I am a LD debater my self. I will flow the round and all the arguments, with the exception of cross X.

-If your opponent conceded a point in cross x than it's up to you to remind me/bring it up.

- I don't care about your speaking as long as I can make out what you are saying, I am fine with fast but if you are unclear I will yell clear and you will have to slow it down.

-Don't expect me to determine which side has the most weighted, you should tell me why your side outweighs the other through your warrants/blocks aka.) evidence.

-Counter plans are always ok!

-If a contention is non unique please explain why it would be the same in both worlds.

-My pet peeve is don't misinterpret your opponents arguments, and if they respond to your argument DON'T SAY IT WAS A UNSUBSTANTIAL RESPONCE.

-Don't forget framework in the debate either collapse the frameworks or state why your framework would be better in your world.

- Burden of proof is constantly on side that changes the status quo, so explain to me why tour side has more benefits then the status quo. If the burden of proof is on you don't just simply state (here are the problems x, y and z) state how you will fix those problems. likewise for the status quo just state why we should stay with in the status quo and why changing to opposing world is bad.

-Anther pet peeve I have when judging is don't get into a petty evidence battle unless if your opponent misinterprets or fabricates the evedince. A example of petty evidence battle would be is, "my source is more reliable because he has won awards in reporting for x, y and z.

- I can always give a verbal RFD and disclose the results of the round after the debate.

The side I RFD for would have

1.)( Impacts) connecting it back to the framework of the debate and why your side provides the most bet benefits

2.)(Flow) Contentions carried through the flow without dropping a point

3.)Best responce to opposing case aka aka rebuttals.

=Remember at the end of the day you are trying to convince me the judge=)

former policy debater:

• Ks and theories allowed but I did NOT do a lot of work in that area. If you do bring it up, you will still have to explain thoroughly.
• if the tournament gears toward lay debate, keep the pace slow! 
• I have not done full research into this year's topic. Don't assume what background knowledge I have. 

If I am judging you for LD or PF:

• I have judged LD and PF a few times. However, I have not ever participated in the events/have an in-depth knowledge of these debates.

I will give more information on my background/what I judge for if further questions are asked. 

Overall!

• just don't be rude. keep it a fair debate.

email: kaylynchoilee@gmail.com

Leland High school 2021

Cornell college '25

Debated for 4 years for Leland, did ok. Mostly under the code "Leland FS" for those who want to stalk

Paradigm Stolen from Karsen Wahal:

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

Please time yourselves.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

for flusters:

don't have a really deep understanding of other debate events so almost treat me like a parent judge

in general:

- clear warrants backed w/evidence

- make sure you know your ev or else that tells me you don't know what args you're really running for lmao

- weigh out your impacts & basically write my ballot out for me

- no spreading-- i wont be able to understand

- pls don't be ableist, homophobic or that sort or else i will tank ur speaks

other than that, have fun :)

hi my name is juhi!!

GROUND RULES- no discriminatory language, no racism, sexism, etc.-- auto-lose and 0 speaks

ways to get 30 speaks!!

- if youre funny and i laugh at ur joke

- if you make an interstellar, lotr, or marvel reference or star wars obv

- SING IN UR SPEECH or dance

DEBATE RELATED!!!

- prefer clash, tech over truth

- warrant all ur claims

- condense in the rebuttal speeches

- vote neg on presumption

0 SPEAKER POINTS IF U SAY RYAN IS THE BEST- NO SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION

hi everyone! i'm eunwoo (she/her) & i've been competing in parliamentary debate for three years now. i have little to no experience with other debate events (ld, pf, policy) but will do the best i can while abiding by the flow.

some general things to keep in mind:

- offtime roadmaps appreciated

- please signpost!

- weigh your impacts

- links must be clear & well-explained

- extend args

- please use content warnings when necessary

- speak clearly and slowly (may not understand spreading)

- i know basically nothing abt theory/Ks so do with that what you will

- be respectful at all times! absolutely no discriminatory rhetoric will be tolerated & will result in an automatic drop. this includes (but is obv not limited to) misgendering, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

debate is, above all else, an educational space. my role as a judge and your role as a competitor is to ensure that everyone is able to compete safely in an equitable, productive environment.

good luck & let's have a great round :)

important: any reference to taylor swift, david bowie, or dead poets society will earn u speaks

here's a large picture of andrew garfield from one of my fave movies, the social network. enjoy.

flusters update:

if you're in pf, policy, or parli, i haven't prepped your topics, so please explain any acronyms and topic-specific arguments to me

--

yes, please put me on the email chain: ashleylee7173@gmail.com

about me:

i debated lincoln douglas all four years at leland and competed in lay ld. that being said, i'd prefer to judge a traditional round. but if you and your opponent are more comfortable with circuit, then go circuit. just explain all of your arguments (ks, cps, theory, das, etc) thoroughly and slowly.

i typically don't have an argument preference — i will vote on anything as long as you tell me why i should vote on it over your opponent's arguments. but i will never vote for something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

specifics:

speed: i'm fine with fast-speaking, but i'm not fine with spreading. if i can't understand what you're saying, then i can't flow it. i will say/type "clear" three times before i stop flowing.

cross ex: there is a stark difference between being assertive and aggressive/rude. please let your opponent answer your questions — don't let cross ex turn into a petty flight.

2ar: don't bring up new arguments or refutations in your speech, or it'll be reflected in your speaks.

if you have any questions, ask me before the round!

lay judge.

dont know anything about theory

30 speaks if you roast your partner creatively

if you run theory im voting against you unless the other team is mean, rude, or is any -ist.

tabula rasa but tech>truth

Pf at Leland High School with Sterling Xie.

Basic things:

-Preflow before round, do NOT be like Sterling.

-No progressive arguments unless there's a major violation(i.e. -isms).

-I flow so speaking fast is ok unless you start spreading then I'll start missing points.

-Don't extend through ink, I won't evaluate any argument that is brought up in final focus unless it's in summary.

-Only arguments that are extended through final focus will be evaluated.

-If you drop something, it is considered dropped.

Cross:

-Most important thing: do not be mean or abusive

-if you concede something during cross then it is considered dropped

Speech:

-Please, please, please weigh! Don't just say something like "We outweigh cuz our impact is bigger than theirs", add warranting.

Let sterling be your example: if you don't weigh, you drop your outround.

-I really don't want to time y'all so you guys should time yourself and each other; the grace period is 10 seconds.

-Feel free to run any kinds of argument as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc.

-My average speaks are 28.7, and if you're funny/a good speaker, 29 or above.

Evidence:

-Paraphrasing is ok as long as you're not misconstruing evidence real hard and/or basically making things up.

-Tell me to call for cards if there are specific ones you want me to see.

-Cut all your cards fully, DO NOT just give me a link(like what Sterling always do); I will be very very annoyed.

Have fun!

This is my 4th year of LD, and I look forward to a good round!

General:

- I am a more flow judge, but still expect analysis and weighing. Debate isn't a video game, don't try to exploit rules to
"technically win" a round.

- I am more tech>truth, but if your argument strays too far from reality and doesn't logically make sense, I won't evaluate it.

- Don't go too fast, a bit of speed is fine but I can't flow spreading.

- Limit your use of debate jargon; I don't know all the terms out there.

Case:

- Extinction arguments will only be evaluated if they make sense and the debater can prove they are likely to happen.

- Keep your arguments topical.

CX:

- Be respectful in cross-ex and also don't misconstrue what your opponent said in cx in later speeches.

- You can cut your opponent off, but only if they have already answered your question sufficiently or misunderstood the question.

Weighing:

- Please weigh in later speeches: just because I'm more flow doesn't mean I know the context of your event's topic.

Theory:

- In my opinion, when you run theory arguments, you are essentially asking me as the judge to intervene in the round; I will only evaluate theory if it is reasonable.

- Any theory shell must have all the necessary sections: Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters, etc. Don't read an interpretation and a 3-sentence justification and expect me to buy it.

- I will not evaluate frivolous theory arguments.

I competed throughout middle and high school in Oratory and POI! Depending on the event and from my past experience, I will appropriately weigh script, physical performance, and emotional performance when I make my decisions/rankings.

hi folx—welcome to novice debate! I'm excited to see you begin your journey into NSDA—it's a rocky but fulfilling road and so many people are here to guide you through an experience that will change your life.

my pronouns are she/they

please put me on the email chain: xnmuix@gmail.com

TLDR for all events

Direct clash (LINE BY LINE responding to arguments ie "they said x, but y" and defending your argument), impact analysis and judge direction are the most important things to me. I think that evidence quality is very important in rounds—but more important is the performance of that evidence and your contextualization to the round as well as why i should vote on it.

I am a policy debater—which means my biggest preferences are those of quality evidence, clear explanation of arguments and voting issues. Do this and you'll do very well.

make sure to TIME ALL YOUR SPEECHES. I will cut you off if you go over but you should not be making me keep track of things—that's your job.

any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments or demeanor is unacceptable—be respectful in round!

I think something that can hurt you in round is using a lot of buzzwords, debate terms of tech talk and presuming I know what it means. Even though I have debate experience I prefer you to treat me like a new judge with no experience—needing lots of explanation, a slower pace and construction of arguments with good structure. Be patient with me!

also make things easy to flow :)) i love flowing and a good structure of arguments is great

POLICY

some general guidelines:

tech--x------truth

line by line--x------embedded clash

impact calculusx--------no impact calculus

you do you! these are just my general preferences but i love to see a creative debate where you argue what you are passionate about and refute the other side's arguments. the most IMPORTANT THING is to properly extend arguments and develop them in your speeches—if a piece of evidence was read in the 1NC/1AC, i want to hear some recollection of it (claim, author, qual, warrants) in later speeches so it's clear why it's important in the round.

i learned lay debate through stock issues + net benefits ---using general things like inh/sh/solvency/t/da/cp is good with me

PARLI, LD AND PF

I have read through the judging packet and guidelines for all three of these events, so i have a limited scope of rules like speech times, norms and objectives of each speech. The tldr stuff should work fine--I will keep a rigorous flow for everything in the round and do the best I can, but note that I probably will forget a lot and get confused so please go slower and explain things more.

I'm a college freshman rn.

Events: Oratorical Interpretation (Declamation), Duo, Congress, Policy, BQ, + College parli and LD very briefly

- I've seen PF before though so I am fairly familiar with structure, but guide me through the framework of how to vote in PF --> aside from that apply the relevant parts of my paradigm in the policy section

- LD/Parli: Please guide me on how to vote/what to prioritize according to the rules of your debate --> aside from that apply the relevant parts of my paradigm in the policy section

Have fun and run what you want as long as it's not offensive/discriminatory or blatantly false.

If the debate isn't policy please treat me like a parent judge and apply the relevant parts of my paradigm, however feel free to speak at a faster pace.

I am as tabula rasa as humanly possible. You may refer to me as "judge" or by my first name if during the round.

If the tournament is primarily fast, do a fast round. If a tournament is primarily slow, do a slow round. If you do want something different make sure that you tell me and ask permission from your opponents.

x<26 --> you said something horrifying!

26-27 --> more speech drills

27-28.9 --> average/good

29 --> great

30 --> god

Policy:

Keep the debate clean and sign post. I'm good with pretty much any argument. Don't try to run anything you don't know well enough

- give an off-time roadmap, FOLLOW the roadmap while you're speaking

- keep your link chains clear

- I will not vote on anything if I notice you dropped it

- Don't be slimy (DO NOT say that your opponent never answered something when they clearly did, DO NOT misconstrue your evidence, DO NOT misconstrue your opponents evidence, DO NOT make up a fact, DO NOT hand me a graph or chart you made)

- Impact calc is very important, tell me why this outweighs the other. Write my ballot for me

- Explain your warrants, don't just extend something without explaining why it's still relevant or which argument it applies to

- If you bring up new arguments in the rebuttals, especially the 2ar, I will be very annoyed and refuse to consider them.

Don't be racist/sexist/egotistical. You'll get the lowest possible speaks if you are and chances are I'll vote you down.

Circuit Policy specific:

If you run T/Framing/Theory please thoroughly go through the voters and standards and explain why I should vote for you based off that. While you're running T/Theory slow down on the voters/standards so I can actually flow it.

*I'm not stable on K's so please explain them well and slow down

I'll avoid looking at the speech doc unless absolutely necessary but BE CLEAR. I will call "clear." However if I have to tell you more than three times through the entire debate >:(

bonus for actually reading my paradigm which sucks:

+ 5 speaks if you judge strike me

here's my linkedin if you want to connect: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yong-ooi/

Please treat me as you would a lay parent judge––don't use debate jargon, don't talk too quickly, don't run obscure arguments w/o properly explaining them.

speech-only & lay judge. explain things to me like im a baby.

good luck.

Clarity weighing ->29+ speaks

Clarity of Impact policy paralysis weighing ->30 speaks

Proof on tab of beating Leon Huang ->30 speaks

You can read theory if theres real abuse but I prefer substance. No Ks, trix, etc.

Hi! First of all, good luck and have fun! For novice debate, do whatever you practiced! Don't worry about the more techy parts of the debate!

A little bit about myself: I've done high school policy for 4 years now and a bit of public forum in middle school. I will flow your arguments so try not to drop any! I can tolerate speed, but please do not start spreading unless it is a circuit tournament (but I probably won't be judging that).

Be kind to everyone. I will not tolerate any rudeness or offensive comments.

General (updated for Novice Debate):

- I probably don't understand all the details/ins and outs of the resolution of your event (LD, PF, or Parli) - try not to use debate jargon that someone not well versed in the topic area might not understand (unless it was under the cjr/water/NATO/econ ineq topics)

- Try your best! You'll do fine <3

- I won't flow cx unless you bring it up in one of your speeches

- Read offense! if you only read defense, I'll be sad :(

- Weigh your impacts!

For policy (!!!):

- I will be flowing and this is the most familiar debate format to me, so please try to elaborate on your arguments.

- Give an offtime roadmap before you start (aka an order) so I can flow your arguments, otherwise I will just write them down based on how I hear them (and the debate might get messy and I might miss one of your arguments).

- Read AT LEAST the author and date of publication before reading cards.

- Signpost!

- Frame the debate for me! Make it clear to me how you want me to vote, otherwise, I will vote based on arguments and what I think is a better argument.

• net benefits?
• stock issues?
• any other f/ws?

- Make it clear what your plan is! I will try to only vote on arguments brought up in the debate, and if I don't know your plan, I cannot vote for you.

- I love smart solvency takeouts, but be sure to elaborate on how the plan links to that though!

- CPs should have a counterplan text and clear net benefit. DAs should have AT LEAST a link and an impact. I will buy uniqueness if worded well. T should have a definition, standards/violation, impact, AND why your definition is better. Ks are cool but I personally don't know too much about each k :(

Don’t be too unclear, present under stable topics and arguments, be clear and considerate with what you are arguing, and just have and fun experience debating

Pronouns: he/him

Speed: an understandable pace, please

Do not read procedural theory or Kritiks unless absolutely needed.

I enjoy clash and emphasizing warrants.

I have debated Policy for 4 years in high school

Email: sandalfoot101@gmail.com