Hey everyone, I'm a first year out from pf. I debated as Glen Rock OS until senior year and Glen Rock Bergen Tech GO in my senior year. If you care, I got some gold bids, qualified for the gold toc, etc.

add me to email chains: elijahonik@gmail.com

tl;dr: tech>truth. Debate is a game -- I will always vote off the flow and will never intervene. Read any argument you want at any speed (send docs)

-

General:

• Tech>truth always -- I will believe anything you tell me as long as the argument has a warrant
• I don't view speaks the same way. If you are rude, offensive (I'm a Jewish college student, I've seen plenty of this recently and I'm sick of it), or do anything to make the round worse, I am not afraid to wreck your speaks
• Speed is fine but sending speech docs for case and rebuttal is mandatory -- if you start spreading baudrillard and don't send a doc I am capping your speaks at 25
• Things I believe are good (will not intervene on these debates dw): paraphrasing bad, open source disclosure good, debater math bad, defense is not sticky
• Please always tell me which flow you're starting on (ex. "our case, weighing, their case"). I don't need a ted talk as your offtime roadmap but I don't want to scramble to find which argument you're responding to

Case:

• If I haven't said it enough, sends docs -- if you paraphrase (smh) you should send both what you read and the cards you cite
• Read absolutely anything in case -- advantages, disadvantages, framework, framing, theory, kritiks, a big impact turn, straight turns to their case, be creative. Don't forget people can make ground/time skew args abt half of that. Everything is up for debate
• No switching between speakers regardless of the argument being read -- speaking order is one of the few rules in the NSDA handbook. K affs are read in policy all the time with the first speaker reading the 1AC
• I won't teach myself your argument from a doc so if you're reading something pf isn't used to like a really complex k, slow down a little

Rebuttal:

• This is essentially another constructive speech (pretty much the 2AC/2NC), so again, read whatever you want -- straight turns, a new constructive argument, idc as long as a doc is sent. Docs should include all the cards you're reading
• Second rebuttal must respond to all offense and frontline everything you plan on extending in the backhalf except weighing. No new frontlines in second summary
• It's a good idea to start framing in second rebuttal rather than second summary but I won't intervene if you start framing later

Summary:

• No new offense (with the exception of arguments directly responding to the 2nd rebuttal like theory), no new frontlines in second summary, backlines are fine ofc
• Collapse please, it doesn't matter how fast you go you will disadvantage yourself if you go for too much in the backhalf (trust me I've been there). The best debaters have good round vision and choose the best path to the ballot and go all for it
• Good signposting here is of utmost importance -- if you confuse me here and I miss an extension, that does not bode well for you
• I have a very high burden for extensions. An offensive argument (not just an adv/disad, this includes turns and etc) must include uniqueness, link, internal link, impact for me to vote on it (idc abt author names just extend the warrant). You cannot just say "extend the Bradford '13 evidence" and expect to win (I wonder if anyone currently debating remembers the bradford evidence)
• I know every judge says this, every debater knows this, but no one internalizes it. ~ 80% or more tech rounds will come down to the weighing -- read a prereq or something. On that note, please please please implicate your weighing/meta-weigh. I have no idea if magnitude or probability is more important unless you tell me

Final Focus:

• Structure should ideally match the summary but I understand if strats change
• Burden for extensions are the same here, the whole argument must be extended
• As tech as I'd like to think I am, making ff a little more "why we win" rather than just line by line, it can't hurt. Still please line by line and extend everything ofc
• If no weighing has been done in the round, I'll flow some sort of weighing in the first ff but second ff has somewhat of an ability to respond

Cross/prep:

• Time your own and each other's prep, if they go a second over you can unmute and say "that's all your prep", I don't think that's rude at all
• I time flex prep based on how long it takes you to ask your question so if you opponent tries to waste your time by answering a yes/no question for 2 min, it won't hurt you -- on that note, flex prep questions should pretty much be only yes/no questions (did you kick this, etc)
• Open cross is fine ig but don't make me regret saying this
• As pointless as it is, you probably shouldn't skip grand cross
• This doesn't need to be said but I don't flow cross. That being said, concessions made in cross are binding as long as they're properly implicated in the following speech

Progressive arguments:

• General preferences in terms of comfortability of judging (read any arg I won't intervene): theory/framework>reps k>friv theory>k aff>tricks
• "I'm from a small school so I can't respond" is the worst response ever. I literally started my high school's team and still read plenty of prog args in hs. Any response is valid if properly implicated but seriously you can learn anything from pf videos, opencaselist, and google
• In hs, my main experience with progressive arguments was all the stock theory shells (every form of disclosure, round reports, paraphrasing, etc), framework, reps Ks (I read cap and set col), and a few procedurals/IVIs here and there -- do with that what you will but I'm happy to hear any argument
• If you are confused about any of this please email me before the round or ask questions before/after the round, time permitting I'm happy to help

Theory

• I default no RVI, competing interps, text of the interp but whoever wins the paradigm issues wins that
• Theory must be read the speech immediately after the violation, if it is read later, opponents read a counter-interp about it and you will probably win
• The exact wording of the interp (unless I'm otherwise convinced) must be extended in summary and ff if you go for it. Rebuttal does not need to extend anything, that's not pf norms
• If only one team reads/extends an interp they auto win (assuming theory is the highest level in that round). Reasonability still requires two competing interpretations
• Friv theory is funny and a viable win strat as long as there is a warrant

Kritiks

• I really enjoy good reps/epistemological kritikal debates
• If you win your link and framing you don't necessarily need an alt to win (if you win their advocacy is tainted by settler logic and you win settler logic is genocidal and that outweighs their case you win. You don't need to win a decolonization alternative)
• Alts in pf are tough, there's definitely no plans/counterplans so alternative advocacy is tricky but saying something like vote neg to refuse set col and reading that one alt card that says refusal is generative and destroys the structure is fine
• Discourse alts are horrible and belong in 2020 pf. Again, I won't intervene but this fell out of fashion a long time ago in policy and LD, it should in pf too. Also, if you read discourse and don't disclose (and your opponents point it out because I probably won't check the wiki) your speaks will be very bad. This is also maybe a perf con, make that argument if your opponents read a discourse arg and don't disclose
• I am not very well versed in k lit and your opponents probably aren't either (this is pf) so don't try to spread everyone out of the debate. I won't teach myself your k from the doc so making me understand is a good idea

Procedurals/IVIs

• These are sometimes useful when your opponents do something specific and reading a whole shell doesn't make sense. Let's say they clip one card, you can either evidence challenge or read an ivi saying they should lose for this particular card. Let's say they say something exclusionary, you can read an ivi saying they should lose for that. Make sure it still has what they did, why that's bad, and drop the debater
• Donot read disclosure, paraphrasing, etc as an ivi. If the argument is read as a shell read it as a shell don't be abusive. With that said, "Overview: the opponents' whole case is paraphrased which is just analytics based on what they want us to believe the author said so evaluate them as such" is fine

Tricks

• I have a very basic understanding of skep, lexical arguments, paradoxes, etc. I amnota tricks judge. Donot trust my ability to catch and comprehend your wack tricks
• If you read tricks, they must be very visibly clear on your doc, don't hide them. Also, they still need a warrant (I won't vote for "the roto is to lose" unless properly warranted)

I'm sure there's plenty I missed, please don't hesitate to email before the round or ask before the round starts if you have any questions. Assuming I have time, I like postrounding. Please argue with me, I'm happy to defend my decision. The last thing I want is for you to leave the round thinking you got screwed

I am a parent judge. I will try to vote on the flow (tech>truth).

I know how bad it is to be judge-screwed. Please help me make the right decision:

* Explicitly state what contentions you were able to extend, turn, front-line, etc. and how your opponent failed to do the same

* Please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow)

* Please limit technical jargon unless you have the time to explain what it means

* I am unlikely to follow any progressive argumentation: theory, Ks, tricks (not that I know what it means), etc.

* You don't have to use your lay cases as long as you speak clearly.

* Assume I don't know the rules well, but don't be afraid of subtlety and sophistication.

* Be explicit with comparatively weighing your impacts and those of your opponent's

* If you believe the rules forbid something like modifying the status quo, introducing new evidence in FF, etc. declare it in order to help me invalidate your opponent's contention

* Speak slower than cattle auctioneers, but if you cannot help yourself, send me a speech doc.

* Logic and historical parallels are sometimes better than a questionable/unwarranted card.

* Feel free to post-round me. I will not get offended by any questions or criticism.

* Add me to email chains vladislav.onik@gmail.com

Good Luck!

Background:

High School PF debater.

Preferences:

1. Tech > Truth.

2. Extend throughout the round. Try and collapse the round to one contention by your summary speech, this will also help you with weighing.

3. Do the weighing so that I don't have to. Basically, make it clear why your side is winning when compared to your opponents.

4. I'm fine with speed, just don't spread.

Ultimately, debate is for fun, so be respectful and enjoy the debate.

For NSD:

1. not your best judge for evaluating prog. Explain really well and implicate. 
   NSD: If it is before lunch, and you want me to flow, please bring me coffee. You have been warned. (Stolen from Claire Beamer)
2. Not going to evaluate progressive arguments made against lambda/ kappa labs. Tbh don’t  run theory or tricks at all in the camp tournament.

I debated PF for four years at Glen Rock High School.

Add me to email chains:alyssasereb@gmail.com

Tech>truth

Speed is fine, send a doc if you go over 250 wpm

Defense isn’t sticky (extend defense in summary even if its conceded)

Second rebuttal has to frontline the first rebuttal. Anything conceded in rebuttal is conceded. That means no new responses in second summary (except responses to new stuff in first summary)

Summary and FF should both have extensions and weighing. Please extend your arg that you collapsed on, not doing that is the easiest way to accidentally lose. Then, weigh. Anything from timeframe weighing, prereqs, link ins, etc are very useful

Debater math is not a good impact. If your card says "a 1% decrease in GDP leads to an extra 20 mill people in poverty", don't do the math so it fits your x% GDP decrease. Econ is def way more complicated than any of us know how to calculate. If you have debater math in your case and you don't want to change it, don't change it, but "that's debater math" is acceptable impact defense

If I have to presume I’ll flip a coin unless told otherwise

pls send cards in an email chain or doc when your opponents call for ev. sending links in the chat is bad

bad evidence ethics can be made into a voting issue and will at least guarantee rly bad speaks

I will disclose who wins and if you want, I'll tell you your speaks

progressive args are fine as long as I can understand them

Feel free to post-round me I won't change my decision but we're all debaters let's debate abt the debate why not

If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to email me!