Zoom link for HM Invitational tournament:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2619228232?pwd=VDErV2lIWWdadXMwdk1NaFdmUStCdz09

I've been debating for 7 years now and I'm a flow judge. I do not flow / take notes during crossfire. I expect teams to clearly structure their rebuttal speeches and signpost - tell me what part of what argument you're addressing so I can follow you easily. I also expect clear case extensions somewhere in summary (usually at the top) where you briefly reexplain the contention you're going for before diving into frontlining, weighing, rebuttals, whatever. I will vote for the side that has the most important impacts standing at the end of the round, so please weigh well and carefully.

first yr out

-assume I don't know anything about the topic

-tech>truth, but the more crazy your argument gets, the less likely I am going to buy it

-I'm more likely to buy uncarded logical warranting to carded, unfleshed out stat dumps.

-I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round

-signposting > off-time road maps (just tell me where you're starting)

-Weigh! Don't make me weigh for you or else you might not be pleased with my decision!

-This goes without saying, but sexism/racism/classism/general offensiveness are automatic 20s and probably an L.

-9 times out of 10 I will vote against theory. use at your own risk

I'm a typical flow judge/high school debater. Make sure to signpost, and try not to spread. I don't like theory, so don't run it unless it's absolutely necessary. For PF - make sure that you explain your evidence and tell me why it matters. Warrant!

Be funny, but don't be mean. Ask me before the round if you have any questions!

If you need to contact me for any reason: Ariel.kirman22@trinityschoolnyc.org

How I'll evaluate the round: Give me the cleanest link into the best weighed offense

Stuff I like:

• ACTUAL WEIGHING: Don’t just use buzzwords like “we outweigh on scope” — that means nothing to me; there should be actual comparison and warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents
• Link weighing <3 (especially early on in the round — I love weighing in rebuttal)
• Clean AND clear extensions: If I don’t see this in both summ and ff it makes it super hard for me to vote for you and I will not be happy; make your narrative clear to me by the second half
• Collapsing: I will CRY if you try to extend all your arguments in the second half of the round
• Front-lining and signposting: Just do it for the love of god

Stuff I do not like (things that will tank your speaks + potentially make me drop you)

• "cLaRiTy oF LiNk wEigHiNg"
• Not reading trigger warnings for sensitive topics — do it, it’s not hard
• Post-rounding: feel free to ask questions but know that my decision is final and I have submitted my ballot by the time I tell y'all
• Rudeness, disrespect, bigotry of any sort (ie racism, sexism, ableism, etc)

RANDOM STUFF

Defense: Terminal defense is sticky (unless front-lined), but all other defense needs to be extended in the second half for me to evaluate it. Though, please don't make the round get to a point where I'm evaluating solely based on defense

Summ/FF: I love a good line-by-line speech, but very much appreciate voters when the round gets super muddled; do whatever you prefer though

Cross: I'm probably writing feedback or watching a tiktok so if something important happens tell me in another speech; also am fine with skipping grand and using it as prep if both teams agree

Ev: I try my best to flow author names and dates, but I usually miss some so please contextualize your ev for me at least once (even if it's just a sentence) if you're going to use author name consistently. Try not to power tag or miscut stuff; I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to AND it’s important to the round; please don't rely on your author/ev to do all the work, give me warrants! Warranted analytics >>> unwarranted evidence (side note, put me on the email chain: anagha.pur@gmail.com)

Theory/prog arg: Don’t do it, please; I probably won’t understand it/be able to evaluate it and I really don’t think you need it in PF unless the abuse is truly, horrifically egregious (at which point I probably will call it out myself)

Topic Knowledge: No longer debating/coaching myself so I probably won’t have much topic expertise for any tourneys - so please avoid jargon! It will only confuse me and muddle the round and I will not be happy; also if you’re running a niche argument then please explain it thoroughly because I won’t vote off something I don’t understand

Speed: Fine with it, but if you're going 300+ wpm send me a speech doc

Speaks: I'll bump them up if you do any of the below

• Call turns massive 180s
• Make me laugh in round
• Bring your pet!!
• Send me a tik tok
• Generally making the round go efficiently (For online: come early/at the check in time so we can get started and finish early!!)

I am more of a tech judge. You can run big (maybe unrealistic) impacts as long as you debate well and defend them. Please try to be civil and respectful. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD! IF I CAN"T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR SAYING, I AM DROPPING YOU. I not a big fan of theory, so if you're gonna run it, make sure its very good. While I hope I don't have to, I am perfectly ok calling for a card. The most important thing I would say is to have a good final focus, most of my voting will come from final focus. Make sure to extend args (make it clear if something has gone un responded too), make sure you don't bring up new args and make sure to clearly outline why your argument is better than there's (that means you should probably weigh). Just make sure your final focus is simple and clear. You can have a good argument, but if I don't understand it then it doesn't matter. I am currently a junior who's done my fair share of PF debate, I am basically still a kid so I always appreciate when the teams are funny and entertaining (so a funny star wars reference wouldn't hurt). Lastly, my RFDs are gonna be honest because I feel like that's how you become a better debate. Good luck!

Personal Zoom Info: https://zoom.us/j/94760546858?pwd=Mmx6NFpBemxwUVBwWDQ5WjdRdTBQQT09

Code: 947 6054 6858

Password: wiX03F

I once quoted Bon Jovi in the middle of a final paper, that's the energy i'm looking for

If you do a 180 in the middle of your speech you'll get a 30

I love ridiculous args - tell me that the world's going to end because of the sand mafia or beetles

In general just be funny and chill

Don't be sneaky

Biggest power move in the history of debate is asking your opponents what color they want you to flow them in

If you bring me food I will love you

Also shameless plug but listen to my podcast, Excelsior, on Spotify, Apple, and YouTube!

email is jordan.a.wasserberger@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Zach and I debated for Hackley. For context, I debated technically but spoke slowly and (somewhat) persuasively.

For the email chain, my email address is: zyusaf@students.hackleyschool.org

For NSD, DO NOT read theory on anyone lower than your lab level. If you do, it's auto L 20s.

Here are some of my preferences:

1. Have a good narrative. This does not only have to be in the constructive speech. When collapsing on defense or weighing, the best way to get my ballot is to collapse on what will advance your story.

2. Please weigh! It helps to resolve the debate when both teams win their cases. This is not only weighing offensive arguments, but also doing comparative analysis as to, say, why your defense is better than their link/case argument. Weighing helps resolve clash all over the flow.

3. Frontline all offense and defense on the argument that you are going for in second rebuttal. If you don't, then I'll cut your speaks a bit and first summary doesn't have to extend defense.

4. I will 100% vote on any well-warranted argument if it's clean, even if it seems wacky.

5. Collapse in summary! Don't go for too much -- I really prefer when teams go for less and give more comparative analysis or in-depth frontlining.

6. You can read progressive arguments but I don't know much about them, so just make sure to explain them really well and I'll vote for you.

7. Warrants > Evidence.

Good luck!!