Hi! I competed for four years in PF at Newton South and am a first year out.

Short version

I’ll vote on the flow but slower debates are appreciated.

Warrants are crucial.

Please do comparative weighing.

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense/turns on any arguments that will be extended.

I’d prefer not to judge prog.

Tech > truth, but in the words of Nilesh Chander, “the best teams win on both fronts”.

Long version

How I judge:

- I will only evaluate what is extended in the second half. This means that if you want me to vote on an argument, you should extend both warrants and impacts. Missing warrants to me means that your argument isn’t true. Also new implications/responses late in round won’t be evaluated.

- Please, please frontline all defense on what you’re going for in second rebuttal. Also please collapse and don't extend your entire case.

- Doing comparative weighing will help me differentiate between arguments and also increase the chance that you’re happy with my decision.

- I won’t kick an argument for being too tech but I’ll accept weaker responses the more unrealistic it is.

- I default to and would prefer to use a util framework.

Speed:

- I can handle most speeds, but would prefer rounds to be slower overall as I’ll be less likely to miss things. When in doubt, send a speech doc.

Evidence:

- Paraphrasing is fine but direct quotes are better.

- I’ll only read cards at the end of the round if teams request it.

- If you can't find a card that's called, I'll treat it as an analytic.

- I will boost your speaks for disclosing on the PF NDCA wiki but there is absolutely no penalty for not disclosing.

Other stuff you might want to know:

- I don't flow cross, so if you get an important concession that you want me to evaluate you should bring it up in a later speech.

- I do time speeches. If you go overtime, I won't stop you but I will also stop flowing.

- I generally give high speaks, and I will also disclose if the tournament allows and both teams are okay with it.

- I don’t think I will ever presume, but if I did I would presume for the team that lost the coin flip.

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

Prog:

I think progressive arguments make the activity more confusing and am generally opposed to them.

On theory specifically: I dealt with a lot of theory when I was competing. I really don’t want to deal with theory as a judge unless there’s an actual violation that occurs in the round like a piece of evidence being seriously misconstrued, and even then I would prefer an IVI instead of a shell that kicks the substance completely. I’ll raise your speaks if you disclose but I don’t want to hear disclosure theory.

I feel uncomfortable in my ability to evaluate Ks and would highly prefer it if they are not read. Tricks etc are also too much for me.

I will not evaluate any kind of progressive argumentation in a novice round.

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

If you’re confused about anything or have additional questions, please ask me before the round!

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Hi! I competed in Congressional Debate for 2 years, followed by Extemporaneous Speaking for 2 years.

hi, im jasper! i debated in high school and read every argument you could think of when debating! add me to the email chain: jaspervdatta@gmail.com, and contact me on facebook if you have questions :)

my only unwavering bias in the round is that debate is good. that is not to say our current model of debate is good or your method of debate is good, but just that debating, in general, is a good thing, and more people debating is a good thing. to that end, please read content warnings with opt-outs, be respectful to everyone, and try to be as ethical as possible. i do not care what arguments you read or how you present yourself, just that you make well-warranted arguments and compare them to the other arguments in the round.

preferences:

second rebuttal needs to answer everything from first rebuttal that you plan on collapsing on. defense isn't sticky.

30 speaks if you open-source disclose with highlights.

debate is a communication activity (especially pf), so i can handle speed but im not flowing off a doc.

i presume neg.

dont read anything -ist, read arguments without a warrant, be overly technical on novices/debaters who are out of their depth, or read identity positions against debaters who share that identity.

ask any other questions if you have them :)

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

also collapse and extend please, write my ballot in final focus

I am in my second year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I did some PF

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

update on communication: I won't STOP you from speaking to your partner while they are giving a speech, but please don't do it. I will dock speaks, and I have never seen it been done well enough to justify both the perceptual loss and the interruption in thought process. Just do what I did when my partner missed an argument – write it big on paper, and hold it up for them to see.

update on speed: I did a lot of debate and I can flow very well. With that being said, I will not flow off of the doc (I think its a bad norm). Take this advice as you will.

I tend to work tab at most tournaments. Don't waste your strike on me. :)

Hi! I am currently a senior at Newton South and have done PF for four years. A couple things:

1. Please don't say "just a quick off time road map." Please.

2. In rebuttal, the second speaking team should frontline turns. Not required, but I like when teams collapse in second rebuttal.

3. I don't just care that your card says something—explain to me why it says that.

4. PLEASE WEIGH! Make my decision easy by telling me why your argument is more important.

5. I can't vote for you if in your second half speeches you aren't extending a warrant and an impact (and weighing and frontlining). Please please collapse.

6. I don't like theory and will probably evaluate it wrong. Would *strongly* advise against running it.

7. Make me laugh and I'll boost your speaks:) If you are mean to your opponents, expect your speaks to reflect that.

Let me know if you have any questions! Excited to judge!

1. Keep Calm.
2. Speak Loud And Clear.
3. Maintain Proper Body Language.
4. Keep The Topic On Track.
5. Respect your Opponents

Middle School Paradigm:

• Choose a few arguments and make it very clear why they’re the most important

• Weigh your impacts!

• Explain everything (and remember to re-explain your argument from the resolution to the impact in Summary and FF)

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

• Use they/them pronouns unless your opponents tell you otherwise

• If you are racist, LGBTQ+-phobic, ableist, rude, sexist, or are discriminatory in any other way, you will lose the round and may be reported

My longer paradigm - https://docs.google.com/document/d/17teFyL5H25AsRRIW5DLGVcL5NeqJjk4UPxy8e-RUKeE/edit?usp=sharing

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 am a senior, captain, and debater at LS. I have been doing debate for 4 years, and judge rounds in our school.

I do flow but appreciate reasonably paced speaking.

Here are a few of my preferences:

- If there is an evidence debate, I would appreciate seeing the evidence. Sources are useful and necessary for your argument, BUT you can not just tell me that an article says something without explaining the context or the rationale behind it; I will always prefer contextualized evidence. I am also appreciative of historical president and sound logical assessments, especially as rebuttals.

- For me, it is really important that you interact with the other side's arguments. You should not just be repeating your own case.

- Please signpost, especially in rebuttal (tell me what argument your are responding to, or defending).

- I am open to Ks and interesting frameworks, but if you do not propose a framework, I will just default to the side that saves the most lives.

- Weighing is important in summary and crucial in final focus.

- I do not flow grand cross. I do pay some attention to crossfires: I will not flow it, but it can help to clarify arguments.

- You can not bring up evidence or a brand new argument later than 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary. At the VERY latest 2nd summary (but this is not preferred).

- If you drop arguments as the round progresses, that is 100% ok (please do not hesitate)! The earlier on in the round you drop the argument the better so that you can each discuss and engage in interesting debate about the specific topics, without getting spread-thin.

- Please time yourself :)

- Do not be mean! If you are rude, laugh at the other team, or are disingenuous with your evidence, I will take off significant speaker points. Please do chat with the other side, crack jokes, or lighten the mood :)

Even if you are feeling lost in the argument-- keep trying! If you have any questions, let me know. Good luck!

Hi all! I graduated from Lexington High School in June 2021 and I am currently a sophomore at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I have debated LD for 2 years and PF for 2 years, so I understand almost all the antics.

things that I look for in a debate:

- extending and explaining your framework(LD) + arguments across the flow

- good cross-x questions

-being respectful to your opponents

-giving voters and overview at the end of the round

and:

- do not spread while speaking (LD), can go a little fast but not too fast.

- bonus speaks for an entertaining round

If you have any questions, you may email me at this address mehr.k2k3@gmail.com --but please no scam emails .

Hi! I'm a fourth year PF debater from Newton South. I'm probably a pretty average MA local circuit flow judge, so if that's all you need to know by all means feel free to go back to prepping and ignore the rest of this paradigm :)

Otherwise, here is some stuff that gets progressively less relevant to this round:

- If you need any sort of accommodation, let me know! I'll work with you to make sure the round is as accessible as possible for everyone. You can email me ahead of time at akupovich@gmail.com, too.

- I don't think formal attire should be mandatory, and you don't have to dress up if you don't want to; if you have uncomfortable heels or something else you don't wanna wear - don't!

- I usually say that I don't have very much topic knowledge, but I really know less than nothing about this topic, so make sure you're fully explaining and implicating everything.

- PLEASE weigh

- be nice! especially in cross - being aggressive/mean/steamrolling in cross will end badly on the ballot :)

- try to introduce all of your weighing by summary -- be consistent! -- but ill evaluate new weighing in final (but i am much more likely to vote off of it if it was in both summary and final, and has been properly explained and implicated).

- brand new weighing in second final specifically is very sketchy and i'll really only evaluate it if it somehow becomes the deciding factor in the round

- if there's something you thought was wrong, like a new argument in second final or a point that you responded to but they said you didn't, feel free to talk to me about it right after the last speech. i'll most likely agree with you, or will explain why i don't. i know it sucks to come away from a round knowing that there was something beyond your control/against the rules that could be affecting the decision.

- cross! use cross! get concessions! use cross to enhance your speeches! i don't flow cross, but will listen actively and will take note if you use something you got out of your opponent in cross to break down their argument! automatically +0.5 speaker points if you get a genuine concession in cross (not by being aggressive) and structure a response based on the concession.

- i like good evidence ethics! that doesn't mean like don't paraphrase or whatever, but it does mean don't lie about your evidence.

- turns in first rebuttal should be responded to in second rebuttal

- tech > truth, but if your argument is genuinely ridiculous my bar for responses is gonna be below the floor.

- I am not all that familiar with progressive argumentation, and moreover very strongly believe that at this level -- a local tournament on the massachusetts circuit -- it should not exist. if you want to read theory in response to a genuine violation in round that was problematic/threatens the safety of the debate space, i will definitely evaluate it, although at that point feel free to ask me to intervene because i probably will. Otherwise, i will not vote off of Ks, counterplans, etc. etc.

- definitely be running trigger warnings if you think there's even a remote chance your argument might need a trigger warning, although frankly...don't run arguments that need trigger warnings without a very good reason

- i'm fine with any speed, but if you're gonna talk faster than like reasonable make sure your opponents are on board first - like ask them before round or before your speech.

- i think debaters should metaweigh way more. metaweighing well will get you like +1 speaks automatically. feel free to ask abt this :)

good luck!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is my novice tourney paradigm: Hi! I'm a fourth-year Public Forum debater at Newton South High School, and I'm excited to judge y'all today!

Here are some things you can do to win this round:

1. Weigh your arguments against your opponents' - explain why your impacts matter more. Does your impact affect more people? Does it last longer? If they tell me that I should prefer their impact for xyz reason and you don't, and the round comes down to which side matters more, I'm usually going to have to vote for the team that weighed. If no one weighs, I'm going to decide which side I think is more important on my own, and you probably don't want me doing that!

2. Explain your points in every speech. Making sure that you aren't just saying "Medicare for All will save lives"; explain how that happens. This is especially important for points that aren't as self-explanatory. It might make sense to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense to me or your opponents.

3. Be nice. This should go without saying, but please don't be mean or super aggressive during cross :))

This also should obviously go without saying, but racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. will lose you the round automatically. If there's any way I can make the round safer or more comfortable for anyone, please email me before round at akupovich@gmail.com!

Good luck and have fun!!!

Hi! I'm currently a senior at Acton-Boxborough and have done PF for the last 4 years.

Here are a few guidelines:

Speed: I'm can handle speed, but I believe teams tend to do better when they speak slower and explain their arguments clearly. I also tend to not flow card names, so please always extend the warrant.

Weighing: Please weigh and make sure it's actually comparative. It should start as early in the round as possible. I'm a big fan of weighing in rebuttal if you have enough time.

Warranting: I am quality > quantity so please don't read as many cards as possible. Logical warranting and analysis are also equally as effective.

Theory: Unless there's a significant violation, I probably won't evaluate theory or progressive arguments as I don't really understand them myself :(

Have fun and be respectful! Let me know if you have any questions before round :)

Standard FLAY Judge; I competed in Public Forum and World Schools Debate for Boston Latin for 6 years.

TLDR: Warrant + Weigh = Win

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag-not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop for judges : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, if you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

**My partner and I made it our mission to run environmental arguments on every topic in our senior year. That being said, I'd look favorably upon climate change related impacts and links, if ran well.

**Regarding progressive args, I'm not very well versed in them so run them at your own risk. The likelihood of me voting for K's, t shells and theory shells etc. are low simply because I'm not familiar with them. If there's actual abuse in the round, just explain it in paragraph form or put it in a way that I would be able to easily follow.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask or reach me at cinly.mo@columbia.edu

Good luck, have fun, and learn things!

I am an occasional debate judge and a parent of Concord-Carlisle students in the classes of '24 and '27.

I am a senior and I have been on the Boston Latin School debate team for 6 years.

I have experience debating in PF and congress, but minimal judging experience.

PF/LD SPECIFIC:

I flow pretty well, but I don't always write down sources, so you can't just say the author and expect me to remember what the card says.

Make sure to extend things through FF if you want it to be weighed.

Don't be rude or interrupt during cross, that makes the environment so much more hostile.

If you choose to run any nontraditional arguments, please explain what you are doing fully, since I have received very little training in this area.

CONGRESS SPECIFIC:

It's great when debaters use puns/jokes in round. (Even bad puns!)

I love to see rebuttals, as well as unique arguments as much as possible.

I do have a leftist bias, but I will do my best to not let it affect my ability to be an impartial judge.

MOST IMPORTANT:

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, etc. in round I will not hesitate to drop you and give you the lowest possible speaks. Debate is best when it is an inclusive activity so bigotry has no place.

Questions? Reach out to me: mayaruthnelson@gmail.com

Hello I am a first time parent judge, so please explain and warrant your arguments well

Do a good job and have fun.

More of a flow judge than not, but don't spread and don't assume all jargon will be understood. I value extended arguments, will not pick up any new arguments brought in FF, and weighing is greatly appreciated. My advice as a coach and request as a judge is to tell me what is important and then tell me why you've won those points.

I value consistently extended arguments over arguments that were not extended throughout, but that doesn't mean I won't value them if all else is equal.

Crossfire is a place for actual questions, not BS excuses to make an argument, and never a place for reading cards.

Don't be rude or demeaning to anyone in the round, and failure to do so will be heavily reflected in speaker points. Humor always appreciated when appropriate.

Time management: Please follow the time constraints for each block. I expect debaters to self manage the slots including prep time. If any team take significantly more time (say 15+ sec) and the opposing team points that out you get penalized. Exchanging evidence is fine but be considerate of how long it takes

Key Points: If the opening round highlight your top 3-4 points by saying point 1 is xx followed by point (2) etc. It helps me follow those and see how it builds up or gets dropped as the debate progresses

Speed/Pace: Keep the pace of speech close to normal as possible. I see debaters speed up so much that I have a hard time following and will cut points for that. I value clarity and focused points over cramming 8-10 different streams of thought and speaking at the speed of light to get those said

2AR/2NR: Highlight why you are winning and which arguments you think are helping you. Highlight the impact with data points like "$100million saved" etc.

Crossfire: I do not give points for what is said is crossfire. I will listen to see what arguments are clarified and rebutted but more importantly how those arguments are then incorporated into the subsequent round(s)

Etiquette: Be courteous to the other team. Please do not be toxic or yell over each other in Cross-Ex.

I am new to judging. I will look for believable arguments and clear communication. Please present specific and current evidence if possible.

zoe_shleifer22@milton.edu

Hi. I'm a Milton Academy '22 PF debater. If I'm judging you, it probably means you are a novice, so I won't give a super long and jargony paradigm.

I'm not in a rush. I think zoom debate has a tendency to stress people out when they are looking for a card or having trouble sharing a doc. Unless we are literally the last ballot submitted, we aren't slowing anyone down. Let's keep things low stress and lighthearted. Google Doc permissions are annoying, thats not your fault. Everything is fine (also, don't rush your opponent). This is not an excuse for infinite prep.

- Most numbers in PF are bogus. Asking for quantification might be strategic, but it won't necessarily convince me. If someone exaggerates the impact of their arguments, there are logical ways to point that out. I'd love to care about evidence, but ultimately thats not how this event works.

- I am not a "flow judge." I am a human with opinions. Your argument should be believable and persuasive. I care about extension. Especially first speakers have the responsibility to get their full link chain into the back half of the round.

- New evidence in second summary should only support arguments you've already made in the round. For example, if in cross you say "we have a card for XYZ," it's totally fine to bring it up in second summary.

- If you weigh, make sure that it actually gives me information, not scope or magnitude or severity or whatever.

p.s.

about speaks:

I don't care how you are dressed.

I don't care if you are rude in cross.

I don't care about organized speeches (though I may miss things if you are scattered)

25 if you give an off time road map but don't follow it!!

-.5 for off-time roadmaps unless they are lengthy and entertaining ( I will give +1 for sufficiently creative off-time road maps (think interpretive dance, puppetry, etc.))

I will be a bit annoyed if you:

say "they don't respond to ___" (especially if it isn't true!)

brag about how clean your links are (thats not debate, its just marketing)

PROBABILITY PROBABILITY PROBABILITY!

poisson is my favorite distribution. What's yours?

Hi! I am a first year out and did debate for 6 years but I wouldn’t treat me as a flow judge.

I will flow the round

I will time your speeches and stop flowing around 10 seconds after your time is up

Don’t expect me to know anything about the topic

Logic > evidence

Let me know if you want feedback in person or on the ballot

If you want more information, my old paradigm is below.

——————————

First things first, please be respectful to your opponents, partner, and in general. If you are intentionally racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc. you will be dropped with low speaks. I know it can be unintentional, so if someone points it out, just apologize and don’t keep doing or saying it.

As for judging, I will try to adapt to your style the best I can. However, going fast and card dumping does not impress me because most of the time, they aren't implicated and there's no educational value. That being said, here are some general parameters.

- tech > truth to a degree, my willingness to vote for you will go away faster than typical tech judges if your argument is just blatantly not true. I feel like debate is more about education than just being a game

- I will flow the round and I can handle speed fairly well (but know that the faster you go, the less happy my 3 brain cells will be)

- Please collapse and WEIGH your arguments, I will like you even more if you do comparative weighing. So explain why your weighing is better than their weighing.

- I’m a huge fan of analytical responses and logic, if you can tell me why you’re right and your opponents are wrong with just logic, I think it is 100xs better than reading a card or block that doesn’t have any explanation

Progressive Arguments

- Please ensure your opponents are okay with running progressive arguments before round, as it can be incredibly exclusionary in public forum. If there is a serious violation during round, you may run theory in paragraph form.

- I have had some experience debating progressive args (mostly theory and krtiks) and will flow/try to understand them, but I will be less receptive than say policy or LD judges.

Show me that you care, but you don’t have to be incredibly serious and aggressive to win! If you have any other questions, you can ask me before round or email me (selinatang@college.harvard.edu)

Don't call developing countries "third world countries". I'll knock speaker points off.

Also I don't flow cross.

arman.tendulkar@tufts.edu

FB messenger: Arman Tendulkar

Conflicts: Newton South, BCDC

Hello. My name is Arman Tendulkar, I competed on the Public Forum National Circuit from 2018-2022 for Newton South High School.

First and foremost I consider myself a tech over truth judge, but will interfere in instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or any other issues that compromise the safety of an individual in the round.

There is a lot more stuff later in my paradigm, but genuinely the most important thing for me is weighing. I don’t care if you’re winning 80 pieces of offense if it’s not weighed against your opponents 1 piece of offense there is a chance I will vote for them.

Now for the actual stuff:

Rebuttal:

I can flow speed and will accept a max of 250-300 words. If you are within this threshold, please send a doc because I really don’t want to miss responses that could be key for the backhalf of the round.

Dumping is ok, only if you actually know how to do it. I don’t want to hear a team put 14 turns on a contention if none of them are weighed, impacted, and have an implication. I expect every offensive response to have an impact and piece of weighing associated with it and every response in general to have a clear implication. I don’t want to be doing the work for you

Please don’t be a doc bot :((( I know PF kind of took a turn for the worse when we went online, but I miss the days when kids would just bring up a piece of paper and give an eloquent rebuttal off the dome. That being said I won’t pick you up/drop you for using a doc but it might impact speaker points if you don’t look up once during rebuttal.

Offensive overviews are fine, but please don’t be abusive and just read an entirely new contention as an offensive overview, it should have a link into the actual case.

2nd Rebuttal:

Don’t go for everything. I mean do it if you want but it isn’t strategic at all. I think choosing 1-2 arguments is always best, and collapsing in rebuttal is a great way to ensure a ballot win.

Offense must be frontline in rebuttal, defense doesn’t have to be frontlined but if you collapse in 2nd rebuttal I think frontlining the defense is also strategic

Defense is not sticky, summaries are three minutes now so there aren’t any excuses

Please weigh, even if you haven’t collapsed yet, weighing is so beautiful

Summary:

Extensions for me are the most important part of summary. Too many times I see debaters just fake extend the link without telling me the story properly. If your extension isn’t warranted correctly then there is a high chance I just won’t vote for you. I’m a very tired person and chances are I’m mentally exhuasted during the first half of the round, that is why I’m counting on you to give me a great extension in the backhalf so I can properly understand what your argument is.

Signpost please, I’ve seen and given some really wack summaries, but as long as you sign post I couldn’t care less what your order is. Don’t just say “onto our first argument” say “onto our first argument about ______ “

Final Focus:

Should basically be summary but more condensed, extend, frontline, weigh etc…

Final Focus is too late for new pieces of weighing unless it’s metaweighing. Metaweighing is great and I hope everyone utilizes it. Don't really flow it.

Weighing:

I talk about this a lot but let’s get more specific

Short-circuits and pre-reqs can and will win you rounds. When executed correctly they are amazing and I will be very happy if you bring them up.

Probability is not weighing: if you are winning the link you have 100% probability in the vacuum of the debate round

If I have to vote on strength of link or strength of impact weighing I will shed internal tears. That being said, you can make them if you really want, but supplement them with better weighing mechanisms.

Metaweighing, please, do it. Please.

Progressive Debate:

I hate theory, unless it's an actual abuse, it's an autodrop. I don't consider disclo to be real theory, paraphrase is dumb as well(unless they actually miscut the ev), most theory I hate, but ask before if you want to run it.

Tricks I will evaluate only against 3rd-4th year debaters, and never against SV framing or identity Ks

I really really really don't like Ks.

Framing:

Don’t be disrespectful when responding to it. These are serious issues that people care about

I don’t really like the respond in second case stuff, so if your opponents give me any response that is at all applicable for why they shouldn’t have to respond in second case I will default to not having to respond (ie time skew, education, fairness)

Please give warrants for why your framing is important. Many debaters think they can just assert a framing without giving reasons for why they particular framing is unique/ important. Please have good reasons.

Extra stuff:

I’m hearing impaired so please speak loudly, it helps you.

If you have any personal issues that impair your debating abilities in round, please let me know. I don’t want to vote against you for anything that is out of your control

I noted this at the top, but sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything that hurts debater’s safety will lead to an automatic loss.

If you can go the entire round without using your computer once, I will automatically give you a 30

Pulling up your evidence fast makes me happy

Tell me to call evidence, and I will. If there are competing pieces of evidence that isn’t resolved in the round I’ll call for them and evaluate them on my own terms. So it’s better to tell me why to prefer your evidence.

Post-rounding is dumb. I already submitted my ballot. If they are genuine questions, go ahead and ask.

Have fun. Debate was amazing for me because of the people I met, not the rounds I won so please please have fun. If you crack jokes, or mess around in round you won’t be negatively impacted, unless ofc it causes a serious disruption.

Hello!

I am a new parent judge and I would really appreciate if you speak clearly and speak slowly. As a parent judge, it is very likely that I will not know a lot about the topic you are debating so make sure that you explain everything. Also, as a parent judge I will probably not know many debate terms so please try to avoid these, for example use point instead of contention. Please signpost. Make sure to extend all your points and keep bringing up the points you want me to remember. It will help me decide a winner if you directly compare your arguments and impacts to your opponents.

I am looking forward to judging you, thank you so much!

I am a new parent judge. English is my second language so i would perfer if you spoke slightly slower and explain things better to me.