-Try not to spread too much on the Main Point. If you spread too fast, the other team has to call for your speech doc, which takes a lot of time away from the debate

-Make sure to extend your case in summary and final focus

-If you have two contentions, try to collapse on one

-actually weigh, I don't want to just hear evidence

-Try not to go too overtime

-Respect each other in crossfire

-Call for cards in crossfire

Background:

Very Tech>Truth

Varsity debater. 3 years on the national circuit for PF.

Speed:

Fine with speed. I get annoyed when people spread but if you spread send a doc that is marked.

Speaks:

These come from cross, and I default to 28.7s.

Prog args

I only have experience with Theory and a little with Ks. I can understand both fine, but if you run it (beyond like disclosure theory or para theory) go slow/send a doc. Don't run tricks.

My ballot

Weigh. It'spretty simple. Win your link, internal link, and then weigh. Do that and your chances of winning the debate are at 75%, because most debater can't do it right. Give me some Meta Weighing too and I will sing your praises.

I drop homophobia, transphobia, racism, xenophobia etc

Be smart. Collapse and win your argument before you worry about defense.

I'll vote on conceded frameworks/independent voters readily as well.

Evidence ethics are really bad in PF. If there is abused evidence that is not just a small mistake, I could drop you entirely, so don't lie.

Final stuff:

Be funny (your speaks will skyrocket), debate is a toxic activity, it can help the tension. Last but not least, have fun out there, we do this to be better people.

Add me to the email chain: aanya2cool@gmail.com

I debate at Ivy Bridge Academy, mainly Public Forum but I've watched Congr, Parli, and Policy

History: Went deep in a couple national tournaments

NOTE: If you're novice or jv the only thing that applies to you is general prefs, ignore everything else

General Prefs:

1) Come pre-flowed unless we're flipping right before round

2) Keep off-time roadmaps simple (don't say "first we're talking about their case, then we're talking about why our case still stands, and finally we'll weigh" - a simple "their case, our case, weighing" will do fine)

3) Signpost - flowing becomes 10x as hard when you don't signpost - have mercy

4) Be prepared for me to call for cards after round - DO NOT cite something you don't have a card for

5) If you spread for any of your speeches please send speech doc or else I won't be able to evaluate the things I didn't hear

6) I'll keep time, for both speeches and prep, but I'll give however long you take to pull up a card as prep time for the other team

Case:

1) As long as you have good warranting and DID NOT misrepresent evidence, I can evaluate almost every arg

2) I absolutely love framework debates, but don't run them if you don't know how

Rebuttal:

1) Implicate everything, don't just read a non unique or de link, tell me why it matters

2) I only evaluate turns under two conditions: a - you have to extend a clear warrant for why it's a turn and b - you have to tell me why that helps you in the round by weighing the turn

3) Second rebuttal MUST frontline every argument, or at least turns, or else I'll consider the dropped responses conceded

Summary:

1) Collapse - It helps you extend and weigh your arg better

2) If you're second summary respond to the other teams weighing (if they said they won on pre-req, explain why they don't, or why you win pre-req more cleanly)

3) Weigh with comparison - don't be like "we win on magnitude" be like "we win on magnitude because while they only impact 1 life and we impact 100"

Final Focus:

1) I won't evaluate anything new in final focus

2) Collapse the debate down to the voters - final focus didn't become a speech just to become a mirrored version of summary, it became a speech so that it could be the final word to the judge, on why you win - if you do choose to mirror summary that's fine, I won't count it against you, but I'll boost your speaks if you collapse down to the key issues and why you win

Speaking Philosophy:

I start everyone at 28, and I increase/decrease based on how you did in the round

You'll get +0.5 Speaks if you:

1) were funny

2) did a line by line

3) used final focus to tell me why you won, not just repeat summary

4) had a good amount of topic knowledge in cross

You'll get -0.5 Speaks if you:

1) spread without sending doc

2) were rude in cross, spoke over the other team or interrupted them a lot

3) brought new things up in 2nd summary/1st and 2nd final focus (if you only brought up a couple new things, it won't be flowed, but I won't dock your speaks - that said, if you bring up a LOT of new things I will dock speaks)

You'll get -100000 speaks and possibly and L if you:

1) were openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

2) misrepresented evidence, let's encourage better evidence norms guys

TL;DR

tech>truth, defense is not sticky

good w substance and theory, explain other prog well (tricks are ok)

I will end the round immediately if you are remotely offensive and give you L20s.

SUBSTANCE

If you don't send docs for case with cards, speaks are capped at 28.

How to win:

Win the weighing debate and win the argument that outweighs. Whatever argument is weighed best, I look there first. Without any weighing, I will vote on path of least resistance.

FL in 2nd rebuttal, New DAs/OVs in 2nd rebuttal are fine but will have a lower threshold for response in summary. +.5 speaks for sending doc.

Defense is not sticky. The more weighing, the merrier. Collapsing is usually good but you do you.

I enjoy very fast-paced debates. Unlike some judges, I don't at all believe PF has to be "accessible and slow." If you are in varsity/open and you have me as a judge, go super fast and I will probably like you as long as you send docs.

I presume the team that lost flip unless told otherwise,

PROGRESSIVE

Good with theory, default competing interps and no RVIs.

I have no bias when it comes to theory (I will not say "they read disclosure so auto up").

If you make me evaluate under reasonability, I will probably be sad, but it is what it is.

Any other arguments like K's, tricks, etc. are fair game but require more explanation. I'm familiar with basic K structure but don't really have much knowledge of the lit. Slow down on tags for K debate.

Hiding a trick in your speech is actually ok as long as it's in the speech doc.

I have primarily debate PF. I debated for Lambert High School for 2 years, and I have overall 3 years of PF experience.

Add me on the email chain jasonme02@gmail.com

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning (Trigger Warning). Be prepared to give an alternative case if a team does opt-out. Trigger warnings are extremely serious.

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. However Cross is very underrated. Try and get concessions and try to clarify arguments.

Weighing:

- Weighing Impacts is crucial, if you don't weigh I'll have no idea why I am caring about the argument. If u take weighing to the next level, i.e comparative and link weighing more likely to pick up ballots.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't end up weighing them, then I have no idea which piece of offense I should prefer)

- Just saying Strength of link/impact weighing is not weighing

- I have a high threshold for counting Link-ins as weighing but it can be beneficial to try and use a link as an external piece of the offense.

Tech

- Defense is key to muddle arguments as well as cast doubt. extending defense is Summary should be a good strat, but you don't have to extend defense.

[Not Orginal]

- Any type of theory is good with me and is probably becoming more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. I will default to reasonability. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.] Please also weigh your standards it goings to make evaulting theory shells easier especially in a high-tech round.

- No CPs

- Weighing in first FF is okay ig? [This shouldn't happen], but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- Tech>truth, the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. Collapsing can make extensions cleaner.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round. [Note: if you read presumption please tell me why and give me a warrent on why it is true]

- Frameworks are fine. I think they are important in the round, if you drop the framework in rebuttal I will consider it dropped.

- Don't spread, if you do end send a speech doc. I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is can exclude so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks. However, if you send speech docs and the other team is fine with it then go ahead.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Hi,

I am a flow judge, however, I do appreciate the big picture throughout the debate but specifically through the last 2 speeches on both sides because that, overall, clears things up and helps me decide what to vote on.

My Debate Experience-

• South Forsyth HS Sophomore

• PF Nat Circ Debate with 5 years of experience including multiple national tournaments

Please add prakharg2805@gmail.com to the email chain if there is one created for the round.

Things to watch out for-

What I instantly drop you for (Debate is a safe space)- Cheating (card clipping, stealing prep, somehow hacking into the opponent's computer, etc.) NO BEING MEAN (no racism, homophobia, bullying, profanity, etc.)

What I vote off of- Moving on, I usually vote off of arguments in Summary. Whatever you present to me before the round I usually only flow it. The things before the summary have to be clearly extended in the summary and FF for me to vote for them. I am always trying to vote off of technical arguments made throughout the debate however whatever is not extended don't expect me to evaluate that. If you make a bogus/ bizarre argument I will not take it into account at all.

Rebuttal- 2nd rebuttal is obligated to frontline At least half if not all of the responses made in 1st rebuttal. If there are no frontlines present then I consider them dropped and easy for 1st Summary to extend without much warranting needed. I don't want to hear like 30 responses to your opponents' case because my hands start hurting and that's bad for both teams since then I can get fewer things to vote off of during summary and FF. I also do not like it when you only extend defense so also try to have at least some offense on their case if not a lot.

Extensions- I also do not like spreading but if you do it I won't drop you. If you drop an argument then you still have to answer all the turns on that argument for me to consider it dropped, if all the turns aren't answered then the opponents can still extend those. I do not care if you run a Kritik but I care if you form it in an abusive form. I am going to drop you automatically.

Final Focus- Try to clear up the big picture. I have usually made my decision by summary based on frontlines and extensions but I will still listen and if there is something big that was mentioned in summary and you blow it up I count that since it still counts according to PF rules.

Crossfire- Don't think crossfire doesn't matter in my decision. If I think that the round was a wash then I will look at every cross so I am paying attention to these as well. I do sometimes write down notes during cross if any important arguments are mentioned that were mentioned through the debate. Try to do a good job defending your argument and attacking your opponents' argument at the same time and with good warranting.

Weighing- A lot of judges care about weighing but I am not one of those. I don't like very long weighing and complicated weighing. If you do weigh make it clear and short so I can easily flow it. If you do weigh I also want it to start from Rebuttal whether be 1st or 2nd. If it starts, in summary, I consider it late and if the round comes down to weighing then I will look at it. Whichever side has the better weighing and was easier for me to flow I will vote for that side.

Cards- I will call for cards if need be. And sometimes I might just do it because I want to make sure your paraphrasing is correct and not taken out of context.

Evidence- Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the High School Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss for the round and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome-

• Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).

• Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.

• Taking more than 3 minutes to produce a piece of evidence. Failure to produce a card will not result in me “removing” a card from the flow. You will lose the round, because you have used “non-existent evidence.”

Speaking- Clarity = speed --> I want clarity and not a lot of blank time during speeches. If I don't understand your argument, I don't buy it. If you see me drop my writing utensils through the debate during any of your speeches it means you are going way too fast and I will not evaluate what I can't understand or flow.

Specific Speaker Point evaluations-

<26 --> You need to work on speaking. Not going to give this to a lot of people unless your speaking was honestly bad. Please don't be offended.

<26.1 to 26.9 --> I don't think you were very knowledgeable on the topic. Your speaking skills could be improved.

<27 - 28.9 --> Did a decent amount of job holding onto your arguments during cross. Some amount of stuttering was present but was overall good. However, you did make some bad decisions throughout the round.

<29 - 29.9 --> Smart decisions made throughout the round. I liked your arguments. You were very knowledgeable about the topic. Your speaking could be improved a little bit to just get on the perfect level but overall was good.

30 --> You are very good at defending your arguments during the crossfire. You have no stuttering and/or blank spaces in your speeches. I like your arguments a lot and you are almost an expert on the topic meaning you researched a lot in my opinion.

Thanks,

Prakhar Gupta

(Whenever ur in a round with me just put #Kallu2024 in the chat so I know u read my paradigm) I'm an experienced debater, I did policy for a year and then I did pf for about 2 years, so as you can probably see I am a tech judge. Overall i'm a pretty chill judge, I don't like interfering during rounds too much. Everyone should know what order as well as how long each speech should be so please don't ask me. If for some reason you don't know how long each speech is and in what order to give each speech don't ask your opponents or me, ask your partner. If your partner doesn't know, well...sucks to be you. I'll usually will give you no more than 5 minutes max to pre-flow so try to prep and stuff b4 hand.

Speed: I don't care how fast or slow u go. You can spread...ik u don't here that very often now do u.

Case: Lemme jut be up-front with u...don't make bad arguments. There will always be good contentions and arguments to make, so don't pick the weakest most outstretched argument in the world. It's not gonna get u anywhere, trust me! Also try not to have more then 3 contentions. (Any speech titles that r funny/creative= +.5 speaks)

Cross: Unlike most judges, I like aggressive cross fires that clash and spice the round up more, however YOU CANNOT ACT RUDE OR MAKE ANY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS. (This may seems obvious, but you'll be surprised to hear what some ppl will say to their opponents during cross!)

Response Speech: I LUV OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS (Turn, DA--> the more of these the better, Link Turns, etc. )+ NUs. Also if you are the 2nd debating team pls frontline ur opponents arguments. I won't vote you down if u don't frontline in response speech, but I will vote you down if u don't respond to all of the opponents arguments in Summary. You can weigh here but I wouldn't if I were u.

Summary: THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH IN THE ROUND. It is vital that this speech tells me these 5 things:

1. Which contention(s) your going for, and a case extension (If you don't extend ur case in Summary and ff I will cross all of ur contentions of the flow, give the other team the win, and give you 26 speaker points:)

2. Frontline: YOU MUST FRONTLINE ALL OF UR OPPONENTS RESPONSES TO THE CONTENTION UR GOING FOR AND FRONTLINE ALL OF THE TURNS MADE ON THE CONTENTION(s) YOU DROPPED. (and yes that is mandatory) If you do not frontline some of the opponents arguments, and they don't extend them in 2nd summary or ff then ur off the hook, but if not then...let's just say that ur chances of winning just went down by like 50%.

3. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, did I mention that u have to WEIGH. If you don't properly weigh u will also have lower chances of winning. Also pls don't be that one debater that tells me that the world is going to end if I don't vote for u. It'll surprise u how many times someone made the argument that nucs r gonna destroy the world if I don't vote for one side on a topic that has nothing to do whatsoever with nuclear warfare.

Types of Weighing I like:

- Pre-Req

- I can stand Magnitude if u give me some sort of META Weighing. If u don't now what that is, don't use magnitude to weigh

-Timeframe

-Scope

-Probability

(Unless ur weighing on pre-req u MUST have at least 2 of these weighing mechanisms)

4. Extend Responses, all of the responses that u don't extend will be crossed of my flow

FF: In this speech YOU MUST TELL ME WHY I SHOULD GIVE U MY BALLOT, u need to extend ur responses, case, and weighing mechanisms here if u want them to stay on the flow. (DON'T BRING UP NEW EVIDENCE, i wasn't born yesterday, i will cross it off the flow)

Speaks:

30- I'll probably nvr give anyone a 30 unless ur a world champion speaker...sry (If ur a good enough speaker and I like u I'll give u a 29.5)

29- Good Job ur not a disappointment :)

28- U were ok

27- meh u need to brush up in some areas

26- ...plz get better (I prob won't give this out to anyone)

If you read theory or ks I will find u and give u a 3 hour course about y u shouldn't use ks or theory. If u don't know what i'm talking about then consider urself blessed!

All in all, be a good kid, don't be a bad debater, and most importantly try to entertain me! (The happier i am the happier u'll be)

ey bro these are my prefs

cross x

- i don't vote off cross and i don't rlly listen to it either

- if u bring up smth from cross in ur speech and attack them on it tho i will listen to that

- don't be rude but asserting urself is fine, if ur opp rants for too long PLS cut them off

frontlining/responses

- frontlining pls!!!!!!!!! if u don't i'll vote for the other side unless u do smth rlly impressive to change my vote later on in the round

- pls use indicts!! i hate back and forth of ev with no interaction (explain why ur ev is better!)

- extend defense and offense in summary or the team has all the offense against ur case

weighing

- weigh pls - must be comparative, if u don't weigh i will be sad

- overall i love love pre-reqs, doing them will def help u win

- if you don't weigh i'll do my own weighing for u which u may or may not like

- extend ur link ALONG WITH ur impacts in weighing

- i actually like framework a lot unless u don't extend it and say how u fit in

- weigh worlds, explain ur world, then say theirs and why its worse

final focus/summary

- don't go for too much pls condense

- big picture BIG PICTURE and NARRATIVE

- weigh worlds/ weighing is a must here

- i vote mainly off summary and ff

- make it very clear for me and tie it all together. line by line is ok but wont give u an advantage

theory/kritiks

- i don't rlly like theory or ks they're too weird (but if the team actually makes a real violation i'll buy it, not smth like paraphrase theory)

- overall just run theory when it's ABSOLUTELY necessary

- personally i feel ppl should actually debate the topic lol

speaks

- be ENTHUSIASTIC, speak with emotion. try to paint a clear picture for what ur world looks like

- spreading is okay, just be clear, if not, i just wont flow

29-30: u did everything above, clean speech, amazing job

27-28: ure decent a lil messy tho

26.1-27: dropped case, poor strategic decisions

<26: u said some rlly offensive things in round (you were racist, homophobic, etc.)

if u say i'm cool in ur speech ill give u .5 more speaker pts

other things

- paraphrasing is ok just dont misrepresent ev

- don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. i'll automatically drop u

- tech>truth

- pls have ev ready, if u take more than 2 mins to find ur card ill tell u guys to move on

- add me to the email chain keeshaomin@gmail.com

- i LOVE DAs pls read them ur speaks will soar

- don't be sticky

- cheating is not okay u'll lose immediately (stealing prep, outside help, etc.)

- i trust ya'll to time ur own prep

tech>truth

Things that I don't like and will auto give you a loss for:

1. Profanity, racism, anything else that is offensive

2. No cheating. like stealing prep or any other type of cheating.

Down the debate:

Contention: I dont rlly care what type of case you run as long as it has evidence and warranting. Also, make sure it relates back to the topic. Warranting > Evidence

Crossfire: I'm not going to be listening to crossfire that much so if there is something important you want me to flow, say it in the speech.

Rebuttal: Just go down their case and you can weigh if you want. Second rebuttal must frontline at minimum the offense but defense is preferred.

Summary: As a first speaker, this is the hardest and most important speech. Unless it's completely one sided, I am probably getting close to casting my ballot here. Impact weighing must start here if you want me to evaluate it. Also, defense isn't sticky so extend everything and don't forget to frontline.

Final Focus: Summarize the debate here. This speech should be almost identical to summary and I'm not going to evaluate anything new. The only thing that can be new is weighing mech's but at least extend the ones used in summary.

Weighing: This is one of the most important things in the debate so don't mess up. I need to see interactive weighing or else I'm probably just not going to evaluate weighing at all.

Speaker points: I usually start my speaker points around 28.5, and go up and down depending on how you do throughout the round. Speaker points will rarely affect my ballet.

Theory and most prog: I'm not the best at evaluating prog arguments so make sure you run it well if you want me voting on it. Also, don't run any wacky theory because the more wacky the theory is the less likely I am to vote on it. I dont really know K's yet so you can run it but I'm probably not gonna understand a word you are saying.

Disclosure: I believe that disclosure is a good norm so you should do it.

Make sure to signpost, if you don't I'm probably not going to be able to flow it meaning it's harder for me to vote for you.

If you actually read all of this then make a reference to the Atlanta Falcons, (good or bad) and get +1 speaks.

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

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

ʚEllie Jellyɞ ʚDictator of the Universeɞ ʚStuggɞ

꒷꒦꒷‧˚.‧꒦꒷꒦ ꒷꒦‧˚꒷꒦꒷꒦꒷‧˚.‧꒦꒷꒦ ꒷꒦‧˚꒷꒦

ʚBackgroundɞ 8th Grade. I debate PF at Ivy Bridge and did policy before that. Don't lay adapt me- I know what I'm doing. (Probably) I'm also probably younger than you, so don't call Ms. Liu or anything like that.

ʚUseful Infoɞ Don't spread. Please keep your own time. 4 minutes of prep. Please don't go like 30 seconds over time. I won't stop you, but I'll nuke speaks.

ʚConstructiveɞ Please no Ks or Theory. I'd prefer more stock arguments, but running more squirrelly arguments is fine as long as they make sense. Read a trigger warning if your case contains sensitive content.

ʚCrossfireɞ I honestly don't care what happens here. I'll be listening (or zoning out--depends what mood I'm in). If you want me pay attention tell me before the round. If someone concedes something, make sure to say so in one of the later speeches because I probably missed it in cross.

ʚRebuttalɞ Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Go down the flow and don't go in some random order. More offensive arguments are good. Please signpost or I be like >:(

ʚSummaryɞ Summary is the most important speech so don't screw up. My standards are that you to your side, their side, and weighing. Anything not extended will be dropped for the round. Make sure to win your case.

ʚFinal Focusɞ Write me your ballot and tell a good narrative. Other then that do the same thing as you would summary.

ʚSpeaksɞ I'll start you at whatever speaks you earned. Spread: -1. Obviously didn't read my paradigm: -1. Rude, racist, sexist, or homophobic: Automatic 26. Theory or Ks: Automatic 26. Call me dictator of the universe: +1. Show me your cat: +1. Cat puns in contention name: +1. Follow me on Instagram: +1 (you can not unfollow afterward or -1 toes for you)

ʚVotingɞ I vote off of who has the strongest case at the end of the round. Weighing is also important, so please weigh. If a team has a framework I'll prioritize that framework. Give me voters and you increase the chance of me voting for you.

꒷꒦꒷‧˚.‧꒦꒷꒦ ꒷꒦‧˚꒷꒦꒷꒦꒷‧˚.‧꒦꒷꒦ ꒷꒦‧˚꒷꒦

Other Paradigms:

Aanya Baddela

Fiona Qi

Eshawnvie Kallu

꒷꒦꒷‧˚.‧꒦꒷꒦ ꒷꒦‧˚꒷꒦꒷꒦꒷‧˚.‧꒦꒷꒦ ꒷꒦‧˚꒷꒦

ʚEmailɞ ella.ruohan.liu@gmail.com

ʚInstagramɞ itz_ellie_jelly

#Liu24

**I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE**

add me to the email chain: stutim304@gmail.com

for context, i’ve done pf debate for 5 years and have been doing policy for 2 years. i’ve taught a couple of kids for summer camp, so i am relatively familiar with the technical side of pf. however, i have not debated pf for 2 years, meaning that i am not familiar with pf kritiks and new theory. please explain those arguments especially well.

case:

cases need to have clear links, impacts, and a uniqueness. if there is no impact, i cannot really evaluate it.

tech > truth in most cases.

summaries & final focuses:

no new ev or arguments in final focus, new arguments in summaries are permitted if the other team doesn’t bring it up. also, since i have no knowledge on this topic, send out analytics.

weighing:

weighing is a super big part of my decision, so i expect it to be in your summary and carried into your final focus. weighing must be extended and fully explained. i prefer pre-req, probability, magnitude, and timeframe in that order.

speaking:

i’m ok with speed, but be clear. if i can’t understand you, i will let you know. however, if i cannot understand you repeatedly, it is not going my flow so i can’t evaluate it.

arguments:

dropped arguments = true arguments. if your opponent drops your argument, bring it up in a speech. for kritiks, i don’t know how these work in pf, but i do understand policy kritiks so explain them well. for theory, again, i’m willing to vote on it but explain it well.

timing:

i will time your speeches but you should as well.

***

hate speech, homophobia, racism, etc. will result in lowest speaks and a loss.

all in all, it’s novice division, i’m going to let a lot slide because this is a learning experience for you all! if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

for +.2 speaker points, buy me a snack before round <3

Tech Judge with a few caveats:

- Tech > truth. The real world isn't a debate round, external factors always play a role in impacts. Debate competitions should be evaluating the debaters on debate skills, not the actual merits of either side of a resolution.

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to answer first rebuttal. All frontlining needs to be in Summary.

- Anything in FF needs to be in Summary, responses must be extended from RT to Summary to FF to count, answering front lining along the way. Start weighing in Summary, Rebuttal has too many burdens on its back already. Weighing is getting more important now that more teams seem to be finally learning how debate works.

-Weigh not at your own peril, for it is a nice way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This isn't a chess tournament. You don't win by moving and capturing pieces. You win on how your impacts relate to your opponents'.

- Extension through ink = a dropped RT/argument.

- Summary needs to answer rebuttal and extend any RTs that want to be used in Final Focus. NSDA ought to rename Summary to “Frontline” or “Second Rebuttal.” May help clear up some doubts.

- X outweighs Y is not really a response. If dropped, I will consider X to outweigh Y unless there are other impacts the team advocating Y has which may combine to end up in a ballot for team arguing Y.

- Turns must be implicated and weighed. The only exception is when you do a direct turn (ex: one team says "XYZ increases econ growth" and you read a turn saying "XYZ decreases econ growth"). Even then, you should weigh it for speaks and to make it easier to evaluate, but I won't drop it off immediately like I will with an indirect turn.

- Framework/Overview needs cards, serious warranting. Too many teams use this as a way to juke out inexperienced teams. CBA default.

- Cleanly outline your arguments when you extend them in summary and final focus. Ideally you are also extending important card names as well, but at minimum uniqueness, links, and impacts should be extended if you want me to evaluate them.

- Keep crossfire polite and use it for its intended purpose. Incorporate general topic knowledge and explain ideas well. Too many teams go all out rude in elims to gain as much dominance as possible (whether early elim rounds at random state tourney all the way to late elims at varsity Harvard/TOC). This harms educational value in debate.

-Progressive argumentation (K, theory) has little place in PF. Sign up for a different event if you don’t like this. Topicality may be fine depending on the topic since some topics allow for different interpretations of implementation methods, which may have different impacts.

- Plans/CPs have no place in PF. They will not be weighed. Existing alternatives/plans may be considered based on their odds of enactment. Definition of counterplan can be debated as well.

- Avoid referring to your opponents using gendered language.

-Speed is cool, but speed is inversely proportional to nuance that I flow. It's your job to ensure I get down what you want me to, not mine. PF isn't policy lite, and some debaters are beginning to push the boundaries a bit too much. Don’t be one of them.

- If evidence is indicted, the evidence in question must be shown to the judge. I may call cards at my discretion.

- In the ridiculously unlikely event that the debate ends in a tie on impacts(may happen if both sides links are both completely destroyed), I take a page from Policy/LD and vote Con on presumption. Don't stress about this, it almost never happens even at the highest levels.

For COVID-19 season:

- Turn your cameras on, stand up, and use gestures like you normally would. If for some reason you can’t do that, tell me BEFORE the round.

- Doesn’t matter if you can’t get on the call, your prep will be running anyway cause I have no way to know if you are lying or not. I keep the official prep, I don't care if your timer is off. Excessive dilly-dallying will cut against your speaker points and may count against your timer.

- Keep the mike close enough so we can all hear.

- I don't do oral RFDs. I drop the speech-by-speech comments into the chat, and then you can ask questions. That forces you to read the speech-by-speech commentary which I spend time and effort writing up. In my experience, this leads to more questions about the reasoning behind the decision and thus improvements that can be made for the future instead of the usual obsession with a W or an L.

Speaks: (Given in 1/10th increments unless tournament rules state otherwise.)

Speaks are getting too inflated, may adjust scale downwards later to help change norms.

<26 means you were disruptive, violated an NSDA rule for which the penalty is a forfeit, or technical forfeit (COVID season). F

26.1-26.9 means you need SIGNIFICANT improvement and/or probably dropped case. Failing to cleanly extend case, responses, or frontline in summary or final focus is an easy way to earn this score. This score means you had absolutely no clue what you were doing in one or more speeches. D

27-27.9 means you missed more than a handful of things on the flow or made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round. You may have had a general idea of what you needed to do, but stumbled through the details. C

28-28.9 means you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing. Maybe a few minor things conceded or extended through ink. You had a general idea of what to do, and got most of the details correct, but the errors were somewhat obvious and detracted from your performance. B

29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, you do comparative weighing. No major tactical or strategic blunders. Nothing is dropped or extended through ink. You got pretty much all of the details correct, and even the most astute observer would have to squint really hard to notice your errors. A

29.8-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments AND THE WEIGHING MECHANISMS, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy. A+

- 2nd speakers: Sometimes, your partner screws stuff up in Summary and you had the skills to do it better, but your speaks are low because of the "no new content in FF" rules. Since Summary and FF are almost identical these days, in a PRELIM ROUND you can bring up new frontlines and weighing in FF and I will keep that in consideration when awarding speaks. However, new stuff will NOT affect the W/L decision. In elims, no speaks are awarded, so don't bother.

- The best debaters transcend the round itself and provide a clear narrative beyond technical jargon. Enough with lay judge, flay judge, tech judge.... The best debaters distinguish themselves in front of all judges. Tell jokes, analogies, give good examples to enhance speaker points. If you know the ins and outs of the topic and your case, you will surprise yourself as to how well you do.

- This paradigm will be adapted as PF debate community norms change. Ask BEFORE the round to clear up doubts about paradigm.

- Embrace the suck. You only get to do competitive debate for so long, you might as well enjoy it. If you find this exhausting or boring, know you’ll probably have to do even more frustrating things in life. Just do yourself a favor and learn how to get through it now.

Hey Guys,

My name is Harsh Punjabi. My preferences are listed below.

1. Speed doesn't matter as long as i can keep up. I will tell you to slow down if you are speaking too fast.

2. Most important- Be respectful to your opponents and your teammates.

3. keep your own time for debate. i will keep time too, but you should keep your own time and stop when you know. I can deduct points from prep if you go overtime, but i will tell you about it

4. Make sure you weigh impacts or aleast try to because that will be very important as you go on in debate.

5. If you have any questions, be sure to ask before the debate, and i will be happy to answer any questions you have.

6 Tip- Look at all of your judges paradigms to see what their preferences are.

Thats all and Good luck!

-I have been doing pf debate for 4 years and around 1 year of policy before that (not that I remember anything)(so don't you dare lay adapt me, I know what im doing. most of the time)

bribe me with food and you will probably win because food=life (bring me boba for more speaks)

-don't give me bs cards and take 5748 years to fine them

OVERALL: Don't be stupid, dumb, drop cases, racist, homophobic, etc. I hate abusive ppl, dont be abusive!!!!

Case- Don't make crazy stupid arguments, stock contentions are better than arguments I don't understand. But if your running stock cases don't make it too boring or i'll fall asleep and you will not win. Also, try to run more than 1 contention. Extend your case throughout summary and ff or else I will consider it dropped.

Rebuttal- Frontline in 2nd Response. Go down the flow, and please signpost or I'll be sad. If reading a turn spend time on it and give me an impact, not some wishy-washy "we turn their case bc turkey actually supports terrorism. the end" You need to spend at least 15 sec on it if you are going to extend it. DON'T HAVE TIME LEFT OVER. This goes for all speeches but if you have like a minute left just weigh or do analytics, time is money in debate.

Summary- Don't bring up anything new. Just extend responses, defense, and offense. Summary is extremely important don't drop stuff. Dropping= Bad. In summary heres what I need to see:

1. Case extensions (your case) if you don't extend then i will say you dropped your case. Here you can concede on one contention, link, subpoint, etc. This is a good tactic but make sure to extend responses completely.

2. Frontlines. Yeah just frontline your case please, if you don't frontline in 2nd response then it this dosen't matter SO FRONTLINE IN 2ND RESPONSE.

3. Extend offense. yup do that please!

4. Weighing. YOU BETTER WEIGH. And please weigh more, don't just weigh on magnitude that's stupid. Also, make sure to give me warrants and quantification. Don't just be like: We win on magnitude because we save lives, We win on timeframe because our impacts come first. Please don't do that. see weighing section for more info)(also see charlie zhangs paradigm where he took the time to write a paragraph about it)

FF- Just basically say what you said in summary but don't make it boring. Make sure to weigh or else I won't count your impacts. Try your best to gimme voters.

Cross- It's useless unless you bring it up later

Weighing- Don't be ✨basic ✨. don't just weigh on magnitude or probability or timeframe. Also weigh on prereq, short circuit, etc. I'm fine with meta weighing Don't just weigh on 1 thing. When you got same impacts but dif mechanisms META WEIGH. WEIGHING IS IMPORTANT. Found this on someone paradigm i forgot who-

K/Theory: I HATE K'S WITH A DEEP PASSION, IF YOU USE ONE I WILL DROP YOU. THEY ARE STUPID AND USELESS. IF YOU DARE READ A THEORY IM GONNA FIND A WAY TO GIVE YOU NEGATIVE SPEAKS OR JUST GIVE YOU A 10 I DONT CARE IF TABROOM DOESN'T ALLOW IT. I WILL FIND A WAY.

Speed: I fine with talking fast, but don't spread. If I can't hear you I can't flow you. If you read faster than 300 wpm send me your speech doc.

Time: Keep your own time. Finishing your sentence is fine but I won't flow any other points after time. Also keep your own prep, im to lazy to sit there with a stopwatch. If you go over prep I will dock speaks. Please don't abuse time. I had teams go "im just finishing my flow" 20 seconds after a speech or making ff 4 min and making us interrupt them twice. Don't be like leaping learners please!

Other things:

Turns: If you want me to evaluate one you must extend it clearly with an impact. Dont just be like "they dropped this turn, vote aff."

Defense isn't sticky

disads bad

Speaks (speaker points):~~~~~~~~

I start you at 28

-speaks to fast= -1

-funny contention names= +1

-be rude= -3

-interesting to listen to= +1

-be not boring=+.5

30- rare

29- I will usually give out these if you are a great speaker.

28- Ig my average if your 28 and over you are great in my opinion

27- Still good don't feel too bad

26- get better lol

VOTING:

how i vote-

have a strong case, read turns please, don't drop things, don't randomly point out the other team dropped things. And if you read a turn about nuclear extinction wiping west Africa off the map you will instantly win.

more paradigms

Eshawnvie Kallu, Charlie Zhang, Aditi Kothari, Spoorthi Kakarla, Ella Liu, Aanya Baddela and Paheli Patel. On second thought don't read Ella's paradigm. aka a bunch of ppl who raged after harvard

follow my ig (real)

@uheartfdiona

Typing this on my phone the morning of so I'll keep it brief I'm an experienced debater with five years of PF, so any argument (san the obvious ones, anything -ist will get you an L26 + report to Tab, so don't try anything) is good with me, trust that I will be flowing everything in speech and will vote on anything on my flow.

I don't listen to cross so anything you want me to consider bring up in next speech.

Weighing is v important and unless you have it in summary, I'm not flowing it final focus, MAKE SURE ITS COMPARATIVE, weighing is at least half my ballot and will decide who wins the round 99.9% of the time.

Nothing is sticky, extend it verbally or it's dropped on the flow.

Speed is fine, but if you're going to spread send a speech doc or disclose online.

Turns should not be dropped

If you bring me food I'll love you forever and will maybe (okay definitely) give you extra speaks

Also if you email aanya2cool@gmail.com and tell her I'm cooler than her I'll give you extra speaks(show me the email)

If you make a joke that makes me laugh I'll give you speaks ????????

Hi,

I am a PF debater in ivy bridge. Debate is a safe place, I will instantly drop for (racism, homophobia, sexism etc.) You can go full tech in a debate round, that's fine with me. I am a tech > truth judge. I vote off of summary and rebuttals most of the time.

Main point Speech: Very straightforward, just read your case. I am fine with speed, but I will give you extra speaks if you send speech doc.

Rebuttal: First rebuttal, just read responses to your opponents case. I prefer you go down their case unq, links, and impacts so you cover all of it, and it ends up helping you when I write the ballot. Anything you say, clearly warrant it with evidence or I won't buy it. I would also like you to weigh when getting to their impacts and say why yours outweigh. This would look really good to me and might get you extra speaks. Second response speech, go ahead the respond to their speech and then frontline. To be honest, frontlining in 2nd rebuttal looks very good to the judge and will get you extra speaks. But remember that the primary focus of rebuttal is to get as many responses against you opponent's case, so don't waste all you time frontlining because it ends up helping your opponents when their case goes clean conceded. Follow the impact weighing technique I pointed out for first rebuttal here as well and you will be fine. I am a second speaker myself so rebuttal is very important to me so keep that in mind when debating. One more thing for both sides, even if you have a lot of responses against their case, they need to be strong and quality responses for them to stand.

Summary: This is a very important speech and it plays out into my ballot a lot at the end. 1st summary needs to frontline, extend your case, weigh, and extend responses against your opponent's case. It might seem like a lot but if you do this well then you are most likely going to win the debate. 2nd summary, it is fine with me if you only respond to what they extend. Remember to extend your case and weigh.You need to extend responses here as well. This goes for both summaries, but if anything is dropped, then you need to extend it in this speech for me to vote off of it. Remember that for both summaries, collapsing here would look really good and help you save a lot of time to get to all the needed components of your case. Collapsing can be done in 2nd rebuttal itself but a summary is the key place that you need to do it in.

Final Focus: Give me the big picture and put the ballot in my hands. I really don't have a specific way you need to do your final focus, just go for the method that you know will clearly write the ballot and make me vote for your side without thinking too hard.

Cross: I don't flow cross but I do listen to it. If cross is super good and one side does extremely well, I will go ahead and take that into decision. Aggressive cross fires are encouraged, just don't be rude.

Weighing: It will make it so much easier for me to vote for you if you weigh. Impact weighing needs to be comparative to make an impression. Just stating your impacts doesn't really prove why you outweigh, so remember to comparatively weigh.

Theories are okay with me but I feel like they are a bit unnecessary. I would much rather have a debate with substance instead of theories.

Speaks: If you are very knowledgeable of the topic, have clear warrants and a good speaking style, I will give you good speaks.

Send me speech doc or buy me starbucks to get higher speaks. Also humor is always appreciated and I would be really happy if you made a funny reference (relatable to the topic ofc) when you are giving a speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions and have fun debating!

Yaashmita Senthilnathan

Hi! My name is Saanvi Sinha. I have debated Public Forum for 6 years. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to debate, so don't question me on my decision after round.

Non-negotiable, you being rude(sexism, racism. bullying, homophobia, etc.) in round or before, results in a dent in your speaker points and a loss. Debate should be a safe community, and if it's not, my view of you is never going to be good.

Some general stuff, I will be keeping a timer, but I would recommend keeping your own timer. Please notify me of the amount of prep time just so that we can make sure we have no problems ("running prep", "30 seconds"). Just so you know, I don't flow crossfire, but if you address me, I will write it down. If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc before, otherwise rules below apply. Also, this is just me, but don't eat with your camera on. I get nats are long and not fun sometimes, but just turn your camera off if you are going to eat.

Be respectful at the end of the round too, I know you might be sad about losing, but I still want to see a "Thanks for debating" or "Good debate" at the very least.As a judge, I give verbal feedback at the end of the round. Going verbally allows me to give you more in-depth feedback, but if you are not okay with me doing so, please let me knowbefore the round starts so I can type it up. Also, I usually like to give detailed feedback so that after every round you can improve as much as possible. What this means is that I don't think you are a bad debater, just everyone has room for improvement, so I like to point that out, rather than what you are good at.

Before the round, you can ask me any questions that you have about my paradigm (terminology and if I didn't address anything). I know I sound like a lot, I just don't want anyone to be confused about anything.

Novice PF

1. Case-For most Novice students, they aren't allowed to create their own contentions. If you are allowed, I would ask that the contention is not too far-fetched, as you are only a novice student.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses. It is not required for the 2nd speaker to frontline (respond to responses), but I would definitely recommend it. If you do frontline, please frontline the turns. If you frontline, but don't frontline the turns, I might not buy your case and it would be difficult for you to win.

3. Summary- Summary must frontline on both sides if not done so in the earlier speeches. I would recommend extending responses, as I would know what I am voting on, but if you don't, I will still evaluate it. I consider a case extended if you frontline it or talk about it.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important. It isn't necessary to weigh in Novice, but I would definitely suggest it.

5. Speaking- Typically, Novices speak at a good speed, but if you don't clarity is more important. As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I don't usually call for cards, but if I do, I need you to have cards, or I will not evaluate it in the round. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I don't care about that point anymore.

If you have reached this point, tell me your favorite thing to do before the round starts for +0.3 speaker points.

JV PF

I don't like theory or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so don't waste time doing that.

1. Case- Some of y'all have more far fetched arguments. I would say stay out of the memes and focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses.

Try to implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn should have an impact or you need to weigh the turn, otherwise I'd probably evaluate it as offense.

For JV, I would want the second rebuttal to frontline at least the turns, or I will be extending them on your case. You do not have to respond to every single point, but I would like you to respond to the majority of the arguments, and at the very least, the turns.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You can try to respond to they're frontlines, but it isn't required, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended to again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Weighing is the most important thing in final focus, so please spend time weighing in the speech. Comparative weighing is preferred because it allows me to compare why I should weigh one type of weighing over the other.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point.

Varsity PF

I don't really like theories or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so maybe don't waste time doing that. If you have to read theory, just don't contradict yourself (ex. para but your cards are paraphrased).

1. Case- Some of y'all have far- fetched arguments. Focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments. This however, doesn't require it to be on a generic packet, I recommend you do that, but just don't lead to any sketchy or weird arguments. One thing to highlight, and this goes for any judge, if they aren't able to understand what your contention is about, it's not likely for a win, so keep that in mind.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, but just signpost if you don't. Implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn needs to have an impact or you need to weigh the turn otherwise it will not be evaluated as a turn, instead as offense. I'd prefer you respond to the impact, and not just cross-apply your responses on their link-ins. For Varsity, I require the second rebuttal to frontline (most of the responses) to the contentions you are extending, or I will be extending the responses on your case.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Make sure to extend impacts as well, I would recommend writing out how you are going to extend it so that's there's not a lot of "uhs" and "ums." Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You should respond to their frontlines that they made, because otherwise that's just extending through ink. I want to see why their frontline doesn't apply, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." By the way, weighing is not saying "our impacts are .... and their impacts are." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended on your case again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the most important things, so give me the voters of what you want me to vote on. Any offense and defense that you want me to focus on should me emphasized. Weighing is the most important thing in the speech, so please spend most of your time doing that. You must do comparative weighing in this speech. Please for my sanity, don't introduce new things in final focus. My ballot is pretty much already decided by summary speech, so it's not going to do anything, and just make me think of you/your partner as a bad debater/speaker.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point AND speaker points. You cannot miscut evidence after this much experience. There is the evidence out there, you have to put in the effort to look for it, and if it's really not out there, don't run the argument :)

Hi!

Here's my paradigm for novice debaters.

-I will drop you if you try to cheat during the round. Examples of cheating are taking extra prep time, card clipping, etc..

-No racism, homophobia, or bullying should occur during the round.

Cards

I will call for cards if the card supports one of the main arguments argued in the round. If you don't have a card and your argument is clearly flawed, I am going to drop that argument or give it to the other side.

Contentions

-You can read your contentions as fast as you want to, but make sure arguments are still articulated and understandable.

-Try to make sure you don't go over the time limit. There's no penalty but I will stop you if you go over 15 seconds.

Rebuttal/2nd Speech

-Make sure you flow throughout the debate. Make sure you respond to most/all of the opponents arguments made in their case. REMEMBER: 2nd Speaker should frontline to make the case more organized. If you give me a list of 10 arguments with no evidence, I am not going to buy them unless you give me specific evidence. I may even call for the cards at the end so be sure that ALL arguments presented in the round have evidence (logical or cards).

Crossfire

-NO RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, OR BULLYING SHOULD OCCUR DURING THE ROUND OR EVEN IN CROSSFIRE.

Weighing

Weighing is a big voter for me. If your impact is 2,000 people are dying, but the opponents impacts are 10,000 people dying I will vote for whoever articulates and weighs their arguments better.

Extra Tips

If you cannot speak with clarity and talk fast, talk slowly. I will not vote you if I do not understand your arguments.

What I Vote For

-The side has given me clear arguments that make sense.

-All of the sides arguments are extended in summary and final focus.

I will not evaluate what is not extended.

-Evidence for most arguments presented in the round.

-Responds to all the opponents arguments.

-I am a Truth > Tech judge.

-WEIGHS IMPACTS (magnitude, scope, probability, etc...)

sohamverma03@gmail.com - add me to the email chain pls

PF

Tech>truth - Front lining is also a must. These are key to winning debates and I vote for arguments that are clashed. If something is dropped by both teams I don't make my decision based on it.

If you drop a case that still has turn on it and the other team extends it, IT COUNTS AS OFFENSE. It's technically reverting their point toward them therefore it is an offense and is a valid point to argue for. If you flesh out a turn well you can very likely win the debate because of it. Impact weighing is key and for me to evaluate it you must relate to any of the weighing mechanisms. Most teams just talk about their impact but I need you to compare it for me... so like saying why their impact is bad. If a team frontlines a response and the other team does not respond to the frontline I will count that response as dropped. please collapse flesh out warrants well.

Policy

Your speech should probably follow along the border of this:

1AC - Aff reads plan and advantage.100% just reading the evidence

1NC - Reads DA's and advantage answer.- 95% evidence, 5% analytics. Some people include analytics on cases or mention things that were said in cross-ex (CX)

2AC - Extends 1AC to explain why 1NC case defense is wrong & reads answers to DA's - case is all extensions NO CARDS unless absolutely necessary, answers to DA's are 95% cards, 5% analytics that you think of or come from CX

2NC/1NR - Extend DA's and advantage answers --- 50/50 cards and extensions you want to extend 1NC cards and then support them with more evidence

1AR - Re-extends what was said in the 2AC on the case & choose the strongest arguments to go for on the DAs (Can't go for everything b/c 1AR is 5 minutes vs Neg block which is 13 minutes) - -- 80% extensions, may need a card here or there for new things read in the block

2NR - Makes final decision on what the neg is going to go for. For example, if reading 2 DAs, 2N has to choose 1 to all in on. Do impact calc on the DA vs the advantages - 100% ANALYTICS AND EXTENSIONS

2AR - Makes final decision on what the aff is going to go for. Only extend 1 advantage and do impact calc on the ADV VS DA - 100% ANALYTICS AND EXTENSIONS

Just make sure to clash a lot and win dropped args and ill end up voting for u

1. You've missed the round if I can't decipher your points and grasp what you're saying.

2. I prefer scientific evidence; attempting to win an irrational case would not win you the round.

3. I like a well-planned/thought-out case that makes common sense - I like being able to link the dots.

4. I'm able to flow, but not as well as anyone who judges PFD every weekend.

5. Do not be impolite. I can handle assertive people, but yelling, belittling critics, eye-rolling, head tossing, and general scorn are not appropriate. You will win the game, but only with 20 speaker points.

6. Please weigh at the end of your speeches or I will not take them into consideration.

7. Please do not talk monotoned, you will have low speaker points even if you do win the round.

8. 2nd rebuttal is required to frontline all of the opponent's responses.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at zarinawang0518@gmail.com.