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

Decision basis:

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

Other Notes:

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

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

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

Prefs cheat sheet:

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

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

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

Miscellaneous notes:

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

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

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

I'm a decent judge for you if:

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

I'm not a great judge for you if:

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

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

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

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

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Alanna Cronk

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

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 :)

I competed in public forum for Acton-Boxborough.

Rebuttal

I have little to no tolerance for new frontlines in second summary (if you’re second speaking team and didn’t frontline at all in rebuttal)

Theory

I don’t know how to debate theory and honestly don’t understand it. Don’t run paraphrase/disclosure/other theory in front of me; I won’t vote off of it. That being said, if your opponent is being sexist/racist/ableist/discriminatory in any way, call them out on it; clearly warrant and explain what they are doing and why it is harmful (if you are the one being offensive you’re getting auto dropped and lowest speaks I can give). In general though, no theory.

• Don’t hesitate to ask if you have questions or if there is any way I can make the round more accessible for you.

• email is ashleydawn@college.harvard.edu for evidence chains

Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks

Please time/record yourselves and each other

Email: maximilian.dittgen@gmail.com

Hunter '21

Hi, I'm Max! I did four years of LD in high school, reaching a few bid rounds and attending NCFLs twice.

It's been a bit since I've last heard spreading so please start at 70%ish and work your way up from there.

I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. The online format makes it pretty hard to catch blippy arguments. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.

I mainly read Idpol Ks in high school (setcol and abolition), but when reading a K to me make sure link, alt, and impact are all very clearly explained in the 2N. I don't necessarily know what your K means--I like brief (~15-45 seconds) overviews (plural!) on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense. I like unorthodox alts if they make sense in the context of the K and will reward them with higher speaks if they're good.

--

Update after Ridge: I'm open to hearing disclosure theory, but my threshold for voting for it will increase as the violation becomes less egregious. If you forego substance debate for a disclosure theory shell, either explain your voters extremely well, or make sure there's a legitimate abuse story.

--

Update for Big Lex and Columbia: Although I've never competed in PF, I have been teaching it to 5-10th graders for two years--please don't feel like you need to adapt for me and I'll try to evaluate your arguments as fairly as possible! However, I don't have any topic knowledge, so please be a bit patient with topic-specific knowledge and acronyms.

--

Update after Big Lex: I won't vote on explicit counterplans in PF--however, I believe that if the neg side proves an alternative to legalizing drugs that is happening or has a possibility of happening in the status quo solves case and avoids disadvantages, I'll vote on it

Hello!

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

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

Puns are always appreciated.

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

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

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

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

Specifics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 did PF for 3 years at Newton South and am currently a freshman in college.

General:

I will be flowing the round, but I prefer a flay debate over a super tech debate. If you're spreading, I probably won't be able to understand you. I will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and has evidence extended throughout the round.

Please don't be rude to your opponents, I will tank speaks and it'll be more difficult to win my ballot.

Progressive:

I don't have much experience with progressive arguments, so run at your own risk.I think paraphrasing and non-disclosure are fine, just don't misconstrue evidence.

Frontlining:

Frontlines should be made for any offense you want to go for later in the round. Otherwise, I will consider the argument dropped.

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

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

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

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

• I default to the first speaking team.

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

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate in my opinion.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

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

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

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

I use she/her pronouns.

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

General Important Stuff (everyone):

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum Stuff (everyone in PF):

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

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

I vibe with a good narrative and consistent rhetoric.

Signpost!!

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

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

Frontline in second rebuttal! Second summary is too late.

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive Argument Stuff (not for novices):

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

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

Other Stuff (everyone):

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

I prefer chill and friendly rounds with lighthearted banter.

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

Fist bumps are the move.

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

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

newton south’s subpar wifi deleted my paradigm ???? i echo emma chen & alicia gu, so read both ‼️

tldr: i've debated for acton-boxborough, on the local & nat. circuit, for 3 years (and hv debated at big lex every yr!!!)

if you are mean, you will leave w/ a 20

for the love of god, collapse; implicate; and weigh, but do NOT call me judge

NO card dump; it's atrocious

probability weighing is fake !!!!

+0.5 for every taylor swift or tiktok reference

30 if you hv candy for me AND follow @sammy_liu526 on instagram before round

feel free to fb message or email me (sivapriyamp@gmail.com) w/ any questions/concerns!

happy debating ????

Hey Debaters!

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

• Matching summaries and FF

• I allow extensions from rebuttal to FF

• I want to see defending case in 2nd rebuttal

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

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

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

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

I will take notes.

Hi! My name is Wasan (she/her/hers) and I am a first-year college student. I was a PF debater for four years in high school. I’m a flow judge.

Preferences:

1. Some speed is fine, but please do not spread
2. Tech > Truth, but I appreciate a good narrative
3. Logic + evidence > logic response > evidence without warranting
4. Please weigh. Try to avoid buzzwords (ex: “we win on magnitude”) and prioritize warranted weighing. Metaweighing is meta-cool!
5. Frontline turns/address any weighing in second rebuttal
6. Warrant responses and properly extend case/impacts
7. Collapse by summary. 1-2 arguments are a good range
8. I am not experienced with theory and I do not want to judge a round off of it

Important: Be nice to each other!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Looking forward to it!

Hi! My name is Kay Rollins. I am a junior at Harvard University. I competed for the Potomac School in Virginia for five years, where I did extemp (and some Oratory and Public Forum). Here’s what I look for in round:

PF:

Note: PF is about being accessible to the public, and theory is (largely) inaccessible. Please keep all of your points topical to the resolution. I can handle speed, but PF is not policy, so no spreading.

1. Tech>Truth

2. I am a flow judge. If you drop arguments, you lose them.

3. No theory. I do not care if the other team did not have their case on the Wiki. Public Forum argument should be topical to the resolution.

4. Signpost your speeches and weigh your arguments. If you don't tell me WHY your arguments matter, I cannot evaluate them.

5. I don't flow cross-ex, but that doesn't mean I'm not listening. Make that time count.

Extemp:

1. The MOST BASIC RULE of exemp is to ANSWER THE QUESTION. If you do not clearly answer the question, I will drop you. Common pitfalls in answering the question: Changing "how should" to "should" or vice versa, ignoring a comparative in the question (like "Who is best qualified to be secretary of state" requires you to compare people, not just explain why one person is qualified), changing actors (if a question asks you how congress should address an issue, don't tell me what Biden should do).

2. Analysis is much more important than presentation in extemp. Your presentation (fluency, delivery, etc) should not be so bad as to distract from your content, but your content is what matters.

3. No personal AGDs or non-topical AGDs. If the topic is about Syria, don’t compare it to a middle school lunchroom dynamic or a fight with your siblings. Do not compare the war in Ukraine to a Taylor Swift song. However, if you want to make a joke about a real-world event that was funny, that's fair game. Check out r/nottheonion for funny, real news stories.

4. Your points should be distinct (no bleed between points)

5. If you have a point about how we should change something, be specific about what we should change (like a certain law, regulation, etc) and how that would happen.

6. Have fun! Be yourself! RELAX!

For all events (both speech and debate):
1. Have fun, be respectful, and try to make good arguments (or a good performance)

2. Any discriminatory actions/language will result in an automatic drop

Good luck; I look forward to watching your speeches!

If you have any problems, email me at krollins@college.harvard.edu

don't be an ass lol

paradigm

In bold is just for Mardi Gras:

1. IF YOU VOTE FOR ME FOR MARDI GRAS KING I WILL GIVE YOU 30 SPEAKS!

2. If you say ENYA at all in your speech or randomly in round I'll boost your speaker points by .5

Normal paradigm:

Hello! I'm Jane, a senior at Newton South high school and I debate PF.

I use she/her/hers pronouns :)

I am flow but please don't speak too quickly because I'm lazy

I LOVE warranting and weighing! So please do that; otherwise, I'm probably gonna vote for the team that extends their argument the best :)

Collapsing: Do it.

Please frontline in second rebuttal! I think it makes the round sooooo much nicer:)

Have fun and be nice!

Feel free to ask me any questions!

If you're homophobic, sexist, racist, disrespectful of any kind, or just plain rude, I'll drop you and tank your speaks ;)

Hi! I'm a senior at Newton South and a third-year PF debater. My most distinguished accomplishment is placing last out of (I think) 8 teams at a local Big Questions Debate event.

Overall:

The most important thing is to be nice and respectful to each other. If you're mean, I'll be sad.

I appreciate smart debating. For example, don't read 10 responses to a contention that's 100 words. Also, if you're word efficient but speak slowly, I value that more than speaking really quickly but having a lot of filler words.

Example of smart debating: implicating a dropped response on one contention as terminal defense on another contention later in the round. Do things like that!

IMPLICATE RESPONSES AND WEIGH TURNS

Lay [----------*-] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth

General:

My least favorite thing is unwarranted claims. Do not abandon logic. Even if you extend a warrant in rebuttal in summary, it must be in final focus too. Don't make assertions without warranting them.

The flow is still important to me, so make sure you don't drop anything important.

Make sure you implicate arguments the way you want to me understand them. If you don't make a connection for me, I won't make it for you.

Make sure you have a narrative that you extend through summary and final focus (second rebuttal is a good place to explain your narrative too).

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine, and I will only call for evidence if someone tells me to.

**I also think that you can find evidence for a lot of things that aren't true, so when you read evidence you must warrant it**.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but that doesn't mean you should speak quickly. I value the quality of argument over the quantity of them, so if you're speaking quickly to get a lot down on the flow, it's better to speak slower and go for fewer but more fleshed out argument.

Weighing:

Please do it. At the end of the round, you probably won't be winning every single argument, so weighing makes my job easier and will probably make you happier with my decision.

Second Rebuttal:

Frontline all offense (link+impact turns, dis-ads, offensive overviews). You don't need to respond to defense, but it can be very strategic to do so in rebuttal.

Summary/Final Focus:

Collapse in summary and convince me why that argument is the most important one. Final focus should mirror summary, with the only exception being that first final focus can have defense from rebuttal that wasn't extended in first summary.

Cross:

Ask questions and don't steamroll over each other. I will listen to cross, and if you're all speaking over each other I can't understand.

Speaks:

If you're rude in cross, personally attack your opponents, or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything else offensive, I'll give you low speaks.

Theory:

I think that running theory in PF is extremely exclusive. Not everyone has the resources to learn about these arguments and how to respond to them.

If you want to run it, you must extend it throughout all speeches or else I will think that you are just running the theory to win rounds. You also must define the terms you use, like "role of the ballot" or "permutation." This is not only helpful to your opponents, who may not know what these terms mean, but it's also helpful for me to understand what you're saying.

Hey y'all, I'm Ansh and I debated on the Nat Circuit for Acton Boxborough since my sophomore year of high school. It's been a minute since I've touched debate, so here's how I'd go about treating me as a judge:

• Please don't go fast (250+ wpm), especially since I'm not familiar with the topic
• I am not too familiar with theory, tricks, Ks, etc., so don't read it unless there is a REAL violation in the round. It will be harder for me to vote for it

Things I like

• Weighing should be done on any offense that you are trying to use to win the round. I start evaluating with the weighing debate, and the earlier it is the stronger I evaluate it. A bonus would be meta-weighing and telling me why your weighing outweighs your opponents
• Explicit extensions from summary onwards, and consistency between summary and final focus (and a bit of collapsing since summary is 3 mins)
• Comparing responses or arguments when both teams are extending but not comparing them, tell me why yours is better
• Collapsing to 1-2 offensive arguments by summary, anything more than that doesn't allow you to fully flesh out your argument
• Front lining in second rebuttal, at the bare minimum any offense from 1st rebuttal. 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it was frontlined
• No new offense after 2nd rebuttal, and no new responses after 1st summary

No-no's

• Don't waste time debating evidence, just tell me to call for it and we can look at it after the round
• Don't postround, I'll make my own decision, just answer my questions if I have any

Other things

• If you have questions about my decision, you can send me an email or message me on Messenger (Facebook is Ansh Viswanathan)
• I'll start with 28.5 and go up or down based on your argumentation, strategy, clarity, and efficiency.
• Overall if you are Flamboyant, Ultimate, Charismatic, and/or Kwirky, we should all have a good time

Email (for whatever need be): ansh.viswanathan@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

No plans, kritiks or theories.

I go for argumentation over style.

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

No new arguments in grand cross and final focus.

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