Hi! I'm Fiona, a pf debater at Cary.

Add me on the email chain: xfionaxhux@gmail.com

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation of this rule will be auto 0L.

Tech > Truth

Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

Speaks depend on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (Blast Lana before a round and I'll boost your speaks).

That being said, for every time you go "I will take x number of prep" I will be docking a speaker point. Just say "I'll be taking running prep" and tell me how much you use -- so much easier.

I don't flow cross, but it's binding.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for impacts. Also, have an internal link into your impact -- saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

Evidence clash is excessive in pf. Please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. I don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.

I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

Ks

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

Even though I've read Ks throughout high school, I won't hack for Ks. I'm perfectly fine with voting off of T, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

The current state of K-affs is far too polarized. There seems to be a common expectation of literal perfection within a K team's advocacy in and out of round. I don't think it should be a sacred argument and this treatment of Ks as sacred deters minority debaters from running identity Ks in the first place.

If you are reading a K, explain your theory of power well, and make implications of why it matters.

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

RVIs need warrants. If they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

I'm not a fan of TW theory, I think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. That being said, I won't hack against it.

Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. Again, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

Tricks

I don't get tricks, so run them at your own risk.

Tech after lunch

add me to the email chain: ayanjung@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Aryan Nair. I competed in PF at Cary Academy for 4 years and I'm now a sophomore at Duke. I would classify myself as a traditional PF judge.

I don't flow crossfire so anything you want me to flow should come up during speeches.

Here are a few things I like:

1. Warranting and Responsiveness: If you just read cards don't expect to win my ballot. Give me some sort of analysis and warranting behind your arguments. I like clash in round. Make sure that the responses you make are specifically responsive to case. Once again, don't just read cards, give me how those cards specifically take out their argument.

2. Signposting: Please signpost it helps me flow and gives structure to your speeches.

3. Comparative Analysis: I see that in a lot of rounds two people will have cards saying the opposite things. At that point you need to prove to me why your card is better (warranting, postdating, etc) otherwise you leave it to a 50/50 where I have to decide which card is better.

4. Extensions: Your final focus should bring up the same topics and cards as your summary. New arguments in final focus will not be flowed. If you drop an argument in summary, you concede that argument no matter how bad their argument is.

5. Weighing: Make sure to weigh impacts and links at least in final focus. It is the main way you are going to win my ballot.

6. Be Respectful: There is a difference between being assertive and rude. If you are being disrespectful in any way I will drop you and give you low speaker points. Make sure to have respect for your opponents.

If you have any questions feel free to email me at aryan.nair@duke.edu.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

I am a former LD debater from North Carolina. I now attend Duke University, majoring in Public Policy and Psychology on the Premed track. My email is casey.powell@duke.edu.

My general preference is for well-warranted arguments that are extended throughout the round. I’m willing to evaluate everything except tricks, but please make sure to clearly explain all facets of the argument. I can keep up with spreading, but please be courteous to your opponent and make deliberate choices about how to manage your time during speeches.

I’m generally tech > truth and enjoy unique arguments as long as they’re logically explained (with credible warrants/authors).

Bonus +1 speaks for incorporating an extended metaphor about Survivor (the tv show) and/or Scooby Doo into one of your speeches.

Bonus +0.5 speaks for 5+ rhymes.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round; I’m happy to answer!

I am currently a high school student. I have competed in PF for three years both nationally and locally.

I vote off the flow, which mainly encompasses speeches. I do try to pay attention to cross for anything interesting that comes up, but if you deem a question in cross as extremely important, I would suggest referencing it in your case. I am not a progressive judge, in fact, I'd more consider myself lay. I can still deal with progressive debate, but I much prefer the narrative focus - I believe it engenders more communication and persuasion. You'll grab my vote with well-warranted claims, convincing arguments, and good impacts. Analysis, linkage, and warranting are just as important as evidence. I appreciate narrative focus for arguments and quality over quantity when it comes to cards and blocks.

When you are responding to an argument (especially if you wish to turn it), just reading the block is not enough. You've got to tell me why your evidence is better than theirs and how it turns/blocks their case.

Summary and FF are the most important speeches; however, I do not particularly care how you organize them as long as they are coordinated and serve their purpose. Make sure you tell me why you win (voters/weighing); I am more likely to vote for you if you extend and warrant your impacts and weigh them over your opponents'.

Other minor things:

Speed - not an issue insofar as I can understand it.

Time - if you could time yourselves, that would be great. If not, I can time for you.

Speaks - I will give you speaks no lower than 27 unless you act rude, disrespectful, discriminatory, etc. Being polite is more likely to raise your speaks.

Calling cards - please only call cards that you need or that look suspicious. It takes a lot of time and interrupts the flow of the round. I won't stop you from calling them, but please be mindful.

LD - I have some experience judging LD, and my general principles regarding it are the same as for PF. However, if you're going to do something very complex, treat me like a parent judge.