Hi guys,

First heads up I am almost definitely younger than all of you but to make up for that I have also had about 3-4 years of debate experience. I am a flow judge and first of all I really dont want or need to hear any Ks or theories unless you absolutely NEED to. If not, please refrain.

Cross: I rlly dont know what to say about this but just like be nice I guess

Case: I want to hear clear cases with a claim, warrant, impact, and if you spread I can flow some of it but I will assure you that a lot of points may be disregarded if I can't understand what you are saying.

Rebuttal: if second speaking team, defend, please. Also just try to respond to all arguments even if you don't really have anything.

Summary: PLEASE WEIGH. new weighing in ff won't be counted Also second please defend from rebuttal.

FF: please refrain from making new args they won't be counted it's unfair. extend args and weighing from summary.

Ok thats it happy debating

Im a flay judge

Speak slowly im to lazy to write fast. if i miss it i wont evaluate it

im an a somewhat tech>truth but if your argument is completly wrong (ex. 1+1=8791738279164614) then i won't vote for you

If you frontline is in second summary then i will ignore it cause that's annoying.

if you use theory or run a k I will down vote you because it’s inherently unfair to smaller debate clubs/schools

if you make a debate joke in round i will give you 30 speaks as long as its not racist homophobic or offensive.

I like clash. No clash i vote neg.

i will not call for cards unless i am told to.

In cross i like sarcasm but if you start yelling then i will give you the lowest speaks i can

Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

General

• Tech over truth I suppose. But I think there is a point where it gets kind of ridiculous.

• Speed. Talking too slow kind of bores me, so don’t do that. I think a “quick(170-215 wpm)” pace is best for me. If ur going to go fast(250+), send a speech doc cuz my handwriting sucks and i wont be able to read my flow properly. I don’t like speech docs, but I would prefer you send a speech doc if you’re going to spread. I’m not too particular about speed though.

• Weigh. I’ll flip a coin if you don’t. Metaweighing is cool too.

• You can wear formal clothing if you want. I’m pretty indifferent about it.

• I think flex prep is super healthy for debate, especially if it is to ask about something you missed. I used to zone out a lot, so being able to ask after helped a lot. Plus, I think a debate is better if both sides fully understand the others’ argument. Also, it should go without saying, but this isn’t the time to argue.

• If you want to concede defense, it must be done in the speech after the defense was first read (i.e first rebuttal defense must be conceded in the second rebuttal). The one exception is that if you frontline in the second rebuttal and they backline in the first summary, that gives you another opportunity to concede that defense in the second summary. Also, you need to tell me which piece of defense you are conceding. That means don’t say, “we concede the defense.”

• I presume NEG, but I am open to arguments as to why I should presume the other side. These arguments need to be made by the summary at the latest. I am also comfortable presuming first if the argument is made

• Don’t be rude or mean. I always thought the activity was way more serious than it needed to be. You’re more likely to get higher speaks if you make the debate light-hearted and fun. This has nothing to do with winning my ballot, but it wouldn’t hurt to smile a bit during the round. Chances are that I am judging you late at night, and we are both tired. A happy mood will probably help the 5 of us get through the round.

• Should go without saying but if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I won’t hesitate to stop the round and down you.

Constructive

• I’ll add 0.5 speaker points if the second constructive somewhat responds to the first constructive. I think starting clash earlier makes the debate more interesting. Do it at your own risk though.

• For the most part, don’t really care what you do with this time.

Rebuttal

• I think offensive overviews are acceptable in the first rebuttal, but I won’t evaluate offensive overviews in the second rebuttal.

• I require the second rebuttal to frontline ALL defense on the argument you are collapsing on or it will be regarded as conceded.

Summary

• No new prereqs in the second summary. I think it is similar to reading new defense in the second summary which is obviously abusive.

• Proper extension: uniqueness, link, impact. All carded. I’m not super serious about extending author names. I guess just explaining the three parts of the argument is acceptable, but I definitely would prefer extensions that contain evidence.

FF

• You can try to make new arguments in the second final focus, but more likely than not, I’ll be able to know which arguments are new. I would advise you just focus on the arguments that were in the summary.

• I don’t really like voters that much. Just go line-by-line if possible.

Progressive

• One rule I have when it comes to progressive arguments is that I won’t extend the speech time or the prep time.

• I won’t evaluate 30 speaks theory (I can’t believe this is an actual thing).

• I will vote on theory. Theory that points out actual abuse is more convincing. Friv Theory = Disclosure, Paraphrasing, Shoe Theory?, etc. I will vote on Friv Theory, but it is certainly less convincing. I will probably have a lower threshold for responses.

• Paragraph theory is alright but a. It shouldn’t be blippy and b. (should be obvious) make it make sense.

• I will evaluate topical K’s. I will evaluate identity-based K’s. I probably won’t evaluate K’s that are non-topical and, in my opinion, are kind of silly (like Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.). I definitely won’t evaluate tricks, especially hidden ones. Just to let you know im prolly not ur guy for this type of thing, so you may want to spend extra time warranting things

• Don’t read an identity-based K if you’re not a member of that community. For example, don’t read a Fem K if you’re a male-male team.

• Even though I evaluate some progressive arguments, I would much rather hear a solid substance debate than a progressive debate. You will end up getting higher speaker points if you do.

Don’ts

• Don’t be rude to novices. Don’t spread on novices. Don’t read Friv Theory on novices. Getting younger students involved in debate is pretty important to me, and I think that all of these things push novices away from the activity.

• If you can, please avoid saying, “most importantly, is my judge ready?” It makes me feel a little singled out and a little awkward. Just say, “Is everyone ready?” or “Is everyone good to go?”

• Don’t postround me. I’ll answer all your questions. I actually invite you to ask as many questions as you have, but you aren’t going to convince me to change my decision. And be respectful if you do have questions.

• Please, please, please, for the love of god, don’t ask “How was your day?” in crossfire. Ask what their favorite color is or something. Way classier.

Speaker Points

• I’ll base this on your speaking ability AND in-round decisions like collapsing.

• 30 = I will probably remember y’all because y’all were just that good.

• 29 = Above Average

• 28 = Average

• 26-27 = Below Average

• 25 or below = You did something very wrong like being very rude, homophobic, racist, etc.

Good luck and have fun :)

debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld

few must-know notes:

1. add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

1. I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
2. extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
3. I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
4. default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
5. uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
6. im fluent in progressive argumentation. update: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.

things that get you really good speaks

1. analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
2. keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
3. judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
4. keeping the round running on time.

if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.

I'm Milan! I debated pf a few years at Sidwell. My email is milanchander1@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round or want any extra feedback. I hope you have a great round and that all the debaters are respectful and considerate--at the end of the day, we are all here to learn, and there is no need to be aggressive or to belittle your opponents and their arguments.

Please fully extend offense (uniqueness, links, internal links, impact), and please collapse. I don't think defense is sticky; please extend it in 1st summary. Please frontline in 2nd rebuttal, too.

Slower debates are just as valuable as fast ones. Please take time to explain all of your arguments as clearly as possible!

I'm not amazing at evaluating prog debates, but if a team is doing something unethical feel free to call them out for it. I'm willing to vote for progressive arguments provided they're well-warranted just like any other argument, and I definitely prefer arguments that aren't canned from topic to topic. I also like learning about the topic.

I will do my best to give useful feedback after rounds.

He/Him, 3 years of pf for Blair

Debate however you want.

Add me to the chain: kaden.chien@gmail.com

Important: read a cw for stuff that needs it

Don't go too fast, but speed should normally be fine. Theory is ok. I'm worse at Ks and Trix so maybe dont run those on me.

I don't rly flow cross, but i'll kinda listen. If anything important happens bring it up later.

2nd rebuttal should frontline, dont read 50 disads pls.

Do weighing, explain why your weighing is better than theirs.

• • TL:DR
    
    

  • Send speech docs. Please. I’ll give you good speaks - garretttcrouc@gmail.com
    
    

  • tech>truth
    
    

  • Theory is fun but only if you actually know what you're doing
    
    

  • Ill do my best with other prog but don’t assume I understand the arguments you’re reading
    
    

  • Tricks are really stupid please don't read them
    
    

  • As long as you send docs and are actually speaking english, up to 275ish WPM is fine
    
    

  • Sticky defense is really dumb
    
    

  • Weighing frames offense
    
    

  • Debate how you want, ill do my best to adapt
    
    

  • 
    
    Long version
    
    

  • Tech judge, will evaluate pretty much anything as long as it isn't offensive/harmful
    
    

  • General stuff
    
    

  • Speech docs please please please please please - garretttcrouc@gmail.com
    
    

  • I like a good amount of speed but not policy/LD spreading and only if you're speaking clearly and sending docs

  • I’ll reference a doc to see details if I miss them, but I'm not gonna flow exclusively off a doc for a speech I can't catch a word of. You should be able to tell whether or not I’m keeping up and adapt.
    
    

  • Dont flow cross, but pay attention. Bring up anything important in a speech
    
    

  • Extensions are needed for everything, but if its conceded then it can be brief
    
    

  • Dont need to extend the original link on an impact turn if the other team extends it in the speech before
    
    

  • All responses must be made in the speech directly after what you're responding too, except for 2nd constructive
    
    

  • Evidence

  • analytics = evidence unless theres a specific reason the evidence matters
    
    

  • Powertagging is cringe
    
    

  • Cut cards = higher speaks
    
    

  • Weighing

  • Please weigh, unless you're really confident you're winning terminal defense
    
    

  • Most probability weighing is just defense
    
    

  • Weighing needs to be comparative if you want me to acknowledge that it exists
    
    

  • Pre-reqs win rounds
    
    

  • Do metaweighing/respond to weighing or else i have to intervene and thats sad
    
    

  • Defense

  • 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline anything you don't want to concede
    
    

  • Conceding defense to kick turns requires implication, don't just say ur kicking it
    
    

  • No sticky defense, extend it in summary
    
    

  • Prog
    Theory

  • I like theory, its fun. That being said, don't run it if you don't know what you're doing or if you have to force a violation to exist
    
    

  • I think paraphrasing is bad and open source disclosure is good, but I'll fairly evaluate these debates and am willing to vote for the opposite position
    
    

  • I default to spirit > text, reasonability > competing interps, yes RVIs, Yes Offensive counter interps, DTA
    
    

  • IVIs are fine if you don't have a shell but you still have to make all the parts of the argument, don't expect me to do work for you just cause youre reading it as a paragraph
    
    

  • I dont require extensions in rebuttal unless warrants are read
    
    

  • Ks

  • I have a decent understanding of Ks i think?
    
    

  • Make the link and impact very clear and explain to me why the impact is more important than the substance
    
    

  • K affs

  • Less confident on these, but go for it if you want
    
    

  • Make the roll my specific ballot plays very clear
    
    

  • Im probably somewhat bias in favor of topicality
    
    

  • Tricks

  • By far the worst kind of argument. If you read tricks i will flip a coin as to whether or not to evaluate them
    
    

  • Random stuff

  • I presume on a coin flip in absence of warrants given in round
    
    

  • 30 speaks if you read only impact turns in constructive
    
    

  • Big fan of democracy bad and global warming good
    
    

  • 30 speaks if you start the speech immediately after either the neg rebuttal or final with “this is what happens when you let the weaker debater give the second negative”
    
    

  • If both teams agree on a different paradigm for me to use to evaluate or another way I should decide the round (lay judge, rap battle, fortnite 1V1, etc) ill do it. This does not apply if I'm on a panel.

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

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 VBI:

• First time judging LD.
• Signpost!

About Me:

Stanford ‘26

Debated PF at American Heritage Broward for 3 Years

Anything fine if explained well!

Have fun, be nice.

DOPE STUFF (Speaker Point Boost):

1. Playing Hype Music Before Your Speech

My Picks:

• Top Off by Gunna
• Can't Tell Me Nothing by Kanye West
• Jimmy Cooks by Drake
• These are suggestions, creativity is encouraged.
• Topical song choice is encouraged.

2. Funny Contention Names

Background

Hi!

I’m Rowan (he/him)- judge, Rowan, supreme overlord, and señor are all acceptable. Mr. Gray is my dad.

I started my career in PF for two years- first year was mostly on the local circuit and second year was mostly on the national. I had some moderate success, qualled to TOC, got some speaker awards. I ran mostly stock args but also ran a Jewish humor performance aff and prepared a Queer rage aff. However, since I ended my career in LD think of me as an LD judge. Most of the opinions I had about PF have changed since LD enlightened me.

I switched to LD my senior year where I was more successful- I full qualled and got some speaker awards, semid a tournament, and went 6-0 once. I was a K debater, focusing on East Asian litbases (specifically Daoism and Buddhism) but I also ran some cap and Quakerism (think baudrillard + oatmeal).

I’m down for pretty much any debate in any event. I’ve heard pretty much every argument and I know enough about debate to be able to evaluate most things.

People who have shaped the way I think about debate- Vishal Sivamani, Sean Wallace, James Song, Lukas Krause, Holden Budkowski, Anish Iyyavoo, Marshall Thompson, Bill Batterman, Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Jannat Verma

Guide to this paradigm

The first section applies to any event I judge. After that is my LD paradigm and finally is my PF paradigm.

General

Speed

I’ll clear you if I can’t understand you- after 3 clears I stop flowing. That said, I did nat circ LD so you can go pretty fast.

Send speech docs- always. If you don’t do it in LD I'll nuke your speaks.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategy. The better and more well-executed your strategy is the higher speaks you’ll get. Here’s a few things that will modify that.

If you’re being a jerk, I’ll nuke your speaks

If you don't cut your cards, I'll nuke your speaks

In irl rounds if you bring me food I’ll boost everyone’s speaks by 0.5

If ur a pfer that discloses on the wiki- lmk and I’ll give you 0.5

Content Warning Policy

Content warnings should be given for graphic explicit depictions of violence and/or self harm– ie the kind of performances some antiblackness/queer theory affs use.

IF you don’t provide a CW to these things I will nuke your speaks and if your opponent reaches out to me and tells me that you’ve made them uncomfortable I will drop you with zero speaks (if this is you please reach out through contact information, I’ll keep everything anonymous)

I genuinely think it’s kinda funny that PFers are running theory on people saying the words ‘sex trafficking’. That said, if you wanna exploit my tolerance for questionable arguments and have an opponent who’s so incompetent that they lose on the flow then feel free.

Misc

I disclose every time, even when the tournament bars me from doing so.

Please post round me. I want you to understand my decision and if it was a bad decision I want to understand why it was bad.

If I screw you because I overestimate or underestimate my judging capabilities, please contact me after the round or postround me to change my paradigm

Flex prep is always good

L20s

Any bigotry at all

If you straight up lie about what your evidence says *not misinterpret, lie

Contact Info

Hit me up on facebook with any questions and add me to the email chain

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011539506658

rowan.a.gray@gmail.com

LD Paradigm

My pref sheet is a mixture of how competent I am and how much I like the arguments

These Ks-(cap/setcol/sec/edelman/apess/semiocap/psych/mollow/racial capitalism/weheliye/buddhism/daoism)/Deleuzian Stuffs/Performance- 1

Larp/Theory/Other Ks-2

Actual Phil- 4/5

Trix-S

My favorite debates to watch are KvK but please don’t change your style if that isn’t you. I’d much rather watch a decent larp round than a bad KvK round

Defaults: comparative world, reasonability, no rvis, presume neg

I'm impartial on T vs k affs. Hard to say whether I err one side or the other since t debates vs different affs can and should be very different

PF Paradigm

This event is kinda cringe lol- please try to make the rounds interesting for me or I might fall asleep

Anything you don’t frontline in second rebuttal is conceded

No new rebuttals in 1s

No new rebuttals or frontlines in 2s

Defense isn’t sticky now that summary is 3 minutes

I’ll give you 1 minute to find a card, after which I won’t evaluate it

Hello!

My name is Katherine Lee and I am a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. I did Public Forum debate all four years with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts and had some experience in Original Oratory in middle school.

I don't know much about speech, but I will try to follow along and judge as objectively as possible.

Please feel free to ask me any questions when we get to the round or via email before:

kzlee@sas.upenn.edu (email)

- speed is usually fine just don't sacrifice clarity

- tech>truth (usually, I try my best)

- defense is sticky if it isn't frontlined in second rebuttal

- weigh ASAP!

- read trigger warnings

- I don't listen to cross but don't be rude

cl4319@columbia.edu

Debate should always be fun, educational, and safe - please ask questions before/after the round if anything is unclear. I'll always disclose and feel free to ask or say something if you disagree with my decision.

Everything needs to be warranted

Summary is the most important speech in the round - collapse, extend links and impacts, frontline, and weigh. Any offense and defense needs to be in summary and FF (because summary is now three mins, defense is not sticky). Basically I should be able to listen to only summary and FF and make the correct decision.

I think spreading, Ks, theory, and other prog args are overdone in PF and defeat the purpose of the event. I will evaluate them but I'm generally predisposed to not vote for them; I also never ran them as a debater so I'm not the most familiar at judging them.

Have fun!

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a lot more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

debate.ianmackeypiccolo@gmail.com

2 yea rs of policy at Fox chapel. I was a 2N, did ins on aff, and went for only policy arguments. 3 bids to the TOC my senior year if that's important to you. 

Tech > truth shall be the whole of the law. No argument is presumptively too dumb or unfair to answer it. 

I like impact turns and debates about counterplan competition. 

no out-of-round stuff.

Misgendering is a sufficient reason to reject a team and stop the round if requested.

Fairness is not intrinsically good.

No mercy for dropping framework tricks, even really bad ones like truth testing. 

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (RC, SG, BG, LJ). traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

What's up y'all, I'm Kian. In high school, I debated for Chaska for 4 years, spending my first three years on the MN local circuit and my senior year on the nat circuit. During my senior year, I got a few bids and reached eliminations rounds at TOC, NCFL, and NSDA.

I'm not saying I take bribes, but I am very receptive to frameworks that argue that I should vote for the team that pays me the most money.

TL;DR: I'm a standard tech judge who likes weighing, big brain strategies, good evidence ethics, and not being mean to your opponents. Just read the bolded stuff if you can't read the whole thing.

Add me to the email chain: kiannoconnor@gmail.com.

Novices scroll to the bottom of the paradigm to read your specific section

====================================================================

General

I'll put this at the top, because I think it's what gets neglected the most. Implicate! Please implicate all of your arguments and explicitly tell me how each argument you are winning should factor into my ballot. The best speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me, and if I come to a decision that you disagree with, chances are its because you didn't implicate your arguments as well as you should have.

Tech>Truth, but the less warranted and more outlandish the argument is, the lower my threshold for responses will be.

I'll evaluate anything as long as it's well warranted, weighed, and not racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary

I can generally handle speeds up to 300 wpm. I'd prefer you stay under that, but if you do decide to go over please send a speech doc. I'll do my best, however, If I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it.

Everything (Offense, Defense, Turns, DAs, Weighing, and Theory) must be answered the speech after the argument was presented (excluding case). The only way to recover from dropping an argument is to either weigh out of it or implicate something you are winning. In short, I think dropped defense is infinitely sticky.

I evaluate weighing first and then look to the team that best links into that weighing. If there's no one winning under that weighing, I'll go to the second most important, weighed argument and repeat the process.

Please let me know if you need accommodations (can't handle spreading, need speech docs, need me to time for you, etc)

When timing, I'll stop flowing after the first sentence over the time limit, anything after won't be evaluated

I'll always disclose, assuming it doesn't disrupt the tournament. I think debaters should be able to understand and question judge decisions so that they can improve.

If both teams agree before the round on some rule that's not in the NSDA rules (no grand cross, anyone can talk during any cross, etc) I'll evaluate the round with that rule in place. Otherwise, I'll evaluate the round normally.

If you believe my RFD doesn't reflect the beliefs held in my paradigm feel free to tell me, and we can talk about it.

If any of this doesn't make sense, I think Nathaniel Yoon, Zayne El-Kaissi, Christian Vasquez, Dan Bagwell, Bryce Piotrowski, and Maddie Cook are all excellent judges.

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

Other Tech Preferences

1. I like Off time roadmaps, but you should still signpost in speech

2. Warranted Uncarded responses are better than Unwarranted Carded Responses

3. If you read a link turn and impact turn and are called out on it, then you'll be in trouble

4. Collapse If you go for every argument you make, chances are each will be unwarranted, underweighed, and you probably won't be able to cover your opponent's arguments very effectively. Smart collapse strategies will be rewarded in ballots and speaks.

5. Case extensions must have both cards and warrants You don't need to extend every card and link, but you should be able to extend the basics of the uniqueness, link, and impact

6. Summary-final focus parallelism This is a must. Anything that you want me to evaluate must be in summary and final focus. The only exception is new weighing that is made in the second summary can be responded to in the first final focus. Additionally, new weighing in the first final can be answered in the second final, which means that starting weighing in the first final is probably a bad idea as the other team gets free responses to it that the first speaking team can't answer. Also, new weighing in the second final won't be evaluated unless it's the only weighing that's made in the round.

7. New responses in the second final focus make me sad. They won't be evaluated and I'll drop speaks

8. I don't flow cross, any important concessions must be restated in speech for it to be evaluated

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

Evidence:

PF evidence ethics is literally so bad lmao like it's crazy; I expect that evidence is represented properly.

Evidence must be cut, cited, and available within 2 minutes of calling for it before I start running prep. Obviously, I'll make exceptions if teams call for like 10 cards, but if that's the case you should prob just send a speech doc.

If I call for a piece of evidence and it's a link to a screenshot of google calculator, I will literally lose my mind. And it hurts that I have to even say this.

I understand that not all teams know what cut cards are (I know I didn't until my junior year), however, teams should still have, at the bare minimum, the link and the paragraph(s) being cited at request. Just sending a link and saying to control f makes the round take literally forever, and I'll drop speaks because of it.

I like it when teams read cut cards. I'll give +.5 speaks if it's done in constructive and +1 speaks if it's done in rebuttal, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot

I like it when teams disclose. I'll give +.5 speaks to both debaters if they disclose on the ndca wiki, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot

Regarding evidence indites. Saying "this evidence says their evidence is bad" is not an indite. Be sure to explain why the methodology of their evidence is flawed in some way.

Regarding evidence comparisons I think it's really silly when teams just say "my evidence comes from Harvard therefore it's better" or "my evidence is more recent therefore it's better" without explaining why that matters. I'll only evaluate evidence comparisons if a team implicates why the credibility or recency comparison matters; ie by saying "this post date matters because x thing has changed"

Calling for evidence. I'll only call for evidence if a team explicitly tells me to or I get conflicting claims of what the evidence actually says.

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

Weighing

Weighing is my personal favorite part of the debate. I think it's one of the only points of the round where teams must rely on their big brains as opposed to evidence, and it makes my decisions sooooooo much easier when it's done well. With that, I have a few preferences

1. Make Weighing Comparative - this means saying stuff like "our argument outweighs on magnitude because it affects millions of people" isn't weighing. A weighing argument must prove why you do meet the metric of your weighing in addition to why your opponents don't meet that metric. ie saying "our argument outweighs on magnitude because we affect millions of people while they only affect thousands"

2. Please make link ins comparative- Saying that your argument independently links into their argument isn't enough. You must explain why your link to their impact is better than theirs. An example would be "recessions link into climate change because they cause governments to look inwards, preventing them from addressing international issues like climate change. Prefer our link in over their case on scope as they only solve for one cause of climate change whereas international regulation solves for multiple."

3. The earlier the better - makes my life a lot easier when the weighing debate starts in rebuttal or summary instead of in final focus

4. Strength of Link weighing- I think this argument is kinda dumb, but that won't stop me from voting on it, but I'm predisposed to believe that as long as a team wins their argument it doesn't matter if there was defense on it, so you'll have to tell me otherwise if you want me to evaluate the arg.

5. I like metaweighing- makes my life easier and simplifies the weighing debate don't be afraid to try it.

6. Weigh everything- Weighing turns, frontlines, backlines, and pieces of evidence in addition to case will put you waaaaaaaaaaay ahead on the flow and will likely be reflected in my ballot.

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

Progressive

Being an originally traditional debater, my exposure and experience with progressive arguments are limited to two theory rounds. That being said, I've been exposed to enough theory that I feel comfortable evaluating it effectively.

Theory

Without being told otherwise, I default to

1. Competing Interpretations

2. Yes RVIs-
I think that without RVIs it's almost impossible for the team that theory is read on to win because they have to win both the theory and substance, while the team running the theory only has to win one. Additionally, I think RVIs check back against frivolous theory. On a more truthful level, if you really want to set a norm in the debate space, then you should be going for it whenever you read it.

Theory should be read in the speech after the violation, and theory about out of round violations should happen in constructive.

Additionally, here are my preferences on common shells. I won't not vote on ones I don't agree with, but I of course have my biases.

Interps I Like: Paraphrasing bad, disclosure, trigger warnings

Interps I Don't Like: Paraphrasing good, Big School theory, anything obviously frivolous (like shoe theory).

K's- I have no experience debating or writing K's. However, I don't want to deter you from running them. I just recommend that you make sure the K is slow, clear and that the different parts of the arguments are differentiated and implicated so that I can evaluate the argument to the best of my abilities.

For other progressive arguments not mentioned, I know so little about these things that I wouldn't even know what to do with them. You're better off not reading them in front of me.

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

Speaker Points (stolen from my good friend Ekaanth Veerakumar)

Some judges really are tripping with their inflated speaker points.

Speaker points start at 28 and go up or down based on smart collapsing, being funny, clever argumentation, well-thought-out responses, well-warranted extensions, good non-robotic speaking, and CROSS.

This was stated under "Evidence" but I'll say it here since it applies

I like it when teams read cut cards. I'll give +.5 speaks if it's done in constructive and +1 speaks if it's done in rebuttal, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot

I like it when teams disclose. I'll give +.5 speaks to both debaters if they disclose on the ndca wiki, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot.

If you come from a genuinely small school program (one or two varsity teams total), then I'll start you .2 higher. I know your struggle and y'all are amazing for pushing through just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot

Two Notes for less points:

1. If you call for an ungodly amount of cards that I see no strategic reason for, then I'll tank you .2

2. If I catch you stealing prep, then I'll tank you .2

All of this is linear not logistic, the more cards or time you waste the worse the tanking will be.

Generally here's your bar (Unless I'm judging novices in which case everything will be lowered accordingly)

29.5-30: Pleaaaaase give me a shoutout when your in finals of this tournament about to win

29-29.5: Have fun at the TOC I'm rooting for you

28.5-29: Wild out in elims

28-28.5: There's a chance you'll break, I hope you do

27-28: Y'all got the potential to pop off so get back to drilling and prepping if you want to.

26-27: You made some serious strategic and speaking errors that costed you the round massively or made you barely edge out a win, you need to correct them soon.

20-25: You've done something problematic in round

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

Novices

Most of what I said above won't apply to y'all, but feel free to ask any questions you may have. Generally, for your rounds I'll expect you to follow these things

1. Understand your argument and your evidence- If a team asks you about the claim behind your arguments, be sure you can explain it as well as address the attacks they make against it

2. Be sure to not repeat your case, but to defend it against the other team's responses

3. Make sure that your summary and final focus are similar. It's generally unfair for the opponents and confusing for your judges if the summary talks about some arguments and the final focus talks about completely different ones. Remember y'all are working as a team and your speeches should reflect that

Good luck, y'all are sure to become great debaters in the future if you keep working hard.

====================================================================

I know it's a lot but feel free to ask any questions before the round. I look forward to judging y'all! Good luck and Have fun!

3 years of PF at Oakton

22karap@gmail.com

she/her

let me know if you have questions before the round!

I would consider myself a flay but lean more towards lay, I will flow but I'm unfamiliar with the topic and I'm out of practice.

general

resolve clash and collapse

comparatively weigh and warrant

With speed, send a speech doc if you're going fast (but I still prob won't catch everything)

speech specifics

no new offense in the second half (summary+ff)

second reb needs to frontline

write my RFD for me in FF! Show me all the places I should care about and why you're winning them

presumption

unless given warrants otherwise, I'll presume the team that lost flip.

If it's side locked I'll presume neg.

prog

I have a very basic understanding of theory but there needs to be a clear abuse in the round and it must be clearly explained and extended for me to vote off of it and even still there are no guarantees. I will not vote off of friv theory. I don't know/remember anything about tricks or Ks so unless you think you can explain it really well please don't.

speaks

I give high speaks unless you're rude

L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

other important things

Use content warnings when necessary

let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

Have fun!

The state of PF has compelled me to do the unthinkable — write an actual paradigm. Here we go!

I debated for Walt Whitman High School for 3 years in PF.

I WILL NOT FLOW OFF OF A DOC.Read fewer arguments, don't try to dump your way out of clash.

NEW WARRANTS ARE NEW ARGUMENTS. If your argument didn't have a warrant or an impact in rebuttal, I will evaluate it without one, even if it newly appears in summary or (god forbid) final focus. That being said, GOOD WARRANTS > UNWARRANTED EVIDENCE.

RESOLVE THE WEIGHING DEBATE. If nobody tells me definitively which impact is more important I will decide based on vibes. This is probably a BAD THING for you. I really like pre-requisite and short-circuit analysis — if you don't butcher it I'll probably vote off of it.

Ks ARE GREAT, THEORY BETTER NOT SUCK. To be fair, your K better not suck either. I have fairly significant experience with K debate, but definitely make my role as a judge clear in your advocacy. If you run a frivolous or weirdly nit-picky shell in front of me, the best-case scenario for you is an LPW. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad whatever. I don't really care about niche theory jargon; "paraphrasing is bad for X reasons" is the same thing as "A IS THE INTERP HEWJKHFJQKHJK" to me.

I AM LITERALLY BEGGING YOU ON MY HANDS AND KNEES TO COLLAPSE. I won't hack against you if you don't, but I will definitely assume that you hate me and want me to suffer if you extend 5 args in the back-half.

BE SILLY AND GOOFY AND HAVE FUN. Having a toxic, venomous round is such a headache. We will all feel better if you chill. To my guys and dudes specifically, bulldozing female debaters in cross isn’t a slam dunk. It makes you look like a loser.

DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. My Facebook is my name (Sophia Polley-Fisanich) and my email is sophia43762@gmail.com (don't put me on the email chain tho).

arjunsurya473@gmail.com

Did PF & LD in high school, now do NPDA now at Rice.

Fine with most arguments, just be be clear and slow down on Ks/theory. I'm not super sure how norms are in LD so if you're going to go for an argument be very clear about what the link story is in the rebuttals and do enough weighing so I know how to evaluate it.

I don't have any particular preference for RVIs, Spec, Condo, or anything really. Just make clear arguments about why you should win with it. For Ks, I'm familiar with cap/futurism/Baudrillard/Lacan/Hauntology/ but you should still explain the alts to me like I'm a PFer because I low key don't really know what most of these arguments mean even when I read them.

I don't really know what a judge kick is but from my understanding I would err on the side of not doing that in front of me. Just collapse normally or do weighing to get out of an argument.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

I debated on the national circuit for Lambert back in the day (you should look me up to boost my ego) and am currently a student at Upenn.

Don't be rude or a bad person.

He/Him

put me on the email chain, please.

georgetian80@gmail.com

General

I strongly believe in Tech>Truth, but that does not mean doing sloppy debates with way too much on the flow. By the end of my flow I want a concise and clear way to vote.

I will probably have no idea what the topic is about, so please make everything easy to understand.

Everything extended must have a warrant.

Please clash and resolve said clash. I want to intervene as little as possible. Also, please weigh it'll make voting a lot easier.

I'm okay with speed but send a speech doc. (I have not debated for a while, I may be rusty so a speech doc will help no matter what)

DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY IE if you don't extend a piece of defense even if your opponents don't frontline it I will not take it into account. You must extend everything you want me to write down. This is a hill I will die on.

Speech Specifics

Second rebuttal should frontline.

No new weighing in final focus unless it's responsive.

you should probably respond to frameworks in the speech directly after even if it's just for a few seconds.

Please time cross on your own. I don't really pay attention to cross either so use it as an opportunity to gain information not win the round.

Prog

I'm ok with theory (very rusty) especially, disclosure, open-source, paraphrasing, and some friv theory.

Theory must be in shell format

Please weigh in theory debates.

I have little experience with K lit but I will vote off of it if you warrant it well and explain everything. I am by no means experienced with kritiks and not be the best judge to read them with.

trix ^same as K

Since most of my debate career was online, I'm still super used to email chains as evidence sharing, and I think this should be a norm even in in-person debates.

teddyvwallen@gmail.com

tldr fyo flow judge

Hi! I debated for 4 years on the circuit at Durham Academy and graduated in 23. I’m happy to vote on anything except for friv theory and I’m fine with any speed etc. I will only evaluate what you actually say in speeches (I will use docs to help me but won’t flow off of them). Best way to win my ballot is through good, actually comparative weighing and good frontlining so you actually win the offense you weigh.

I don’t have a ton of experience with Ks but happy to evaluate them as best as I can. I debated against a few Ks during HS but never/very rarely read one myself.

Don’t hesitate to ask any further paradigm questions before the round starts!

P.S. be mature, I don’t mind competition but if it ever gets personal/excessively rude I will tank your speaks and drop you. Use common sense/best judgment plz

P.P.S. I like fun/strategic/weird arguments and if you run them well (i.e. really understand what you’re saying and contextualize/weigh it properly) I’m likely to give you higher speaks. Saying this for people like me in HS who prep a bunch of strange arguments/weighing strats in hope of running them

Flow judge

4 years PF at Leland

he/him

PF:

-Put me on the email chain: dxie18@gmail.com

-Frontline in second rebuttal

-Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh comparatively -- don't just say your impact is important, show why it's more important than your opponent's

-Give warrants. Don't just read statistics with no reasoning or warranting.

-Terminal defense > Weighing. make sure you at least access your impact in some way before weighing it

-Metaweigh, otherwise I'll probably just default to prereq/short circuit > link-in > everything else or evaluate based on mitigatory defense/whatever feels intuitive

-I don't like DAs that don't interact with the case at all but I'll evaluate them reluctantly

-Misconstrued evidence won't be evaluated and you'll probably lose speaks

-I really really prefer that you don't spread. I don't like flowing off a doc. I will evaluate spreading if you give me a doc but I'd rather not have to.

-Please time yourself.

-Tech > Truth. I'll vote on anything but keep in mind that crazy arguments that don't make a lot of sense are a lot easier for your opponents to respond to

-Don't be problematic

-I don't flow cross and won't vote on it. If something important happens in cross, it must be mentioned in speech for it to be on my flow.

-I don't like calling for cards. I will try to avoid calling for cards. MAKE MY JOB EASY, do the indicting and the evidence comparison in your speech. I will always try to evaluate evidence clashes solely based on what is said in the round, me calling for evidence should be the last last resort if I can't break a clash.

-If you want to concede defense to kick out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read, you should also explain why the defense takes out the turn

Progressive Arguments

-Theory and Ks: I'm not too familiar with them, especially Ks, but you can run them (sorry if I make the wrong decision though). I don't like friv theory but I won't hack against it

-No CPs/Tricks

Not PF:

-frontline in the speech after responses are made

-warrants please

PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY), freshman at Cornell, coach for Bergen County CM and Awty ZZ

TLDR: pls warrant and if nobody does GOOD comparative weighing I'll prefer the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact. At least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh.

For TOC: I’m gonna have a much higher threshold for extensions, warranting, and comparative weighing than I normally would throughout the season, teams have gotten WAY too lazy. also genuinely don’t care what you read, j send all docs.

add me to the email chain - vy.debate@gmail.com - send speech docs and I'll boost speaks

spec notes on how to adapt to me:

• "Fast PF speed" is fine - faster then 210wpm is when I start to have issues. Spread at your own risk bc tbh I suck at flowing off speech docs and will probably make a worse decision and be annoyed if you make me do so
• I hate blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on timeframe" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow. Bad weighing makes me sad
• Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense
• Extend warrants, not card names. chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what John said and I won't flow it
• Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, and terminal defense if you want to go for the arg later
• If you want me to vote on an Impact turn or rebuttal disad/adv it also need to have an impact and be weighed
• I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then ill tune in
• not having actual cut cards on hand = .5 drop in speaks

my rant about "probability" weighing
If you read new defense in summary or final and label it probability weighing I am docking ur speaks and will be saddened. A lot of probability weighing just isn't real weighing its just defense in disguise- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any "probability weighing" is just some sort of mitigatory or terminal defense so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal.

non-subs debate
Im good to eval any theory or K debate as long as speeches aren't spread (seriously don't trust me to eval a K round if I have to read everything off docs), yes trix are fun but like pls don't in front of me

most importantly, have fun! let me know how I can accommodate you in round in any way

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

I used to debate in high school. Now I am in college. That is all.

Don't spread.

I will flow.

Frontlining offense in second rebuttal is necessary but defense is optional though recommended.

Defense is NOT sticky, please extend it even if it is dropped.

Please weigh!

I will vote off theory as a last resort. Be warned, I am not experienced in theory. You can run it at your own risk.

If you have any questions, ask me in round.

Hope your tournament goes well!

hi, i'm irene!! i did pf at sidwell for a few years. if you need help after the round or really anything, my email is irenezhao29@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain)

i am begging you to fully extend your offense (uniqueness, link, impact), then comparatively weigh it against your opponents' arguments. also, collapse: you only need 1 piece of good offense to win a round.

the current trend on the circuit of reading 6 billion contentions and dumping seven million incomprehensible responses in the front half and then pretending to "clarify it all" in the backhalf is really upsetting to me. i would much rather you have a narrative from the getgo and flesh it out throughout the round. i will not vote on blippy turns. turns, like all offense, need warranting and FULL EXTENSIONS (uniqueness, link, impact + weighing).

other stuff

a) nothing is sticky, 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

b) read trigger warnings/be tactful - please be nice!!!

c) not the best judge for prog stuff -- of course, willing to vote on any well-warranted, well-explained argument -- i just have very little jargon/bg knowledge. i tend to really dislike jargon-heavy theory debates + k debates where people are clearly just reading off backfiles.

d) there's nothing wrong with slow debate! i despise flowing off docs. LIKE ACTUALLY FLOWING OFF DOCS MAKES ME SAD

Don't do bad things, and be nice to each other.

Debated PF for 4 years on the local (Ohio—you can probably extrapolate my preferred style from that) and national circuits.

For prog: If it makes sense, I will evaluate it. If it hurts my head, I will not. With that being said, most trix and Ks tend to hurt my head.

If you spin around every time you read a (legitimate) turn, I will give you +2 speaks.

If your opponents indict evidence, I will probably ask to see it too. If your evidence ethics are really egregious, I will probably subtract speaks and not evaluate said card. This falls under not doing bad things!!

I don't flow cx, but I think it matters and exists for a reason. Refer to it in speeches if you want it flowed, but I do think that what you say in cx is mostly binding. At the very least, this is a good time to show that you actually understand the topic area and get some extra speaker points.

I'm not a super techy debater (Ohio again), and I believe that part of this activity is being charismatic. Speaking well is a skill, just like frontlining. At the end of the day, that's just a personal preference, and I'm obviously not going to vote on speaking skill. However, I can only evaluate what made it onto my flow.

Use your best judgement when running controversial or graphic arguments. Don't do things that might make others feel unsafe, and err on the side of caution. This falls under being nice to each other!!

Have fun, and good luck! :))