticky. If it wasn't in summary, it no longer exists.

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is 100%, unless their evidence specifically says "there is an x% chance this happens". Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact. What does 20% GDP lead to?

-Progressive-

don't lol

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly biased and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's disappointing.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and take speaks off or give you the L depending on how bad it is. If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything (I require evidence in constructive though). The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are doing debate for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

good evidence = good analysis > bad evidence > bad logic

-Speaks-

I will go from 27-30, 28 average (unless you're racist or something). Speaks decided based on crossfire, rhetoric, & strategy. Being funny or entertaining will probably boost your speaks.

W30 if you rap every speech

+0.5 speaks for a good forehead joke

+0.5 speaks if you roast your partner in speech/cross (it must be a good roast, and must be tied to the debate in some way)

my email is joanneli183@gmail.com

flay

if you're gonna go faster than 200wpm, send speech doc

spreading = bad

signpost

collapse, extend, weigh

warrant everything out, card dump = bad

don't use crossfire as a rebuttal, ask questions

progressive debate is cool

keep track of your own time

be respectful

hi!

i'm christina (she/her) and debated for wootton pf. ask me for clarification before the round starts. 

VBIPHL: Do not read progressive arguments against teams that clearly cannot engage with them in order to win. My ballot/your speaks will be reflective of your poor decision and you will be upset with the result that I input. 

misc:

1. i'll evaluate any argument you can think of, however, in the case where the safety of a debater is compromised in the room (be it any -ist argument or a lack of TW on a sensitive topic) i will intervene. tab has the option to specify pronouns for a reason, misgendering is not ok.

2. speed is ok but sacrificing clarity is not ok. 

3. probably won't call for ev, imo a bit interventionist unless someone explicitly asks me to and the round is unresolvable.

4. i have a very bad poker face so if i dont/do like something you'll know.

5. i am most receptive to substance and i will do my best to judge as technically as i can.

round:

1. second rebuttal must frontline turns - conceded turns/contentions in rebuttal have 100% strength of link.

2. DAs/ADVs/offensive OVs are fine in second rebuttal to an extent but i have a higher threshold for contextualization/warranting/weighing/etc.

3. DLs must be conceded in the following speech (either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary) but also must be explained.

4. defense is not sticky 4 first summary. 

5. i appreciate good extensions. i do not care about card names. extend warrants with case. 

weighing:

1. weighing ideally should start in rebuttal. i'm not evaluating new weighing in final focus, including first final.

2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist. 

3. metaweigh/comparative weighing -- if there is none i'll probably prioritize pre-reqs/link-ins/co-ops -- if there is none of that i will just count how many weighing mechanisms there are. 

prog: 

i will do my best to judge to your standards. i dislike progressive debate so please only read it if there is justifiable abuse in the round (paraphrasing/disclosure dont count). 

1. general defaults (no RVIs, CI > reasonability, drop arg over debater, only if teams don't tell me what to do).

2. do not read theory against teams who clearly cannot engage with it (novices) i can tell and my ballot/your speaks will reflect that >:(.

4. little to no exp w K's, therefore K lit needs to be accessible -- you should also be extending K's/shells more rigorously than case bc it may be harder for me/others to grasp initially (especially if they are not topical).

5. no tricks.

i'm most receptive to substance but i'll do my best to evaluate whatever you read.

debate in a way that makes you happy and comfortable, post-rounding is fine, good luck!

Some background:

I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.

Some general things:

1. Don't be rude.

2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation. Speaks are evaluated based on contribution to the ballot.

3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: thnliu288@gmail.com

4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.

5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.

Some notes on debate and flow

1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.

2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".

3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.

4. Extend (and frontline) the offense you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it. Blippy extensions are fine in principle, but often insufficient for a ballot in practice. The more you think I should prioritize an argument, the more speech time you should allocate to it.

5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.

6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.

Specific argument preferences/biases

1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me how I should evaluate it.

2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly.

a. Be very explicit when telling me how to evaluate the argument. This is especially true for anything pre-fiat - if you don't tell me what I should do (and warrant why), I'll probably do something you didn't want me to.

b. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.

c. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.

d. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.

3. Tabula rasa is fake. Debate involves a common pool of knowledge assumed to be true unless challenged. If challenged, it becomes another argument to be evaluated in the round. For transparency, my "default settings" are: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequences matter, equality good, rationality real, people have free will. Feel free to make arguments challenging these assumptions, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.

4. Feel free to ask questions before the round. I don't claim to be perfectly unbiased, but I am very willing to clarify any pre-existing beliefs I may be bringing into the round.

5. My gut is not your gut. If you ask me to gut check something or rely on my intuitions, I'll do that but you may not like the outcome. The safe thing to do is just make warranted arguments.

6. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks.

- I hate progressive arguments. I expect to judge a debate on the Resolved, not the ethics of your opponents paraphrasing cards. If you're really passionate about fighting a social injustice or believe something in the debate world must change, feel free to advocate to the NSDA Board. My insignificant ballot won't do jack.

- Weigh, give me a weighing mechanism (magnitude, scope, urgency, probability, etc.), explain why your impacts are better than your opponents.

- Try not to ignore arguments. If you don't address an argument, it flows clean through the round. If you want me to listen to an argument, don't drop it in Rebuttal and Summary and bring it up in FF. If you don't have enough time, collapse.

Speaks will be based off:

- Fluency and Clarity: Don't bloviate, use statistics and evidence and tell me what that means, get to the point.

- Warranting: Don't misconstrue cards (I may call for cards). Explain what the statistic means and how it is relevant to your argument.

- Attitude: Be polite and respectful

Speak with clarity and conciseness.

During crossfire, make sure to answer questions directly and move at a quick pace. Do not get stuck on one point and repeat it over and over.

Rebuttal, make sure you are speaking to the opposing teams case and contentions.

Be respectful

I'll be looking for well-organized arguments that demonstrate the impact and significance of your points. I'll also be looking for direct responses to your opposing team's points. Good luck!

I'm new to debate judging. Please speak clearly and not too fast - focusing on speaking skills/communication and the strength of your arguments rather than procedures. And please be respectful of each other during your debate.

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated PF for 4 years in high school in the National, TOC and State level. I also participated in a lot of speech events (extemp, impromptu, oratory).

Things I appreciate:

A. Current evidence along with an explanation of the argument in the debaters own words along with a crisp impact.

B. Good manners!

C. Turn on your camera on if it is an online tournament. Sit straight or stand up straight and make eye contact with the camera as you would if you were in person.

D. Roadmap before your speech (except for the first and last speeches)

E. Don’t forget to weigh your final arguments against your opponents in the final speech.

Things I don't appreciate

A. No counter plans. Not enough time in PF to debate that properly.

B. Have evidence available to provide to the other team quickly. Don’t explain it as you are handing it over. Have your partner give the evidence if you are about to speak.

C. Don’t be rude :)

Well supported arguments that are presented clearly. Arguments should be addressed individually.

I am looking for rebuttals that extend arguments. I like civility, so please don't be offensive, rude and let your opponents finish their thought.

I give weight to impact and good citations. I also award points on how well you present your arguments

I also value the analysis. Use examples or states or qualified opinions and then give me your analysis of the evidence...why does your evidence matter...how does it fit into the topic.

Debate the resolution and make sure to carry through your arguments through till the end.

All aspects of CWAIL is important

andrew.w.pan@gmail.com

collapse

extend

weigh

run ks, theory, trix, whatever. i default to competing interps.

I a parent judge . I am not very fluent with debate terms and hence will base my judgement on arguments presented for pro/con , clear articulation and public speaking skills. Please do not speak at 500 mins/ min if you want me to understand your points !

four-year PF debater from Millburn, mother of Jimmy Chen, unicorn pundit

way to win the round: clearly win an argument, clearly tell me why it's more important than what your opponents are winning

fun facts: I don't hold first summary speakers to the same standard as the second in terms of defense, but generally speaking if you want it to be in the ballot, it should be in the summary; I won't call evidence unless it's clearly disputed in round, if your opponent is miscutting, lmk to call it; I like super clear signposting and when you do the work for me; Absent a weighting mechanism, I'll default to the easiest path to the ballot; pls don't run Ks i'll get confused and have to ask Max for help during crossfire

be nice to your opponents and I'll be nice in speaks!!

let's have a good time

https://twitter.com/itsgirllcode/status/843164268107255808?lang=en

Hey, my name is Jason and I am currently a Freshman at RM High School. Feel free to email me at parksjasonp@gmail.com before or after the round if you have any questions, comments, or concerns! I often respond fairly quickly.

TL;DR:

- First year competing in debate

- Second time judging

- Sign post, use both logic and cards, extend, make clear links (don't assume), weigh

General Round Stuff:

- Tech > truth

- No spreading

- Don't run K's or Theories

- Speaking fast is fine

- Please use some form of rhetoric/logic and don't just spam quotes/cards.

- I will disclose and give feedback (assuming it is permitted)

- Speak confidently even if not completely sure what your saying. If you voice your arguments like you believe it, I will most likely believe it as well.

- I will try to flow and keep track of the round, but if there are any important parts of your case you want to be sure I know I encourage you to re-iterate important messages during Summary/Final Focus.

Crossfire:

- Be respectful and mindful when speaking

- Don't box your opponent(s) out let a fluent exchange of questions and responses

2nd Speeches:

- CARD IS NOT NEEDED FOR EVERY REBUTTAL - LOGIC THAT MAKES SENSE AND IS REASONABLE IS ENCOURAGED

Summary:

- Please weigh your argument. Much easier to decide on a winner if you are directly saying why your case (whether it be framework, sources, etc.) is stronger than that of your opponents.

- As a judge if I fail to follow a specific argument this is your opportunity to bring it back up to my attention.

Final Focus:

- If a framework debate is brought up, don't just explain your framework state why your framework is better than that of your opponents.

Good Luck!

hi im lily I’m a senior in highschool varsity debate.

I DONT HAVE A LOT OF BACKGROUND TOPIC KNOWLEDGE FOR THIS TOPIC- explain things that may not be common knowledge to me please

keep track of ur own time pls

write my ballot for me (aka tell me exactly why you win) in your final focus

you can run progressive arguments at your own risk i know how prog args and theory work but im super rusty. also dont run prog or theory if ur opponents arent familiar w those types of args.

pls do comparative weighing I’ll give you high speaks

second rebuttal should at least frontline offense

defense is sticky(first summary doesn’t have to extend defense ONLY if it wasn’t responded to. first final focus should bring it up again if u want me to vote on it tho)

speak as fast as you want but if I say clear slow down

everything in final focus must come from summary

pls collapse in summary

don’t be rude have fun

I am judging for the first time. My child is a 6th-grade debater and I have been in the audience. I have a preference for calm, logical discussions rather than aggressive attacks.

I am brand new to debate judging and debate. I want simple and clear presentations that do not use a lot of jargon. I will expect students to time themselves and help with administrative needs. I expect evidence-backed arguments so might call to see the background information. I worked in management consulting for many years, and am a professional investor so expect the quantitative aspects to be solid and qualitative aspects to be comprehensive. I do not want rushed presentations that are hard to follow so please slow down and be as clear as possible.

I am brand new to debate and debate judging. I will be looking for simple and clear explanations, without too much jargon around the topic or debate jargon. I have a long professional career evaluating ideas, strategies, and speakers so am familiar with evaluating information verbally. I want arguments that are fundamentally strong and strategic but also use compelling evidence that is well-presented. I expect the teams to be polite and civil to one another, and to be respectful in their language and analysis around the subject. I will ask the students to keep time for themselves and help me with any other administrative issues around format.

Hello debators!

Quick Introduction:

My name is Shriya Reddy (I use she/her pronouns.) I am currently a sophomore at Centennial High School, and I am looking forward to judging your round! I have debated for about 3-4 years in Public Forum and I absolutely love doing it!

Speaking style and content

As for the content of your case, I would prefer that both teams have evident understanding of the ideas and contentions that they bring up in their rounds. I think that knowing the topic well is very useful and persuasive in a round.

I also prefer that you extend your arguments throughout the round, meaning that you know them well and do not loosen on the strength of them when you can. It makes you much more convincing, and stronger as a debater in my opinion.

I am fine with whatever speaking tempo that you are most comfortable with.

I do not like when people try to talk over one another in crossfire, or dominate the conversation, as it is rude, but also makes it both hard to hear and it unfair to the other team.

As for grand crossfire, I like when all debaters are participating and doing their best to defend their points and attack the opponents' points.

Weighing during the round is always appreciated! :)

Feel free to ask me any questions that you need to before the round begins and have fun!

Hi! My name is Shriya (she/her) and I'm a junior in high school with 2 years of public forum experience. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns before the round, email me at shriyasane@gmail.com. If you are starting an evidence chain at the beginning of the round, please include me in it.

Speeches:

- I'm pretty comfortable with speed, but just keep in mind that if I can't understand it clearly, it's not going on my flow

- Off-time roadmaps are good as long as you follow them

- I'll always time you, but I prefer you time yourself because the whole concept of unmuting, cutting you off, and saying "THAT'S TIME" is super uncomfortable to me. Basically just don't abuse the time restrictions

- Signposting is super helpful and encouraged

- Weighing is super important! Make sure your weighing is comparative and please start weighing in summary rather than ff. I'd like to hear you use actual weighing mechanisms like magnitude, probability, scope, etc.

Cross

- I'll definitely listen to cross, but won't be flowing it. If something extremely important happens that you want me to consider, bring it up in a speech

- In cross, there is a clear difference between assertion and aggression. Don't run over your opponents and just be courteous. In grand cross, I want to see everyone participating

Evidence:

- If a particular piece of evidence is super important to your case, bring it up multiple times throughout the round

- I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as it's believable and makes sense, but I prefer cut cards

- I don't flow author names, so don't bring up cards by saying the author tag. I prefer you remind me what the card said

K's/Theories/Progressive Args:

- I'm familiar with them but not super comfortable, so I can't promise you a favorable decisions if you decide to run one

Have fun and good luck!

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated for 4 years in high school and I was also involved in a lot of speech events (e.g. impromptu, poetry and oratory). While I was a teacher, I also served as a coach for middle school speech and debate for 2 years.

Things I appreciate:

(1) Solid, current evidence coupled with logical analysis. I find it frustrating when debaters try to squeeze massive impacts out of lukewarm evidence. I wish debaters would go for higher probability, lower magnitude impacts. It’s okay if you claim global war as an impact, I am just inclined to find it a steep hill to conquer.

(2) I really appreciate good manners in debate.

(3) If this is an online tournament, please turn your camera on and try to look as presentable as possible. I think it devalues the experience if we can't see each other. I promise I'll also turn my camera on, too!

Things I don't appreciate

(1) Protracted arguments about a studies' methodology or an author's credibility. If there is a critical issue with a key piece of evidence, please just make the issue clear in a speech or cross. I’ll be sure to call the evidence and do my best to read it thoroughly.

(2) Rudeness/shadiness: Please be professional and courteous to one another. Please promptly provide evidence to your opponents if requested and do not attempt to verbally contextualize evidence as you are handing it over.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that reading a paradigm ever gave me tactical insight as a debater, but I hope you find this useful. I love debate and I love that you are invested enough in the proactively to read paradigms. Good luck!

third-year out coach for Walt Whitman. debated for Edgemont PF for 5 years.

flow judge, tabula rasa with an exception for accessibility 

1. I don't care what your style of debate is in the first half--> just be non-blippy and non-messy in the back half, and you will make me happy.

2. Feel free to go wild with args and collapses. Win the round, and you win my ballot but do it with style and you'll win my heart (and a 30).

3. If both teams agree, I'll judge based on a different paradigm so long as I have the ability to. Literally, go wild.

4. my speaks are based on how strategically good your speech was.

5. speed is good if ur clear, and not blippy. 

6. most things are up for debate--> I drop speaks, not the ballot for things I consider bad debate... eg: 2nd rebuttal disads w/out an implication, or clarity of impact weighing without warrants

7. I have a low threshold for extensions, so make an argument that I should drop unwarranted extensions (e.g. your opponents extend a claim but not the warrant). 

8. theory/kritiks- be accessible, I like shell theory over paragraph theory, I'll evaluate anything. I'll drop speaks if I can tell you are purposefully not being accessible 

9. don't be discriminatory, read content warnings for sensitive topics, and respect pronouns provided by tab. 

10. The only rule for fairness besides accessibility that I default is no new in 2nd ff. Otherwise, warrant out WHY certain rules in debate are unfair (not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, new responses in 1st summary, etc) and what I should do with it (drop it). 

My methodology envisages a three pronged approach

Depth of research that the participants have undertaken in order to build up their arguments

Clarity of thoughts and synchronization of various cues to support the position

Presentation of position and thoughts in an erudite manner.

While clarity of presentation is highly marked sometimes participants manifests it as being argumentation or aggression which indeed are treated as negative scores in my paradigm.

Short Version:

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine

Collapse & extend, weigh, signpost

be nice B)

Debate/Topic History:

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

I've researched and debated the NATO topic.

Speed:

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

Rebuttal:

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

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

2nd rebuttal has to frontline

Early weighing is always a bonus.

Summary:

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

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

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

no new args in 2nd summary

Final Focus:

just lay out the reasons why u win and weigh.

Speaks:

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

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

Other things:

Don't run theory/Ks pls & ty

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

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

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

Be respectful and nice to each other :/

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

I won't flow cross unless something phenomenal happens.

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

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

Hi, i do the debate.

In rounds be respectful

Debate:

Done debate for a while. I should be able to follow you along the flow

Speaking:

speed is fine just dont spread and please make sense(logic?)

Crossfire:

Please dont be rude

Evidence:

Dont miscut not

Overall pretty flexible on debate just be respectful.

If you have any questions feel free to email me at mtthwsu@gmail.com or ask before the round starts.

yuh

Flow judge who will adapt to the debaters. Debate in a way that you enjoy & makes everyone comfortable!

howdy! i'm lawrence (any pronouns) and i did pf at montgomery blair. i now study environmental studies at yale where i do a bit of coaching. if anything here doesn't make sense/if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, contact me at lawrence.tang@yale.edu!

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

im a bit detached from the debate community. i will still draw cool extension arrows but you shouldn't assume i know anything about the topic or ur uber-cool groundbreaking meta-strategy.

general thingies

i will evaluate any argument as long as it isn't violent, exclusionary or compromises anyone's safety (be it bigoted arguments or lack of warning)*. include content warnings and an anonymous opt-in process. all participants in a round (including judges) need to opt-in. here's an example of an opt-in form!

i can handle most pf speeds but i'm also a bit rusty. don't use speed as an exclusionary tool.

no big emphasis on evidence -- how you spin your evidence matters more. i encourage cards though. i'll avoid calling evidence unless it's impossible to resolve the round otherwise.

i have a pretty bad poker face.

i view debate as a game of probabilities with every round having some uncertainty left up to the judge (weighing impacts, evaluating defense, etc). you should minimize that uncertainty and maximize the probability that i vote for you. assume that i'll make some mistake -- i'm not a robot!

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

• signpost and respond to arguments in the order they're made

• err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, many args I've seen have been super blippy/unwarranted and have left me pretty confused

general rule: the later an argument is made, the less weight i'll give to it. defense is sticky for first summary. don't read defense on your own offensive. concede defense immediately after the speech it was read in.

tempted to say probability weighing doesn't exist. if both teams give me weighing that's cool but i don't know how to resolve that so please interact with the weighing already read.

everything you want me to vote off has to be in final focus even if it's conceded. you don't have to do as much work but please at least breathe on them.

if i can't resolve the round without intervening, i'll presume whoever lost the flip.

progressive stuff: above-average understanding, but don't be exclusive

my defaults are:

• disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, but theory on these is iffier

• fairness is not a voter, rvis bad, CI > reasonability, drop the argument over debater

Phil/FW - some background knowledge but not much. make sure you're not just regurgitating weird academic language and actually explain ideas in normal english.

T - tbh i don't think i've run across a pf situation that needed a t shell. you're fine just saying something is non-topical. i also disagree with the nebel t.

Theory - most shells in pf are fluff. absent legitimate abuse in round, i'll vote on theory but i won't like it. disclosure and paraphrasing are more valid but still iffy.

Kritiks - i wrote a cap k once. familiar with some lit (biopower, orientalism, setcol) but not from debate pov. your strategy can't rely on background knowledge or me reading your evidence. iffy on arguments that weaponize identity or structural violence for the sole sake of a ballot. if you're reading these arguments, be genuine.

other things

• ask as many questions as you want. postround me. i'm always learning and would love feedback!

• always looking for more music, book (literally any type of media) recommendations, so if you have any hidden bangers please lmk!

*given my positionality, i recognize that i'm not neutral and cannot operate under a veil of objectivity. i don't trust my judgment in determining what is violent. however, i fail to see a better alternative :(

Background

I am a flow judge. I am currently a junior at Richard Montgomery. I have debated PF debate for a little over two year. I have topic experience/background knowledge. I am aggressively tech over truth. I will not flow cross, unless summoned (hocus pocus judge please flow this). I will always buy solid and clear warranting over a card. I will disclose and give an rfd.

Contact Information

Email: alexander.y.wang@hotmail.com

Instagram and Snap: alexw1_jw

Discord: alexw1_jw#7692

Do:

• Use trigger warnings for triggering content

• Be kind and respectful. You will be dropped for being racist, sexist, homphobic etc. Cursing is ok in moderation.

• Speak at a reasonable pace. If you spread I need to see the speechdocs.

• Weigh. I will not weigh for you, and will default to your opponents mechanism, or to utilitarianism.

• Extend through summary AND final focus. Defense is sticky, but please extend at least a tagline in both speeches.

• Signpost

• Collapse in summary of ff. It makes things so much easier for me.

• Tell jokes, unless you’re not funny

• Offtime roadmaps. They are super helpful especially in summary.

• Have fun!

Don’t:

• Run theory or a K, unless there is a serious violation. Even then there is a good chance I will be voting off of substance. I do not like engaging in meta-debate

• Use words that are too big. My vocabulary is not the greatest

• Spread. Mainly for the sake of your opponents

• Frontline during 2nd summary. It’s just straight up abusive and will not be flowed

• Bring up new arguments in FF

• Abusively paraphrase. Please use good evidence ethics

• Run extremely squirrely arguments. The link chain has to make sense. Meme cases are ok though.

• Go over time. Please keep track of your own time.

Speaker Points

I default to 28.5, you will have to speak clearly and persuasively to get any higher. Please be respectful and kind to your opponents, especially in crossfire. Making ad hominem attacks will lose you speaker points. If you're funny or do like funny random stuff I'll probably give you more speaker points.

hey! i'm ethan. I do debate sometimes. Retired from nat circuit to become a full time meme debater.

Judging conflicts: Dababy Rizz Academy for the Gifted Talented and Exceptional, Wootton HS, Potomac

add me to the email chain: ethan.wanq@gmail.com

tabula rasa

tech>truth

Will evaluate any and all arguments except ones that promote some form of bigotry (i.e. racism good, xenophobia good, etc).

Theory is fine.

Topicality is optional.

All frontlining must be done in 2nd rebuttal.

IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH YOU WILL LOSE.

Respond to frameworks in rebuttal.

Defense is sticky.

Anything not extended through final focus will not be evaluated.

Roadmaps + signposting... please

speaker points are dumb. 30 speaks if u venmo me a dollar.

i presume first unless you tell me otherwise

Arguments brought up in CROSS WILL BE PUT ON THE FLOW

its online debate... LOOK STUFF UP NO ONE CAN CALL YOU OUT ON IT. Your opponents probably will.

Use chatgpt for analytics if you really can't think of anything. Better than dropping the arg.

Theory specifics:

imo the point of theory is to give debaters a tool to shape the space in their vision

I evaluate "friv"

I default to counter interps

K specifics:

I treat topical Ks and non topical Ks the same

My devices do not use the Gregorian calendar

https://darchai.com/
SEND ME A SPEECH DOC IF UR READING MORE THAN 1000 WORDS
If ur spreading is clear u get extra speaks proportional to how many words u read.

tl;dr; I WILL INTERVENE IN THE ROUND unless you tell me not to

I am a Ph.D in computer science, and I never attended an official debate, and judged an ES debate on Potomac Fall Championships. If you have solid supporting points, and strong reasoning logic, then you will have better chance to win.

Hello I'm kristen, i debated PF for three-ish years

I am not a very technical judge. I have a working knowledge of prog arguments like Ks and theories and such but have little experience evaluating them. Feel free to run them if you want at your own discretion. I am also quite bad with speed -- if you start speaking at over 250 words per minute my flow will be weird. Debater jargon is fine but personally prefer not to have to hear fake words. Speaks never dip below 27 unless you're like racist or something.

Some things i like to see:

• warranting all the time
• weighing/comparative analysis in rebuttal responses
• timing your own prep and speeches

basically just follow basic norms and u'll be alright!

This is my first time judging the activity in a minute, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms associated with this topic yet, so don't assume I will know them. Please give holistic arguments concerning the entire round including but not limited to: weighing the different issues against each other, and explaining what you think with evidence.

I am a parent lay judge. Please do not spread and please be nice to each other.

Hi!

Some General Stuff:

- Be nice!

- Tech > Truth

- Some speed is fine, but please don’t spread.

- I don’t flow cross; if you want me to flow anything, bring it up in a speech.

- Warrant your arguments well; treat me as if I don’t know anything, and explain things well.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary; don’t introduce any new arguments in second summary or ff.

- Please signpost and give off-time roadmaps, just so I know where you are on the flow.

- Extend everything you want me to evaluate into FF, this includes any defense, and please weigh!

Other Stuff:

- Don’t be rude or disrespectful in any way.

- Don’t talk over people in cross.

- Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the debate!

-Try not to read Theory or Ks

-Weigh in summary

-No new arguments in Final Focus

-Try your best to frontline in Second Rebuttal

-Don't spread

-Focus on fluency and flow coverage

-Engage in clash

-Don't flow thru ink

-Always collapse in summary

If you have any other questions about preferences, feel free to ask me before the round

Background:

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

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

Preferences:

1. Speed:

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

2. Extensions:

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

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

3. Evidence:

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

4. Cross:

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

5. K's:

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

6. Theory:

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

What I want to see:

1. Extend Impacts:

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

2. Weighing:

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

3. Signpost:

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

4. Clash:

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

5. Warrants:

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

How I tend to vote:

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

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

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

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

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

Misc:

I tend to be more tech > truth.

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

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

Please don't be rude or offensive.

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

Hi!

Basic flow judge :)

I'm a sophomore in high school and have debated on the national PF circuit for ~1 year, which means I still have lots to learn.

Some stuff to remember:

- Second rebuttal frontline offense; first sum extend plz

- Weigh! Metaweighing is cool too! (but most teams usually don't get to this point :'()

- pLeAsE signpost! I suck at flowing so if you don't signpost I physically cannot write anything down.

- Don't go overtime! I'll stop flowing after 5 sec over. I'll keep time for speeches but not for prep, so make sure to hold your opponents accountable.

- Send me a speech doc if you spread. Honestly, if you want, send me a speech doc if you don't spread because my wrist is already broken from taking notes for AP exams and my wifi (sometimes) sucks.

- Run theory/ks if you want but beware my lack of experience with them. Honestly, I'd actually be down if you want to run one because I need some experience especially since the circuit is getting more progressive. Just don't expect a great analysis of it.

- please please read trigger warnings. I really don't want to walk the fine line between safety and flow, so if you have anything in your case that is possibly triggering content, please read a tw or be dropped.

- +0.2 speaks if y'all skip grand cross

Debate tournaments are stressful, so remember to take breaks and try to enjoy the activity!

Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.

I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.

Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.

I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.

Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.

I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.

Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.

I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.

Thanks.

I'm a flay judge. Tech>Truth.

I go to school at Richard Montgomery. I currently debate pf in high school right now.

A few rules and notes that I have:

-Please policy spread your entire case. In fact, 1000 words is the bare limit on word count.

-Please send all cases and speech docs in the chat. Or I will be angry and ask for them. SMH NOBODY ACTUALLY DOES THIS THO PLEASE DO.

-If you dab, I might give you the W. I respect og moves.

-5 squirrelly contentions or more will earn you an automatic 29 for speaks.

- Cross is never flowed. So crossfire is pretty much useless if you don't highlight and extend some responses in other speeches.

-I love brightlines

- Please weigh and extend warrants and impacts. Defense is never sticky... Extend!

-I will usually give oral RFDS and I may disclose according to tournament rules.

-I love meme cases. I will give you high speaks if you do really well with it.

-If you don't run a Theory shell, I will be sad. Nothing like arguing about debate itself. Please be sure that you actually see a violation.

-Running my Santa Claus Counterplan will give you 30 speaks. GL finding it

-RUN A K, but make it funny

-Postrounding is dumb, don't do that. I will edit your ballot and give you 5 speaks.

-At the end of the day, all judges are tired. You are much better off having a brick as a judge when we get to outrounds.

-When you say talk abt de-links, make sure you show me a chain of paper clips and unhook them one by one (may be done between speeches but its better to do it in the speech).

-When you read turns, physically turn around.

-If you show me your pc and its a good one ill give you + .5 speaks. If you use a macbook, know that my respect for you has fallen greatly.

-if you do a tik-tok dance, you will hurt my brain (-2 speaks and -50 social credits).

***Also note: use your brain. If you call your opponent something offensive or if you shout expletives, you will be dropped.

****Also note: Some of the previous requirements may be circumvented if you tell me a few good jokes before round.

*****Also note: If you Rickroll the other team while evidence sharing I will give you thirty speaks.

I will focus on the clarity and logic flow and the speaker’s ability in communicating a complicated vision through claim, evidence and warrant. Make it simple but memorable for your audience.

Background: Flay Judge

I’m a relatively new high school debater (I’ve done debate for 2 years) with some knowledge on the resolution, but I have little experience judging.

Don't. Spread. I won't understand anything and then it all goes downhill from there...

Theory and K's are fine with me but please don't make it too complicated.

It's okay to go a little bit over time, I will still flow, but I will stop flowing once you go more than 30 seconds over.

Please make sure to be nice to each other! Being nice is really important, please don’t attack your opponents because that honestly just looks bad on your part.

I will disclose at the end of the round but specific feedback will be given in the ballot. If I don’t vote for your team please don’t take it personally either.

Have fun! :)