Cathedral, Emory | sarang.arun17@gmail.com

—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty, bear w. me please

—TLDR: Debate however you like, and I'll attempt to adapt to you - you can do everything/anything you want to do in front of me as long as it's clear. Fair warning though, I'm not really experienced with evaluating Ks or theory or really any progressive arguments but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate them: it just means you'll need to explain the nuances of your argument to me more. I did circuit PF in high school, and I think that's still pretty flay/tame compared to other events.

PF

—Defense is not sticky (explicitly call out drops), 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything that the 2nd speaking team wants to go for in the back half, offensive overviews are fine in 2nd rebuttal, good defense extensions > bad weighing <=> good weighing > bad defense extensions, weigh link-ins (link turns) when first read or I won't evaluate them, you don't need to extend author names when extending an argument, extend all levels of the link chain, I'll default to competing interps, yes RVIs but you must respond to no RVIs adequately if read, collapse or I'll be annoyed, speak slower because I really dislike speed (I have a hard time flowing speed because of auditory issues, where words get jumbled), everything must have a warrant, be kind to everybody in the round, if both teams win offense at the end of the round and don't weigh I'll intervene arbitrarily, disclosure is a good norm (+1 speaks), reading cut cards are a good norm (+1 speaks), I'll rarely presume neg/first (what I end up doing in a given round is subjective)—if I have to everyone's speaks are capped at 27, the median speaks I give out are 28s (so, if you disclose and read cut cards, you start out with a 30), & I'll disclose barring any specific requests.

—Add me to the email chain - no google docs for evidence please, people unshare them after rounds and that's a) unfair to the other team that actually debated in the round b) gross because all you did was cut/find said evidence - it's not your intellectual property so don't be stingy; if you make a google doc despite my request, I'll cap your speaks at 28.

—Content warnings are good and you should read them (within reason, use your better judgement) & barring a legitimate reason (like Wifi problems if we're online), I won't flow off a doc so adjust your speed accordingly. I will clear you twice before I stop flowing; take that as you will.

—have fun & breathe; you got this. Let me know how I can make the debate round more enjoyable for you.

Hey, I debated PF for four years at Princeton High School. 

Here's my email for an email chain: emilychoi19@gmail.com

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

VBI Specific:

Lol idk much about trains so extra warranting >>> 

Don't assume I know things; explain everything clearly, or else I'll have just as much reason to believe the opposite is true.

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

Progressive Args:

Avoid running tricks, theory, or Ks in PF --> not a big fan, especially if it is run poorly. 

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

PF Specific:

Don't run blippy arguments that are inherently untrue. 

Don't run run the 900 million card --> although it will make me laugh.

Don't card dump, legitimately implicate.

Make sure to collapse and extend properly in summary and ff --> parallel structure!!

Also, WEIGH!!

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

Speaks:

Don't be mean to your opponents.

- If you sing, like actually sing a speech in it's entirety, I'll be not sad: 30 speaks :D

- If you rap your speech, I'll not be sad: 30 speaks :D

- Please do not be rude to your opponents or else: 10 speaks

If you have any questions about my paradigm or in general, don't hesitate to ask me questions before the round.

Notes for novices:

Don't worry about terms you don't know on my paradigm just try your best. Ask if you have any questions.

***

TLDR: Basic tech>truth. Weigh and Extend cases. Anything warranted is fair game.

No spreading, spreading leads to blippy arguments and incoherent logic and reason. You can read at a fast pace but read in a clear manner.

No racism, sexism, or anything of the sort. I'll drop you. Also, leave me to decide what is racist, sexist, or inappropriate in a round. You do not need to point out that your opponent said something that is inappropriate.

Interps, Theory, and Kritiks are great as long as they are thorough and warranted. Reading frivolous theory and Kritiks to simply take advantage of unskilled debaters is not going to win my vote.

2nd summary onwards cannot extend any new arguments. 2nd final focus should not introduce any new weighing.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH... I will literally drop you if you do not weigh. I want you to write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you and not the other team. Extend these weighing mechanisms through summary and final focus. 2nd rebuttal should try to start weighing. Give me a good comparative.

During rebuttals: Please implicate responses. Do not read blippy arguments that waste time.

Summary: Don't extend through ink.

DAs/Disads must be implicated and weighed. I won't buy a DA without an impact. That being said I actually enjoy DAs as long as they are implicated and coherent. If you do read DAs try to impact it on their case. A disad does not have to be long to be better. The structure and link have to be good.

Speaks:

I'll give you a 29 or higher as long as you weigh and do all the above things.

Get up and spin every time you read a turn and I'll give you a 30.

Have fun!!

Hi,

-I'm flay

-I can handle speed - I'll yell clear if I don't understand you - everyone in the round should/can do this if they cannot understand someone - just don't do it in cross.

-Collapsing can start in 2nd rebuttal - everyone should collapse by summary

-Implicate turns properly so you can actually win off it - if you don't have an impact for a turn I can't vote for you there.

-Weigh - including turns(also mandatory for me to vote for you there)

-You can use basic techy terms ie. turn/nuq/DL - don't abuse these as that happens a lot - just don't go too techy

-Be nice - will drop you if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, or use any other type of derogatory language.

Be funny in cross

Don't extend case in cross - it's so annoying(I'll drop speaks) - if someone does this, the opponent should say something funny

Speaks - I start at 29

Use any Travis Scott, Uzi, Carti, Post Malone, or Criminal Minds reference and I will give 30 speaks. (Or just be funny)

Have fun

I like theories, just make them basic because i'm dumb. Memes will ALWAYS give you more speaker points. I am ok with everything as long as you ARE NOT MEAN to your opponents. Speak loud and fast because its good. Spreading is pogchamp please spread.

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

Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a sophomore at Cornell University. I did Parli for a year and Public Forum for three years back in high school. Now, I've been doing college policy for two years :) I typically run trad policy stuff, but I'm used to hearing (and sometimes running) K's and T - so you can probably get away with running most things. Contact me for email chains at:

jzhou0303@gmail.com

--

For LD: I'm pretty new to coaching LD, but I do have my policy experience to supplement my understanding.

Good with evaluating traditional arguments all around, and I can definitely handle spreading. However, for online tournaments, I'd suggest speaking at a slightly slower speed so I can hear you and your mic doesn't cut out. My wifi is kinda spotty, so I may ask for speech docs. I understand what a value/value criterion are, but I've never actually competed with them; I'm still in the process of learning about them. I am used to progressive framing, though.

I'm fine with evaluating some of the wackier progressive arguments, like high theory or tricky T stuff, but keep in mind that I might not know what you're talking about!! I know the more basic stuff like Foucault's biopower and Baudrillard's simulation theory, but I will not know what you're saying if you start talking about Deleuze. There is a limit to these sorts of things!!!

--

For PF: I think paraphrasing cards is alright, but I will call for cards if necessary (or if you ask me to).

I'll understand spreading, but it's somewhat unadvisable because your mic might cut out. Please signpost in your speeches or else I won't be able to flow!!

No impacts, no dub >:) Trigger warnings are great! Please read them when you find them necessary. Please go hard and roast each other in cross (I won't flow it though lol).

--

I'll evaluate theory in PF, I'm alright with RVI's, and you should feel free to run trix (but keep in mind that I might get lost).

TLDR: Standard FYO flow judge, tech>truth, must respond to offense in the next speech (lenient to dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal), warranting is essential, speed must be justified by content, don't be harmful to the debate space, weigh comparatively, have ev at the ready and don't misconstrue, don't read dedev

- For email chain: rohansnair03@gmail.com

Bio:

Paradise Valley '21 | ASU '25

Did PF all 4 years at Paradise Valley in Arizona (2017-2021), competed at local level first 3 years and almost exclusively national circuit senior year, got to a couple bid rounds, and qualled to NDCA. I was also captain senior year.

PUBLIC FORUM:

General Stuff:

**** Don’t be harmful to the debate space; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - You will get an L20 for this****

- Debate is a game, win the flow

- Collapse and weigh to clean up the debate; too many people try to win every part of the flow and it almost always hurts them because they don't give themselves the time to do the comparative analysis.

- Weighing goes a long way - as a judge I have to decide who's case is truer/more impactful - do the work for me so I do not have to intervene

- SELF TIME

- If something is dropped, call it out, it's not my job to call it out for you. Dropped evidence has 100% strength of link ONLY if you extend and flesh out the warranting for it.

- You HAVE to frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal (you SHOULD frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal but if opps dump turns on you there's only so much you can do)

- Extend in every speech after rebuttal (Don't be blippy do real extensions - If I absolutely feel there is no way to vote at all because no one extends I either defer to the NEG on policy change topics, or the 1st speaking team on "on balance" topics, etc.)

- Extending through ink is the same thing as conceding your arg

Trigger Warnings:

- If you run ANY form of argument that potentially may make your opps uncomfortable, you MUST use get ALL members' approval before the round. Ex: Use an anonymous Google Form prior to the round, make all of us fill it out, and if even one person opts out, you do not run the argument

- If you do NOT use content warnings on args that obviously warrant it, I already am inclined to vote for your opps

Weighing:

- Weighing isn't: "We outweigh on magnitude because it's more people" (nah fam i could care less if u don't do the in-depth comparative)

- Prereqs are my favorite type of weighing because it is the easiest to do the actual comparative

- If yall go for the same type of weighing, then explain why your weighing is more important. Ex: If both teams try to prereq explain why your prereq happens first or subsumes their prereq

- If you have the same impact, please please prioritize any type of weighing EXCEPT magnitude. Ex: If both teams impact extinction, win probability or TF (I genuinely don't know why people do magnitude/severity weighing when it's the same argument)

- The first time you weigh should most definitely not be in final. Personally, I've done weighing sometimes as early as first rebuttal (I obviously don't expect this, but make sure it starts in summary)

Cross Ex:

- Likely won't even be paying attention, cx is for you

- If something relevant comes up, bring it up in a later speech

- Skipping grand for a min of prep is chill if both teams agree

Evidence:

- Likely won't ever call for cards unless you tell me to

- If I read the card and it is misconstrued it will not bode well for you (PF evidence ethics is dog so gotta enforce it somehow)

- If you have clashing empirics/evidences, tell me why I prefer your evidence -- otherwise I will call for both of them and intervene towards which one I agree with more (I may call cards anyways just to be curious and see who's evidence is rly better, but won't factor that unless you give me a reason to)

- I won't start prep when looking for cards if you find it within reasonable time, otherwise I will

- Don't just send a link and just tell your opponents to ctrl + F, its lazy, you should be cutting the card for them

Speaks:

- Usually high speaks, with a base of 27, but you have to earn a 30

- If you earn lower than a 27, you likely did something unethical in the round.

Speed:

- Please, please, PLEASE do not go faster than you should be. Too many people try to speak fast so they can sneak responses in and then collapse on them(this is lowkey abusive, just don't do it). Speed is fine, but I should be able to understand it, and it should not sacrifice your clarity

Theory:

- Avoid it if you can, because I feel that too much nowadays real issues are tokenized for the sake of a ballot. However, theory can be a valuable asset in shining on a light on real issues, so use it only if you actually are trying to promote awareness about the issue you talk about.

- I personally almost never hit theory on the circuit, so make sure you explain it as well as you can. This also means don't be mad if u get screwed after running theory lol

- For theory and theory only, it'll be truth>tech, otherwise there is rly not any point in running it if u cant logically argue it

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

- Never done this event, and don't know too much about the structure, so treat me like a lay for the most part

- I can handle speed, but it has to be justified by content, meaning don't spread unless every additional word you say helps you (SEND SPEECH DOCS)

- If you wanna know how I flow, read the PF section

MISC:

- I'll pretty much always disclose

- If you read stupid stuff like extinction good, I have a VERY low threshold for defense on it (this is literally fake PF)

- If you read like 40 turns in rebuttal and flat out response dump, I feel that is incredibly abusive and not at all inclusive to small schools who can't get the same prep (speaking from the perspective of a one entry school), so I will allow your opps to respond to them very late

- TKO rule applies

- If you find a creative way to incorporate sports references or jokes(have to be funny lol) in your speeches you get +0.5 speaks

- Don't postround me, but feel free to ask questions about my RFD

Tech > truth

The most important thing is to have fun. Debate is a learning experience and everything you learn from it is valuable. I will give as much constructive feedback as possible to help you out for the rest of your debate rounds.

Make sure to compare arguments and collapse (pick 1-2 arguments to mainly focus on in the second half of the round).

For any specifics, just ask me before the round starts!

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

freshman @ the University of Michigan studying math of finance on a premed track currently competing policy/pf for umich debate

6 yrs in debate, 3 on vpf natl circuit competing for Brooklyn Technical HS (if you know what this is and you say bronx sucks I add speaks)

add me to the email chain (danvi@umich.edu)

General:

i hear an argument, i write it down on my flow.

don't spread

speaks start at 28 and if you say something offensive it goes down but if you impress me it goes up

low point wins may happen in round

i don't flow cross but if you flow it then i flow it

don't run k's, theory, or shells bc ill have a hard time following but if they are run i'll still vote tech > truth

1/2 ac:

do not run theory! I said it before and I'll say it again PF is PF and as a policy debater who did PF people do not want to debate policy in PF. I'll flow but beware I'll look upon it negatively.

rest is self explanatory I said it above

general cx:

make me laugh because that's what makes debate fun but do not be rude

cx is a time to argue, so do it. bonus speaks if you (respectfully) call out and say "judge...this is wrong" obviously within reason

do NOT use cx as a continuation of your speeches and if you drop a new contention I drop your speaks

rebuttal:

cleanly flow because it makes everyone's life easier, don't go all over the place because then my flow is all over the place and it's harder for you to win the round

if you're 2nd rebuttal frontline first and don't go line by line - try to save the best for last

summary:

COLLAPSE

it's OKAY to concede an argument. we can't win everything all the time so emphasize which points you HAVE won to make the debate easier for me to judge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the cleaner the flow the easier it is for you to win

do not repeat your speech in summary, and make sure to weigh

ff:

just regurgitate the biggest points + weigh; you have two minutes, so make the most of it

good luck and have fun! if you say Ohio State sucks and Go Blue you get 28.2+ speaks guaranteed(unless of course you break one of the rules above)

I am a former pf debater, I value weighing and clarity above most other things. Make the debate easy for me, do some interesting thinking and reasoning, and keep things light and fun!

hi ! i debated pf for 4 (ish) years at dulles, reach me whenever @ katherineyue@rice.edu

general

preflow before!

the best way to get me to vote for you is to spend your last speeches pointing things out to me (dropped response/extended arg/your link chain)

you can spread if you want but you still need to be clear, i won't flow + eval off docs if your speech is incomprehensible to me

especially in ld/policy prioritize making your arguments clear to me over more evidence + arguments if you want me to understand + really vote on something

progressive

i basically debated all substance, treat me as a flay judge & run progressive if you want but i probably won't understand it (theory/ks) unless there's a clear violation in round

speeches

i was a second speaker so i prioritize responses that interact with your opponent's arguments directly ! everyone reads generic blocks, i'll be more responsive to evidence & warranting/responses i haven't heard before. i think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

go line by line/in a intuitive order (ie your flow then opponents) + roadmap before, if i can't follow your responses/extensions logically i can't vote on it

don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, it doesn't mean anything if unwarranted, i tend to be preferential towards statistical/impact weighing over logical

ps i <3 (nonbasic) taylor swift references