I debated PF for four years in HS.

Basically, make good arguments and convince me why you won. That's what debate is about. 

I'm fine with speed (as long as your opponents are). Frontline in the 2nd rebuttal, extend defense in the summary, and collapse the debate in the back half of the round. Tech > truth to some extent. I don't like crazy or unrealistic arguments, as I view Public Forum Debate as a means for discussing real world problems and their practical consequences, nor am I a fan of 5-6 contention cases, in which each argument is underdeveloped and poorly warranted, BUT, if an argument is clean dropped, I am very likely to vote for it. 

Please be respectful during cross. Don't yell. And remember, you are trying to convince the judge that you are right -- not your opponents! 

+0.5 speakers points if you make an Atlanta Hawks reference !! 

Email me at aananbiswas3@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Hello,

Good luck in the round.

Please send me your speech docs to dasomi04@gmail.com

Just a little bit about me. In terms of background, I debated PF in high school. I am okay with speed, but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I will flow every speech, but not crossfire. If an interesting point is brought up in crossfire, please bring it up in your other speeches or it will not be relevant to the debate.

I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts. Why does your impact matter more than your opponents?

For clarity, I prefer an off time roadmap before your speech, and sign posts during your speech.

And finally, please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.

Hi,

I am a flow judge, however, I do appreciate the big picture throughout the debate but specifically through the last 2 speeches on both sides because that, overall, clears things up and helps me decide what to vote on.

My Debate Experience-

• South Forsyth HS Sophomore

• PF Nat Circ Debate with 5 years of experience including multiple national tournaments

Please add prakharg2805@gmail.com to the email chain if there is one created for the round.

Things to watch out for-

What I instantly drop you for (Debate is a safe space)- Cheating (card clipping, stealing prep, somehow hacking into the opponent's computer, etc.) NO BEING MEAN (no racism, homophobia, bullying, profanity, etc.)

What I vote off of- Moving on, I usually vote off of arguments in Summary. Whatever you present to me before the round I usually only flow it. The things before the summary have to be clearly extended in the summary and FF for me to vote for them. I am always trying to vote off of technical arguments made throughout the debate however whatever is not extended don't expect me to evaluate that. If you make a bogus/ bizarre argument I will not take it into account at all.

Rebuttal- 2nd rebuttal is obligated to frontline At least half if not all of the responses made in 1st rebuttal. If there are no frontlines present then I consider them dropped and easy for 1st Summary to extend without much warranting needed. I don't want to hear like 30 responses to your opponents' case because my hands start hurting and that's bad for both teams since then I can get fewer things to vote off of during summary and FF. I also do not like it when you only extend defense so also try to have at least some offense on their case if not a lot.

Extensions- I also do not like spreading but if you do it I won't drop you. If you drop an argument then you still have to answer all the turns on that argument for me to consider it dropped, if all the turns aren't answered then the opponents can still extend those. I do not care if you run a Kritik but I care if you form it in an abusive form. I am going to drop you automatically.

Final Focus- Try to clear up the big picture. I have usually made my decision by summary based on frontlines and extensions but I will still listen and if there is something big that was mentioned in summary and you blow it up I count that since it still counts according to PF rules.

Crossfire- Don't think crossfire doesn't matter in my decision. If I think that the round was a wash then I will look at every cross so I am paying attention to these as well. I do sometimes write down notes during cross if any important arguments are mentioned that were mentioned through the debate. Try to do a good job defending your argument and attacking your opponents' argument at the same time and with good warranting.

Weighing- A lot of judges care about weighing but I am not one of those. I don't like very long weighing and complicated weighing. If you do weigh make it clear and short so I can easily flow it. If you do weigh I also want it to start from Rebuttal whether be 1st or 2nd. If it starts, in summary, I consider it late and if the round comes down to weighing then I will look at it. Whichever side has the better weighing and was easier for me to flow I will vote for that side.

Cards- I will call for cards if need be. And sometimes I might just do it because I want to make sure your paraphrasing is correct and not taken out of context.

Evidence- Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the High School Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss for the round and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome-

• Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).

• Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.

• Taking more than 3 minutes to produce a piece of evidence. Failure to produce a card will not result in me “removing” a card from the flow. You will lose the round, because you have used “non-existent evidence.”

Speaking- Clarity = speed --> I want clarity and not a lot of blank time during speeches. If I don't understand your argument, I don't buy it. If you see me drop my writing utensils through the debate during any of your speeches it means you are going way too fast and I will not evaluate what I can't understand or flow.

Specific Speaker Point evaluations-

<26 --> You need to work on speaking. Not going to give this to a lot of people unless your speaking was honestly bad. Please don't be offended.

<26.1 to 26.9 --> I don't think you were very knowledgeable on the topic. Your speaking skills could be improved.

<27 - 28.9 --> Did a decent amount of job holding onto your arguments during cross. Some amount of stuttering was present but was overall good. However, you did make some bad decisions throughout the round.

<29 - 29.9 --> Smart decisions made throughout the round. I liked your arguments. You were very knowledgeable about the topic. Your speaking could be improved a little bit to just get on the perfect level but overall was good.

30 --> You are very good at defending your arguments during the crossfire. You have no stuttering and/or blank spaces in your speeches. I like your arguments a lot and you are almost an expert on the topic meaning you researched a lot in my opinion.

Thanks,

Prakhar Gupta

I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the Milton High School Debate Team. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:

-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.

-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.

-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.

-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.

-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.

-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.

-Preflow before the round.

-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.

-Speaks: Do not become "insufferable," and you can expect a fair score.

-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.

Any other questions should be addressed before start time.

email for chain: jivangikar.sameer@gmail.com

Policy

---you do you

---never stress about debate, have fun

---final rebuttals off the flow get good speaks

(Whenever ur in a round with me just put #Kallu2024 in the chat so I know u read my paradigm) I'm an experienced debater, I did policy for a year and then I did pf for about 2 years, so as you can probably see I am a tech judge. Overall i'm a pretty chill judge, I don't like interfering during rounds too much. Everyone should know what order as well as how long each speech should be so please don't ask me. If for some reason you don't know how long each speech is and in what order to give each speech don't ask your opponents or me, ask your partner. If your partner doesn't know, well...sucks to be you. I'll usually will give you no more than 5 minutes max to pre-flow so try to prep and stuff b4 hand.

Speed: I don't care how fast or slow u go. You can spread...ik u don't here that very often now do u.

Case: Lemme jut be up-front with u...don't make bad arguments. There will always be good contentions and arguments to make, so don't pick the weakest most outstretched argument in the world. It's not gonna get u anywhere, trust me! Also try not to have more then 3 contentions. (Any speech titles that r funny/creative= +.5 speaks)

Cross: Unlike most judges, I like aggressive cross fires that clash and spice the round up more, however YOU CANNOT ACT RUDE OR MAKE ANY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS. (This may seems obvious, but you'll be surprised to hear what some ppl will say to their opponents during cross!)

Response Speech: I LUV OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS (Turn, DA--> the more of these the better, Link Turns, etc. )+ NUs. Also if you are the 2nd debating team pls frontline ur opponents arguments. I won't vote you down if u don't frontline in response speech, but I will vote you down if u don't respond to all of the opponents arguments in Summary. You can weigh here but I wouldn't if I were u.

Summary: THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH IN THE ROUND. It is vital that this speech tells me these 5 things:

1. Which contention(s) your going for, and a case extension (If you don't extend ur case in Summary and ff I will cross all of ur contentions of the flow, give the other team the win, and give you 26 speaker points:)

2. Frontline: YOU MUST FRONTLINE ALL OF UR OPPONENTS RESPONSES TO THE CONTENTION UR GOING FOR AND FRONTLINE ALL OF THE TURNS MADE ON THE CONTENTION(s) YOU DROPPED. (and yes that is mandatory) If you do not frontline some of the opponents arguments, and they don't extend them in 2nd summary or ff then ur off the hook, but if not then...let's just say that ur chances of winning just went down by like 50%.

3. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, did I mention that u have to WEIGH. If you don't properly weigh u will also have lower chances of winning. Also pls don't be that one debater that tells me that the world is going to end if I don't vote for u. It'll surprise u how many times someone made the argument that nucs r gonna destroy the world if I don't vote for one side on a topic that has nothing to do whatsoever with nuclear warfare.

Types of Weighing I like:

- Pre-Req

- I can stand Magnitude if u give me some sort of META Weighing. If u don't now what that is, don't use magnitude to weigh

-Timeframe

-Scope

-Probability

(Unless ur weighing on pre-req u MUST have at least 2 of these weighing mechanisms)

4. Extend Responses, all of the responses that u don't extend will be crossed of my flow

FF: In this speech YOU MUST TELL ME WHY I SHOULD GIVE U MY BALLOT, u need to extend ur responses, case, and weighing mechanisms here if u want them to stay on the flow. (DON'T BRING UP NEW EVIDENCE, i wasn't born yesterday, i will cross it off the flow)

Speaks:

30- I'll probably nvr give anyone a 30 unless ur a world champion speaker...sry (If ur a good enough speaker and I like u I'll give u a 29.5)

29- Good Job ur not a disappointment :)

28- U were ok

27- meh u need to brush up in some areas

26- ...plz get better (I prob won't give this out to anyone)

If you read theory or ks I will find u and give u a 3 hour course about y u shouldn't use ks or theory. If u don't know what i'm talking about then consider urself blessed!

All in all, be a good kid, don't be a bad debater, and most importantly try to entertain me! (The happier i am the happier u'll be)

I am a PF debater with 4 years of experience.

I am definitely tech over truth. If you don’t respond to arguments or responses, I will weigh them even if the arguments are ridiculous or false. Make sure to respond to everything you want to extend. If you decide to drop a contention, make sure you have responded to all turns on that argument, or the other team will still be allowed to extend turns.

Speaking- I am fine with speed, but make sure you signpost arguments, weighing, and which side of the flow you are on. Make sure your speech is clear with not a lot of blank time.

Frontlining- I prefer you frontline in the second rebuttal, but I will not consider a response conceded if you don’t.

Summary- I regard summary speech as the most important speech in the debate. I will not flow anything in the final focus that is not in summary so make sure you bring up the major voting issues by summary speech. Weighing should be brought up by summary speech at the latest, if not already brought up in rebuttal.

Weighing- In terms of weighing, impacts weighing is important but it is also important for you to discuss why your links hold up more than theirs, and extend the warranting behind your contentions.

Crossfire- I will not flow crossfire, but I will be listening, so if anything important is said in crossfire, you must bring it up in your speech. I expect civility in cross, so continually interrupting your opponent or being overly aggressive will cost you speaker points.

Cards- I am fine with paraphrasing, but if a card is important to the outcome of a round, I may call for it. If you can’t produce a card or have misrepresented a card, I will ignore the argument.

Time- I will time speeches and prep, but I expect teams to also keep track of their own time.

her/shey

ahs 25'

⋆ ˚｡⋆౨ৎ˚

Short:

neha not judge please i sweari also would not like to be a judge so

Judging you: tech>>>>>>truth
Prefs: I don't like cross examination at all and I think resolutional debating is better as a PF judge I think sticky defense applies and I don't award points over 26 because its 0-30 so no one is worthy of anything higher in any instance and I will vote on who spoke better. you can still pref me i guess...

rookie/novice: if you're flowing and your flows are good, +.1 speaks. time your speeches.

yes i want to be on the chain: nehamahesh.2007@gmail.com

⋆ ˚ ꩜ ｡ ⋆୨୧˚

Long:

Dropped arguments are 100% true. Anything that follows are my opinions which are ripoffs of other opinions of more qualified people and have no bearing on my decision unless these things are said in the round:

DA--- My TLDR for this comes from an old nerdy debate scenario. If the negative reads a nonunique politics disad from 10 years ago, and the affirmative says nothing on the uniqueness level and drops it, I'm voting on the 10-year-old DA. Therefore, making smart analytics can easily reverse that. If debaters make smart uniqueness controls the link or vice versa, they will be rewarded for it. The 2AR should be impact calc heavy even if they have answered the DA, and the negative should make arguments that a 1% risk means I should prefer the disad. Overivews and judge instruction are king.

CP--- Can be convinced that process CPs or agent CPs might be bad, but I would encourage teams to read them along with 1000 plank advantage counterplans because they are fun. Smart advantage counterplans combined with aff-specific strategies should be rewarded because they are hard to make but very impressive. I lean neg on theory in opinion because 2A's should just answer arguments but I'm not opposed or going to punish the affirmative for making them and going for them in the 2AR. See thoughts on condo.

K--- If you're reading Baudrillard and I hear welcome to the carnival I will become very happy. I will also not understand anything you're saying in your long overviews. High theory K's are not for me, but if you explain them well enough I will try to evaluate them in the same way that I would evaluate any argument made. Also, yes links should at least be specific to the aff. I think the more specific the better. If the link is to fiscal redistribution, I think that makes for a weaker K.

T--- I really like T. It makes me very happy when the affirmative is clearly untopical and they lose on T. Please put a violation in the 1NC.

K Affs---On this year's topic I think that K Affs are not as strong as in years past but that's just me. If equally debated I could see myself voting either way. The trajectory of affirmative teams reading K affs with impact turns in their framework is good and smart and I will vote on them if done well. I'm a topicality enjoyer, and I only go for T versus K affs so keep that in mind. If you are reading a performance aff about sensitive topics that could be triggering to people in rounds and you refuse to accommodate them or alter some parts of your performance, please strike me because you will lose.

Condo--- I think the negative should get unlimited condo because I like abusive 1NCs. If the neg drops condo that's their fault and I will vote aff on condo. That being said, if 10 condo happens and you contradict yourself 20 times you should get punished for it.

In Round--- Won't vote on serious accusations that happened outside of the debate, I will stop the round. If you bring up an ethics challenge and say new sheet, I won't continue the debate because I don't want to adjudicate those debates and will involve an adult who can resolve the conflict. After consulting my coaches or any equivalent adult, I'll decide whether or not the round continues. Will also not vote for you if you're a meanie so don't be a horrible person.

⋆ ˚｡⋆୨୧˚

Even Longer:

read any one of the following people's paradigms because I will TRY to be as similar as possible no guarantees

tim ellis

rafael pierry

eshan momin

anish t

anish nayak

sameer j

gabe jankovsky

forslund

Tech Judge with a few caveats:

- Tech > truth. The real world isn't a debate round, external factors always play a role in impacts. Debate competitions should be evaluating the debaters on debate skills, not the actual merits of either side of a resolution.

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to answer first rebuttal. All frontlining needs to be in Summary.

- Anything in FF needs to be in Summary, responses must be extended from RT to Summary to FF to count, answering front lining along the way. Start weighing in Summary, Rebuttal has too many burdens on its back already. Weighing is getting more important now that more teams seem to be finally learning how debate works.

-Weigh not at your own peril, for it is a nice way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This isn't a chess tournament. You don't win by moving and capturing pieces. You win on how your impacts relate to your opponents'.

- Extension through ink = a dropped RT/argument.

- Summary needs to answer rebuttal and extend any RTs that want to be used in Final Focus. NSDA ought to rename Summary to “Frontline” or “Second Rebuttal.” May help clear up some doubts.

- X outweighs Y is not really a response. If dropped, I will consider X to outweigh Y unless there are other impacts the team advocating Y has which may combine to end up in a ballot for team arguing Y.

- Turns must be implicated and weighed. The only exception is when you do a direct turn (ex: one team says "XYZ increases econ growth" and you read a turn saying "XYZ decreases econ growth"). Even then, you should weigh it for speaks and to make it easier to evaluate, but I won't drop it off immediately like I will with an indirect turn.

- Framework/Overview needs cards, serious warranting. Too many teams use this as a way to juke out inexperienced teams. CBA default.

- Cleanly outline your arguments when you extend them in summary and final focus. Ideally you are also extending important card names as well, but at minimum uniqueness, links, and impacts should be extended if you want me to evaluate them.

- Keep crossfire polite and use it for its intended purpose. Incorporate general topic knowledge and explain ideas well. Too many teams go all out rude in elims to gain as much dominance as possible (whether early elim rounds at random state tourney all the way to late elims at varsity Harvard/TOC). This harms educational value in debate.

-Progressive argumentation (K, theory) has little place in PF. Sign up for a different event if you don’t like this. Topicality may be fine depending on the topic since some topics allow for different interpretations of implementation methods, which may have different impacts.

- Plans/CPs have no place in PF. They will not be weighed. Existing alternatives/plans may be considered based on their odds of enactment. Definition of counterplan can be debated as well.

- Avoid referring to your opponents using gendered language.

-Speed is cool, but speed is inversely proportional to nuance that I flow. It's your job to ensure I get down what you want me to, not mine. PF isn't policy lite, and some debaters are beginning to push the boundaries a bit too much. Don’t be one of them.

- If evidence is indicted, the evidence in question must be shown to the judge. I may call cards at my discretion.

- In the ridiculously unlikely event that the debate ends in a tie on impacts(may happen if both sides links are both completely destroyed), I take a page from Policy/LD and vote Con on presumption. Don't stress about this, it almost never happens even at the highest levels.

For COVID-19 season:

- Turn your cameras on, stand up, and use gestures like you normally would. If for some reason you can’t do that, tell me BEFORE the round.

- Doesn’t matter if you can’t get on the call, your prep will be running anyway cause I have no way to know if you are lying or not. I keep the official prep, I don't care if your timer is off. Excessive dilly-dallying will cut against your speaker points and may count against your timer.

- Keep the mike close enough so we can all hear.

- I don't do oral RFDs. I drop the speech-by-speech comments into the chat, and then you can ask questions. That forces you to read the speech-by-speech commentary which I spend time and effort writing up. In my experience, this leads to more questions about the reasoning behind the decision and thus improvements that can be made for the future instead of the usual obsession with a W or an L.

Speaks: (Given in 1/10th increments unless tournament rules state otherwise.)

Speaks are getting too inflated, may adjust scale downwards later to help change norms.

<26 means you were disruptive, violated an NSDA rule for which the penalty is a forfeit, or technical forfeit (COVID season). F

26.1-26.9 means you need SIGNIFICANT improvement and/or probably dropped case. Failing to cleanly extend case, responses, or frontline in summary or final focus is an easy way to earn this score. This score means you had absolutely no clue what you were doing in one or more speeches. D

27-27.9 means you missed more than a handful of things on the flow or made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round. You may have had a general idea of what you needed to do, but stumbled through the details. C

28-28.9 means you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing. Maybe a few minor things conceded or extended through ink. You had a general idea of what to do, and got most of the details correct, but the errors were somewhat obvious and detracted from your performance. B

29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, you do comparative weighing. No major tactical or strategic blunders. Nothing is dropped or extended through ink. You got pretty much all of the details correct, and even the most astute observer would have to squint really hard to notice your errors. A

29.8-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments AND THE WEIGHING MECHANISMS, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy. A+

- 2nd speakers: Sometimes, your partner screws stuff up in Summary and you had the skills to do it better, but your speaks are low because of the "no new content in FF" rules. Since Summary and FF are almost identical these days, in a PRELIM ROUND you can bring up new frontlines and weighing in FF and I will keep that in consideration when awarding speaks. However, new stuff will NOT affect the W/L decision. In elims, no speaks are awarded, so don't bother.

- The best debaters transcend the round itself and provide a clear narrative beyond technical jargon. Enough with lay judge, flay judge, tech judge.... The best debaters distinguish themselves in front of all judges. Tell jokes, analogies, give good examples to enhance speaker points. If you know the ins and outs of the topic and your case, you will surprise yourself as to how well you do.

- This paradigm will be adapted as PF debate community norms change. Ask BEFORE the round to clear up doubts about paradigm.

- Embrace the suck. You only get to do competitive debate for so long, you might as well enjoy it. If you find this exhausting or boring, know you’ll probably have to do even more frustrating things in life. Just do yourself a favor and learn how to get through it now.

Hello! My name is Shivani and I am a current Sophomore and Psychology-Premedical major with double minors in Chemistry and Biology at Mercer University! My pronouns are she/her. It's nice to meet you! I have done both Public Forum and a variety of speech events for 4 years at Milton High School. I have also attended a few respectable debate camps such as the National Debate Forum and Emory's Barkley Forum so it's safe to say I do know a bit about debate hehe.

With that being said, I have a few things that you should keep in mind :)

*Speech- I am okay with any speed. As long as you speak clear and with confidence! This is public forum so please do not spread!

*Please make sure you are weighing and really impacting out throughout the round. I firmly believe that every speech is important but your summary and final focus really needs to drive the point home in order for me to consider it!

*I am huge on respecting pronouns so please let me know or correct me if I do not use your preferred pronouns!

*I am okay with off-time road maps but like it says in the title, do not make it too long or I will consider it part of your time!

*Please Please Please be respectful and nice! As Thumper from Alice and Wonderland said, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all"! I take this very seriously and if you say anything offensive or rude, I will immediately take off speaker points. I like humor but I also like professionalism!

*I will keep track of the time but please keep track of your time as well and be honest!

*Theory, Disads, and Kritiks....not a huge fan of using them personally but I am perfectly fine with them as long as they are reasonable and in boundaries of what you are talking about. Do not go overboard

*I like to go through the round at the end in my oral feed depending on time so if you do not prefer this, let me know! I will be more than happy to write up a more detailed written feedback!

*More than anything, I know how stressful and intense debate can be (trust me, I have gone through my fair share of heels by anxiously pacing up and down the hallways before rounds). So relax, try your best, and give it your all no matter how difficult the round may seem!

*If you have a questions, concerns, cries of woes, etc..., please ask me or let me know before or after the round! No question is dumb but please let me know beforehand!

With that being said, let's close this paradigm and debate! Good Luck!

-SDN

I have been debating for 3 years and I'm in middle school

A couple of things

Don't Spread too much

Weigh comparatively

Don't make new responses in Summary

Its ok if you can't frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal, but if you can't make sure you do in summary, but make sure to frontline the turns. 

If you make a league of legends reference, you get extra speaks. 

-I have been doing pf debate for 4 years and around 1 year of policy before that (not that I remember anything)(so don't you dare lay adapt me, I know what im doing. most of the time)

bribe me with food and you will probably win because food=life (bring me boba for more speaks)

-don't give me bs cards and take 5748 years to fine them

OVERALL: Don't be stupid, dumb, drop cases, racist, homophobic, etc. I hate abusive ppl, dont be abusive!!!!

Case- Don't make crazy stupid arguments, stock contentions are better than arguments I don't understand. But if your running stock cases don't make it too boring or i'll fall asleep and you will not win. Also, try to run more than 1 contention. Extend your case throughout summary and ff or else I will consider it dropped.

Rebuttal- Frontline in 2nd Response. Go down the flow, and please signpost or I'll be sad. If reading a turn spend time on it and give me an impact, not some wishy-washy "we turn their case bc turkey actually supports terrorism. the end" You need to spend at least 15 sec on it if you are going to extend it. DON'T HAVE TIME LEFT OVER. This goes for all speeches but if you have like a minute left just weigh or do analytics, time is money in debate.

Summary- Don't bring up anything new. Just extend responses, defense, and offense. Summary is extremely important don't drop stuff. Dropping= Bad. In summary heres what I need to see:

1. Case extensions (your case) if you don't extend then i will say you dropped your case. Here you can concede on one contention, link, subpoint, etc. This is a good tactic but make sure to extend responses completely.

2. Frontlines. Yeah just frontline your case please, if you don't frontline in 2nd response then it this dosen't matter SO FRONTLINE IN 2ND RESPONSE.

3. Extend offense. yup do that please!

4. Weighing. YOU BETTER WEIGH. And please weigh more, don't just weigh on magnitude that's stupid. Also, make sure to give me warrants and quantification. Don't just be like: We win on magnitude because we save lives, We win on timeframe because our impacts come first. Please don't do that. see weighing section for more info)(also see charlie zhangs paradigm where he took the time to write a paragraph about it)

FF- Just basically say what you said in summary but don't make it boring. Make sure to weigh or else I won't count your impacts. Try your best to gimme voters.

Cross- It's useless unless you bring it up later

Weighing- Don't be ✨basic ✨. don't just weigh on magnitude or probability or timeframe. Also weigh on prereq, short circuit, etc. I'm fine with meta weighing Don't just weigh on 1 thing. When you got same impacts but dif mechanisms META WEIGH. WEIGHING IS IMPORTANT. Found this on someone paradigm i forgot who-

K/Theory: I HATE K'S WITH A DEEP PASSION, IF YOU USE ONE I WILL DROP YOU. THEY ARE STUPID AND USELESS. IF YOU DARE READ A THEORY IM GONNA FIND A WAY TO GIVE YOU NEGATIVE SPEAKS OR JUST GIVE YOU A 10 I DONT CARE IF TABROOM DOESN'T ALLOW IT. I WILL FIND A WAY.

Speed: I fine with talking fast, but don't spread. If I can't hear you I can't flow you. If you read faster than 300 wpm send me your speech doc.

Time: Keep your own time. Finishing your sentence is fine but I won't flow any other points after time. Also keep your own prep, im to lazy to sit there with a stopwatch. If you go over prep I will dock speaks. Please don't abuse time. I had teams go "im just finishing my flow" 20 seconds after a speech or making ff 4 min and making us interrupt them twice. Don't be like leaping learners please!

Other things:

Turns: If you want me to evaluate one you must extend it clearly with an impact. Dont just be like "they dropped this turn, vote aff."

Defense isn't sticky

disads bad

Speaks (speaker points):~~~~~~~~

I start you at 28

-speaks to fast= -1

-funny contention names= +1

-be rude= -3

-interesting to listen to= +1

-be not boring=+.5

30- rare

29- I will usually give out these if you are a great speaker.

28- Ig my average if your 28 and over you are great in my opinion

27- Still good don't feel too bad

26- get better lol

VOTING:

how i vote-

have a strong case, read turns please, don't drop things, don't randomly point out the other team dropped things. And if you read a turn about nuclear extinction wiping west Africa off the map you will instantly win.

more paradigms

Eshawnvie Kallu, Charlie Zhang, Aditi Kothari, Spoorthi Kakarla, Ella Liu, Aanya Baddela and Paheli Patel. On second thought don't read Ella's paradigm. aka a bunch of ppl who raged after harvard

follow my ig (real)

@uheartfdiona

Alpharetta 27, PF for 4 years, novice in policy rn.

email chain: reyha09@gmail.com

spreading -- that's fine, i want speech docs tho. if you spread (like rlly rlly fast) without a speech doc, chances are, i'm gonna miss 30% of your speech.

PF JV & Varsity:

extensions -- links and impacts MUST be extended into summary + ff if you want me to vote on them. i like seeing arguments that are consistently extended throughout the debate. extend warrants, i don't extend only taglines. if you drop stuff that ur opponent calls you out on, i won't consider it.

weighing -- please weigh! i should have this word for word on my ballot. on that note, i won't vote on your impact without link + impact defense. link weighing good too.

args -- i'm open to almost all args, nothing morally bad.

k/theory -- full disclosure, i am mid at this stuff, and i don't have a good grasp on it. i can do cap and education v. fairness but that's about it. if you're going for it, explain it to me like i'm a 3rd grader. i won't vote on anything i can't explain on the ballot. i'll default to reasonability + RANT unless you tell me why not to. weigh interp and counter-interp.

other things -->

- be a nice person! it's just a debate, not the end of the world.

- i'll call for cards sometimes for a multitude of reasons, most probably at the end of a round.

- time your own prep & speeches

- no new ev after 1st summary

- in round v. out of round are 2 separate things. i draw a clear line between them both

tech > truth

- don't flat-out lie in cross/analytic just to put ink on the flow

-tech and at least a little bit of truth need to be better than the opponent to win. Part of being a good debater is having good analytics (THAT ARE NOT 100% LIES) - something is better than nothing.

PF Novice:

• weighing -- should be done in summary but 100% in final focus (don't drop summary weighing)
• evidence -- I'll vote on whatever ev as long as the opponent doesn't call you out.
• extenstions -- do this consistently!! I don't think people understand how important extensions are.
• your uniqueness, link, and impact shouldn't be that hard to identify
• flow -- flowing is really important! i'm a victim of bad flowing, so if you have good flows, i'll give up to + 0.5 speaks.

Speaker Points:

i think i give higher speaks than most? -- anything morally wrong is < 26. my average speaker points:

26-27 -- you have big things to work on, but keep practicing & don't get discouraged

27-28 -- good job! you have things to work on, but good performance

28-29 -- great job! few minor things, overall great round

29-30 -- wow! overall amazing, barely anything at all to work on. i've never given out a 30.

fun fact: 50% of this was kinda stolen from tessica selvaganesan (if ur reading this, hi tessica, sorry and i miss you) i don't agree with everything in her paradigm, just the stuff that i put in here.

Tech > truth

The most important thing is to have fun. Debate is a learning experience and everything you learn from it is valuable. I will give as much constructive feedback as possible to help you out for the rest of your debate rounds.

Make sure to compare arguments and collapse (pick 1-2 arguments to mainly focus on in the second half of the round).

For any specifics, just ask me before the round starts!

Hey, I'm Aesha, a senior at Northview High School!

I'm pretty experienced debater in both Policy and Public Forum, as I've been debating for about 3 years in Policy and 4 years in Public Forum.

This is a generic outline of the bare minimum I'm looking for in a round; you can ask me to elaborate on topic-specific preferences before the round starts.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is perfectly fine, but make sure you have cut cards and evidence for each point that you state. If call for a card, you should be able to show it to me in a timely manner.

Warranting: Explain your arguments thoroughly and make sure I can clearly depict what your team is conveying. Give logic for all of your cards, and explain why they matter to your claim.

Weighing: I will most likely be judging the round based on how well both teams weigh the debate, tell me what should matter and why it should matter, and you must compare, simply weighing will not suffice.

Frontlining: Although, not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending.

Collapsing: Having multiple points is completely fine, but better warranting with fewer points will most likely increase your chances of winning the round.

Prep: Make sure that you time your own prep. I'm fine with the teams prepping during the other side's prep.

Speaks: I’ve done policy so I can handle some speed, but speak clearly and don't spread too much. If your speaking is way too fast, I will stop flowing, so I suggest that you speak slowly from the start. During cross, look at me, you are trying to convince me not the other team. And if you can do everything that I just said above, I will most likely give you higher than a 27. I tend to give most speakers above 28s, so just make sure that you articulate and emphasize, and it should be fine!

Specifics:

PF: Everything that you want me to consider from the summary when evaluating the winner, should be restated in the final focus. I won't flow it for your team unless I hear it in the final focus. Don't bring up any new evidence in the 2nd summary.

- Summary: Condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you haven’t weighed in rebuttal, then it should most definitely start here. Everything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it.

- Final Focus: Clear and concise points as well as weighing should be the general structure of this speech. I will only flow points that have also been mentioned in the summary, and don’t forget to answer extended responses. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and detail the implications.

- Crossfire: any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the next speech for me to flow and evaluate it. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. I don’t mind if you sit during grand cross.

Policy: Everything that you want me to consider from the entire round, should be pointed out in the 2NR & 2AR, but don't spend much time on it, make sure that you leave time to weigh the round.

Ask any questions you have, after reading this, before the round starts. Good Luck!

Hi! My name is Saanvi Sinha. I have debated Public Forum for 6 years. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to debate, so don't question me on my decision after round.

Non-negotiable, you being rude(sexism, racism. bullying, homophobia, etc.) in round or before, results in a dent in your speaker points and a loss. Debate should be a safe community, and if it's not, my view of you is never going to be good.

Some general stuff, I will be keeping a timer, but I would recommend keeping your own timer. Please notify me of the amount of prep time just so that we can make sure we have no problems ("running prep", "30 seconds"). Just so you know, I don't flow crossfire, but if you address me, I will write it down. If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc before, otherwise rules below apply. Also, this is just me, but don't eat with your camera on. I get nats are long and not fun sometimes, but just turn your camera off if you are going to eat.

Be respectful at the end of the round too, I know you might be sad about losing, but I still want to see a "Thanks for debating" or "Good debate" at the very least.As a judge, I give verbal feedback at the end of the round. Going verbally allows me to give you more in-depth feedback, but if you are not okay with me doing so, please let me knowbefore the round starts so I can type it up. Also, I usually like to give detailed feedback so that after every round you can improve as much as possible. What this means is that I don't think you are a bad debater, just everyone has room for improvement, so I like to point that out, rather than what you are good at.

Before the round, you can ask me any questions that you have about my paradigm (terminology and if I didn't address anything). I know I sound like a lot, I just don't want anyone to be confused about anything.

Update for Georgetown Spring 2024:

saanvisinha261048@gmail.com for the email chain, would prefer you create this before round if you are going to call for cards

no in-depth topic knowledge, i know like basic arguments plus what the topic is, but i have not prepped it personally

very minorly tech > truth

case

-as long as you can defend it fine, not really buying bad vision leads to nuclear war level squirrely args though

-if it's a bad case though, a bad response is fine (depends on the situation)

response

-we love frontlining (by we love, i mean please do it in second rebuttal)

-don't really care about numbering responses, just signpost please

summary

-signpost!!!

-try not to bring up new stuff, but first summary gets leeway with frontlining

-don't extend through ink

-extend rebuttal AND implication otherwise no offense

-weigh!

order for evaluation of weighing:

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

final focus

-new weighing in final focus is okay ... by okay, i mean try to avoid it but if you don't whatever ish

-nothing new in second final, don't be that debater, i will decrease speaks

speaker points

-don't speak too fast, especially because it's online, if it's too fast "clear" more than twice will result in speaker point deductions

-wear sunglasses for +0.4

-compliment opponents not debate related for +0.2

-random percy jackson or hunger games reference done properly +0.2

no theory unless it happens in round (like if opponent miscut ev or smtg), but i don't really vote on it too much, if they miscut evidence, that's their own thing, already lowering their chances of winning

disregard past this point for Georgetown

Novice PF

1. Case-For most Novice students, they aren't allowed to create their own contentions. If you are allowed, I would ask that the contention is not too far-fetched, as you are only a novice student.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses. It is not required for the 2nd speaker to frontline (respond to responses), but I would definitely recommend it. If you do frontline, please frontline the turns. If you frontline, but don't frontline the turns, I might not buy your case and it would be difficult for you to win.

3. Summary- Summary must frontline on both sides if not done so in the earlier speeches. I would recommend extending responses, as I would know what I am voting on, but if you don't, I will still evaluate it. I consider a case extended if you frontline it or talk about it.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important. It isn't necessary to weigh in Novice, but I would definitely suggest it.

5. Speaking- Typically, Novices speak at a good speed, but if you don't clarity is more important. As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I don't usually call for cards, but if I do, I need you to have cards, or I will not evaluate it in the round. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I don't care about that point anymore.

If you have reached this point, tell me your favorite thing to do before the round starts for +0.3 speaker points.

JV PF

I don't like theory or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so don't waste time doing that.

1. Case- Some of y'all have more far fetched arguments. I would say stay out of the memes and focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses.

Try to implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn should have an impact or you need to weigh the turn, otherwise I'd probably evaluate it as offense.

For JV, I would want the second rebuttal to frontline at least the turns, or I will be extending them on your case. You do not have to respond to every single point, but I would like you to respond to the majority of the arguments, and at the very least, the turns.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You can try to respond to they're frontlines, but it isn't required, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended to again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Weighing is the most important thing in final focus, so please spend time weighing in the speech. Comparative weighing is preferred because it allows me to compare why I should weigh one type of weighing over the other.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point.

Varsity PF

I don't really like theories or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so maybe don't waste time doing that. If you have to read theory, just don't contradict yourself (ex. para but your cards are paraphrased).

1. Case- Some of y'all have far- fetched arguments. Focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments. This however, doesn't require it to be on a generic packet, I recommend you do that, but just don't lead to any sketchy or weird arguments. One thing to highlight, and this goes for any judge, if they aren't able to understand what your contention is about, it's not likely for a win, so keep that in mind.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, but just signpost if you don't. Implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn needs to have an impact or you need to weigh the turn otherwise it will not be evaluated as a turn, instead as offense. I'd prefer you respond to the impact, and not just cross-apply your responses on their link-ins. For Varsity, I require the second rebuttal to frontline (most of the responses) to the contentions you are extending, or I will be extending the responses on your case.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Make sure to extend impacts as well, I would recommend writing out how you are going to extend it so that's there's not a lot of "uhs" and "ums." Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You should respond to their frontlines that they made, because otherwise that's just extending through ink. I want to see why their frontline doesn't apply, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." By the way, weighing is not saying "our impacts are .... and their impacts are." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended on your case again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the most important things, so give me the voters of what you want me to vote on. Any offense and defense that you want me to focus on should me emphasized. Weighing is the most important thing in the speech, so please spend most of your time doing that. You must do comparative weighing in this speech. Please for my sanity, don't introduce new things in final focus. My ballot is pretty much already decided by summary speech, so it's not going to do anything, and just make me think of you/your partner as a bad debater/speaker.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point AND speaker points. You cannot miscut evidence after this much experience. There is the evidence out there, you have to put in the effort to look for it, and if it's really not out there, don't run the argument :)

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

i'm not super strict on judging, but there are a few things i look for

1. contentions: make sure you have good cases, and add something different uwu

2. crossfire: ask whatever you need to but please do not start yelling because my ears will fall off and that isn't good

3. responses: im first speaker so.. try to respond to every important case you can!

4. summaries: these are crucial, respond to the cases you couldn't get to, and make sure not to add any new info!

5. ff: i legit never flow this so just give me a whole brief summary of the debate

(PRO TIP: IF YOU DONT WANT TO GET A 26 PLZ BE RESPECTFUL TO OPPONENTS PLZ PLZ)

AND ALSO ISNT THIS THE BEST PARADIGM YOUVE EVER READ OWO

Hi!

Here's my paradigm for novice debaters.

-I will drop you if you try to cheat during the round. Examples of cheating are taking extra prep time, card clipping, etc..

-No racism, homophobia, or bullying should occur during the round.

Cards

I will call for cards if the card supports one of the main arguments argued in the round. If you don't have a card and your argument is clearly flawed, I am going to drop that argument or give it to the other side.

Contentions

-You can read your contentions as fast as you want to, but make sure arguments are still articulated and understandable.

-Try to make sure you don't go over the time limit. There's no penalty but I will stop you if you go over 15 seconds.

Rebuttal/2nd Speech

-Make sure you flow throughout the debate. Make sure you respond to most/all of the opponents arguments made in their case. REMEMBER: 2nd Speaker should frontline to make the case more organized. If you give me a list of 10 arguments with no evidence, I am not going to buy them unless you give me specific evidence. I may even call for the cards at the end so be sure that ALL arguments presented in the round have evidence (logical or cards).

Crossfire

-NO RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, OR BULLYING SHOULD OCCUR DURING THE ROUND OR EVEN IN CROSSFIRE.

Weighing

Weighing is a big voter for me. If your impact is 2,000 people are dying, but the opponents impacts are 10,000 people dying I will vote for whoever articulates and weighs their arguments better.

Extra Tips

If you cannot speak with clarity and talk fast, talk slowly. I will not vote you if I do not understand your arguments.

What I Vote For

-The side has given me clear arguments that make sense.

-All of the sides arguments are extended in summary and final focus.

I will not evaluate what is not extended.

-Evidence for most arguments presented in the round.

-Responds to all the opponents arguments.

-I am a Truth > Tech judge.

-WEIGHS IMPACTS (magnitude, scope, probability, etc...)

Alpharetta 23, Michigan 27

Email: anish.thatiparthi@gmail.com

Debated at Alpharetta for 4 years as a 2N. Not debating in college.

Top Level:

I do not know anything about the topic. Please keep that in mind if you choose to go for any arguments centered around community consensus (topicality, various competition arguments, etc.).

The debate should look like what the debaters want it to be . Anything not in this section can be changed through good debating. My paradigm is intentionally brief to prevent debaters from over adapting. Anything is fair game barring blatant instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. and any other actions that make someone in the room feel unsafe. Such instances will be an auto L + report to tab.

"Tech > truth but the less truth, the easier the argument is to answer. Meanwhile, the implication of concessions is only what you make it." - Jordan Di

Out of round actions have no implication on my ballot.

Rehighlightings can be only inserted if it is using the ALL of the same words highlighted by the opponent. I will disregard it otherwise.

If you do not explicitly stake the debate (i.e., stop the round and provide proof) on an evidence ethics violation, the most I will do is reject the piece of evidence in question.

Topicality:

Plan text in a vacuum is dumb but it still needs a counter interpretation to answer it.

Precision is irrelevant without context.

No solvency advocates and/or specific examples with a case list make me think you are making stuff up.

Predictable limits matter a lot to me.

Theory:

Neg terrorism is usually good but I recognize when it leaves the Aff with no other choice but theory.

It's hard to a win a "reject the team" argument for anything but conditionality.

2NRs get a lot more leeway for answering theory if the 2ACs theory argument was barely a sentence long.

A lot of creative counter-interpretations can solve Neg offense.

Planless Affs:

I have exclusively gone for T-USFG against every planless aff and have never defended a planless aff.

Fairness is an impact.

Most planless affs lack a solid answer to predictability.

Counter interpretation + explaining a model of debate > impact turning everything.

T-USFG is a substantive disagreement with the 1AC.

Ks:

Extinction outweighs + impact turning links is an easy way out against a lot of Ks.

K tricks are good but must be somewhat fleshed out in the block.

Links to the implementation of the plan are always better than links to the 1AC.

Ontological arguments do not eliminate the necessity for an actual link argument.

Evidence is under utilized by both sides in these debates.

CPs:

I have never been comfortable in super intricate competition debates and will probably be bad at judging these type of debates.

2NC CPs are awesome and should be used more.

Send perm texts.

I am a current PF high school debater. I judge tech (most of the time) and focus on the big picture of the issue.

Define the status quo, do comparative weighting, and make sure warrants are thorough.

Here is how to win my ballot:

1. Warranting: quality>quantity. I can only vote on arguments I understand, so explain exactly how the links lead to the impacts. Cards and evidence are important, but don't get caught up in every detail, use them to support your logically sound arguments. I want to hear your narrative of the problem.

2. Collapsing: Be strategic- by the second half of the round, the debate needs to be narrowed. Then, center your arguments on the clashing points.

3. Weighing: I think this is the most important factor in the round, and easiest mechanism for me to vote on. Impacts have to be quantifiable, and backed with quality evidence. Provide metrics and compare: give me succinct reasons why I should prefer your argument. State how your framework will provide a better solution, or analyze how strong the effects of your resolution will be. Weigh impacts AND uniqueness. I value probability highly.

4. Frontlining: Obligated in 2nd rebuttal, but I encourage you to always frontline. It makes the debate more in-depth, and creates more clash (opportunities for comparison and interaction).

Advice:

-Summary: 3 things- Explain the cases you are going for while responding at the same time, comparative weighing, extend responses so that they can be used in the Final Focus.

-FF: clear voters, write the ballot for me.

-Organize your speeches, signpost clearly, be enthusiastic about what you are arguing for, and have fun! :)

Good luck!!

Add me to your email chain careeryen@gmail.com

My paradigm

What is your debate/judge experience?

Former debater/judge/coach in HS and in College.

What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?

Articulate measurable outcome(s) delivered by feasible solution(s) aligned with the nature of the objective(s). They should not become unmoored from reality.

Establish cause-and-effect relationship between upstream action(s) and downstream impact(s) through facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc.

Root-cause followed by correlation and attribution.

What kind(s) of performance is counter productive?

"Spreading" inane arguments.

Dumping statements without logically linking the root-causes driving the symptoms.

Rude, talk over opponents.