Hello! I am a parent judge and this is the first year that I will be judging - in fact, it is the first time I am involved with debate at all. I look forward to hearing what you have to say!

A couple of notes:

* Please try not to speak *too* quickly - I want to be able to take notes and understand your arguments.

* Please do not use jargon or acronyms without explaining the meaning at least once, possibly twice.

Thanks!

Former captain of the Sharon debate team. I know nothing about this topic, but feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. PLEASE WEIGH DURING SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS it will make my decision as a judge so much easier

I am senior in high school, and have been debating for a while. Speak clearly and not too quickly. I will be able to follow, but if I miss something, I can’t weigh it. I ask that you use a stopwatch not a timer, since it is less disruptive. I will be keeping time for everyone, but you are welcome to as well. I will continue to flow after time, but only for a sentence or two. If you go on for too long, I will ask that you end your speech. Be respectful, and have fun!

I'm a former PF debater but have also done Parli, Extemp, LD, Congress, and Big Questions, as well as continuing Parli in college. First and foremost, I am an anti-classical liberal (the Economist-reading, free-trade backing, Western civilization-advancing type), and thus, reason and logic come above all else in my mind, meaning you have to make effective appeals to reason to win the round.

I've won a tournament or two, which is meant to advance the idea that I've seen almost everything under the sun. Don't try to be too slick — stuff like calling cards with the express intent of taking the prep and using inefficient email chains are lowkey cringe. Either share all evidence beforehand or do it efficiently.

TL;DR at the bottom. I have specific notes on Parli, PF, and Extemp

Read my paradigm in full. It could help you, or it could not. Who knows.

1. As Judith Butler notes in Diacritics: "The move from a structuralist account in which capitalism understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as atheoretical objects to one in which the insights of the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power," and as Nick Land continues in The Thirst for Annihilation, "Suffering must be futile if it is to be 'educational.' For this reason, our history is so unintelligible, and indeed, nothing that was true has ever made sense. 'Why was so much pain necessary?' we foolishly ask. But it is precisely because history has made no sense that we have learned from it, and the lesson remains a brutal one." In short, I prefer weighing mechanisms that account for the temporally sensitive hegemonic conception of structure.

2. I will not tell you if I am "tech over truth" or vice versa. One is a bourgeois hoax; the other is an oppressive social construct. You guess which is which.

3. As a great debater once said: "Dispense at the door with any delusions that this activity facilitates the pursuit of "truth." Debate is a merciless battleground for ruthless warriors. Wield your words as weapons."

4. Speed – if I can understand you, you are going too slow. If your opponents can't understand you, you're going too fast.

5. Reading evidence written by Spinoza, Mearsheimer, or Sorgner can win you the round.

6. Following the round, don't dare say I "dropped" you, as that implies that I was responsible for your defeat. If I hear you utter anything resembling such a statement, I will go to the tab room and inform them of my "mis-click," dropping both your speaker points by three. Your inability to make a viable, moral argument actively burdens those of demonstrable higher intellect surrounding you. Your failure in debate, the only pure examination of one's intellectual promise, reveals true, fundamental incompetence. /j

7. All weighing can be equally valid. Economics (usually some implicit util) can be weighed against duties or rights-based frameworks and vice versa—just as long as you can explain this clearly.

8. K's, theory, etc. ought not belong in Public Forum debate and should only be used as a last resort. If you poorly present a K or theory case, I will do two things. First, I will drop you, giving your opponents a win. Second, I will moderate a civil conversation about your K or theory so that we can set ourselves on the path toward changing norms or demonstrating how problematic your argumentation was. I am what some would call an intellectual and others a theorycel. Semantics, really. As for Policy/LD,

9. If you make a joke – that makes me laugh – at the expense of England, then I will give you an extra speaker point. If it is at the expense of Ireland, then I will dock you 15 speaker points. Éirinn go Brách.

10. As E.B. White once said: "A despot doesn't fear eloquent writers preaching freedom- he fears a drunken poet who may crack a joke that may take hold." Meme cases are completely acceptable, and I especially encourage it in Parli but know I might drop you if there is no interaction with the resolution. If you're good enough to logically best your opponents in the "marketplace of ideas" with it, then I might as well give you the win.

11. As the great Milton Friedman (apparently) once said – "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Keeping Friedman in mind – I will give you +0.5 speaks if you bring me a drink or a snack. If you actually read to this point and can recollect my Friedman quote, I might give you another + 0.5 speaks — please do this.

12. For the debaters I am judging online, if you can Uber Eats me food before the round ends, you get an automatic win. Send said food to Middle Village, New York City, where I will arrive in approximately 40 minutes to pick it up.

For PF:

Case — Don't stick six contentions in case. Good argumentation trumps a pure deluge of information.

Rebuttal — Signpost. Make it clear what evidence you are responding to and number your responses. Quality over quantity on responses. Signpost as much as possible. The second rebuttal must frontline. The second rebuttal also cannot introduce new arguments as the team speaking first is, therefore, unable to respond.

Summary — Collapse, provide defense, and start weighing. This should not be another rebuttal nor another chance to read case. Make sure to signpost here, too. This speech is make-or-break. Make sure that arguments are extended, are clear, and have been expanded upon. You start weighing here — and that is a must. Also, please collapse. All three contentions will rarely continue standing at the end of the round, and you don't have time for them either.

Final Focus — Give me your voters and weigh, weigh, weigh. Make sure to tell me what your warrants mean and why they are important. I'm a sucker for link-level analysis, but as this is PF, it's alright if you give me more impact calculus and what is or isn't terminal defense. As a note on weighing — tell me what your buzzwords mean, please. Might not be caught up on the new lingo. You also must quantify what things mean in the "grand scheme of things."

Cross — I do not flow cross. It's too much fun.

Prep time — Time yourselves, please. I don't want to call you out constantly. However, for the sake of time, don't use any. At this point, you should have heard every single stock argument 3000 times. /j

Calling for evidence — Please, please, please do not spam calls for cards. Generally, it ends up being abusive. Evidence ethics for me are this: do not lie or blatantly misconstrue. I may excuse paraphrasing depending on the importance of the evidence, particularly in PF or Extemp.

For Parli

Prep time — For cases, I miss the bygone era when you have to ask questions until time starts and the background info is minimal, so I'd love to judge a round like that lol.

PMC — For cases, don't stick six contentions in your case, but remember, it's not tight if you call it snug. For motions, If you tell me your framing is a sentence, I won't count it into time.

LOC — Your off-case should be unique, and make sure the preemptive defense you give me is only implicit. For motions, I'll expect the Opp to provide a counterfactual depending on the resolution. That's just my style, but omfg, please do not give me an On-Off LOC. I will cry

MG/MO — I try my best to avoid leader bias, but also remember that your coverage and added characterization are critical for your partners. For MOs, don't give an off-flow MO just to be different, but remember this speech can win the round.

Rebuttals — Give me your voters, collapse, and weigh, weigh, weigh. Make sure to tell me what your warrants mean and why they are actually important. I'm a sucker for link-level analysis but definitely compare worlds if applicable and tell me why your warrants are strong. I do vote on PMC pull-throughs, but they carry more weight in my adjudication depending on relevance.

New calls — I hate strategic

Signpost — Clearly identify what you are responding to; quality over quantity on responses. Signpost as much as possible. MG/MO/PMR should frontline. The second rebuttal also cannot introduce new arguments as the team speaking first is therefore rendered unable to respond.

Tight Calls — If you want to avoid a tight call round, don't bring a tight case. If you want to avoid a tight call round, maybe come up with a better opp. I'm very experienced with tight call theory and take it very seriously because I rarely find cases tight. For my actual adjudication, it depends on what the Opp tells me to look for. For more, ask me during the round.

TL;DR Final Notes:

On flowing — do not view my embrace of reason as a justification for you to discard the flow. If you are winning the logic, you must also be winning the flow.

Finally – try to have some fun. (Old joke incoming.) I am not Chris Wallace, and you are not Donald Trump and Joe Biden. This should be spirited — so acrimonious (but non-bigoted and respectful, of course) debate over the topic is condoned — but anything off-topic is just annoying. This is all supposed to be in the pursuit of intellectual enlightenment.

Hi, I'm Eeshan Chakrabarti. I'm a third-year PF debater at Lexington High School.

A few things:

- Please set up an email chain at the start of the round (my email is 22chakrabarti@lexingtonma.org).

- If there is argument over evidence, I may ask to see it at the end of the round.

- I am ok with any speed.

- In terms of speaker points, my floor will generally be 27.5 or 28, and I'll add to them if you speak clearly and signpost, among other things; your speaker points generally will not dip below 27 unless you violate some rules. Obviously, don't say anything unkind or racist, sexist, etc. or I will have to assign <25 speaks and will probably give the round to your opponents.

- I do not flow cross, so if you wish me to flow concessions made in cross, please include it in a speech.

- Theories, Ks, etc. are ok. I must admit, I don't have as much experience with them as I would like, but I feel that I can still judge them competently. That said, you should know that I will never vote on disclosure (this is exceedingly rare, so I don't expect it to come up).

- I'm generally pretty relaxed with prep, but I will be watching for prep stealing. I'll be keeping prep and speech times along with you, but will not talk to you about either unless I see you noticeably going over.

- Obviously, no new arguments in second summary and later. By this, I mean no new analytics or evidence that don't respond to arguments from earlier in the round and are instead entirely new fronts. I also don't like new arguments at all in (especially second) final focus. Most of you will not do this, but I've seen it often enough as a debater that it's worthwhile to mention.

- Weigh comparatively and extend properly.

- I will disclose when I can, so stick around a bit after the round.

- Let me know if you have any questions about my paradigm or decisions. If you have any questions about my RfD, feel free to ask me after I disclose or email me after the round.

hello! i do pf at newton south!

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: saakshichalla@gmail.com facebook: saakshi.challa

please be nice, debate is all about having fun!

if you have any questions about my paradigm/don't understand something, feel free to ask them before round:)

tldr: tech>truth. if you lose the flow, you lose the round.

speed is ok, but if you plan on spreading, send me a speech doc and ask your opponents if they're ok with it.

cross won't affect my decision but it doesn't mean i'm not paying attention to it.

i expect all offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal, this includes turns and weighing.

please collapse on 1-2 arguments. quality > quantity!

weigh! weigh! weigh! I will be very sad if you make me do analysis on my own.

i don't want to see anything new in final focus!!

NO OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS! PLEASE!

theory: i have a super basic understanding of progressive arguments and will only evaluate them if there is an in-round abuse.

if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, I will drop you and give you 20s.

y'all are all amazing and please don't be nervous! we're here to learn and have fun. if you have any questions about my rfd or just want to chat, email me or text me on messenger!

for lex:

- PLEASE DOWNLOAD YOUR PREP BEFORE THE ROUND! (I really want to stay on time)

• i haven't debated this topic and have very limited topic knowledge so keep that in mind
• if you bring me something yummy i'll boost your speaks:)

Decision basis:

• well spoken arguments
• only evidence carried from start to finish will be taking into consideration (no new evidence in final focus)
• will not take crossfire info into consideration

Other Notes:

• don't worry about how fast your speaking as long as it's articulate
• will flow during speeches
• be civil; keep it relevant to the topic

Hello! My name is Brendan Collins Jordan (they/she), and I am a history and religion teacher at The Masters School in Dobbs Ferry, NY.

I recognize some teams spread more than others, but keep your delivery clear and paced slow enough that a reasonable judge can still follow and flow what you're saying. I appreciate clearly stated claims, logical arguments, and evidence that is based on current and reliable sources. I will count misrepresentation of your sources against you.

I do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc., in your debating or in your arguments. I also don't appreciate bullying, yelling, or rudeness, so keep that out of the round. Please be kind and respectful of others!

Above all, have fun! I am an argumentation nerd, so I'm excited to see what you have to say and look forward to a good round.

I tend to work tab at most tournaments. Don't waste your strike on me. :)

Hi!

I'm currently a varsity high school debater from Milton, MA. Please note I don't flow crossfire but I will use it to evaluate your speaker points. Anything you want me to vote off of needs to be said in both summary and final focus. Please establish your weighing during summary and continue to weigh during final. I'll usually provide some notes at the end of round so feel free to stick around after. Overall, try not to be too aggressive and have fun!

My name is Mia (she/her) and I’m a PF debater at Bronx Science.

I’m a flow judge and generally tech>truth. Time permitting, I will always give RFD and disclose. PLEASE ask me questions or to clarify if you don't understand my feedback - it is meant to help you.

My email is goldbergm@bxscience.edu for evidence chains or other questions.

How to win the round

1. WARRANT everything
   • Do not just spit out card names and expect me to put together your argument for you. EXPLAIN why and how and what and where and when

2. WEIGH starting in rebuttal

   • Compare your impacts to your opponents', and tell me why yours is better through magnitude, probability, time frame, etc

3. Have a clear NARRATIVE throughout the round

   • You case is a story. Be clear, cohesive, and concise - if you have nothing else to say, always recap your argument

How to lose speaker points (and the round)

1. Being disrespectful or hateful
   • Absolutely no homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. *I WILL REPORT YOU*

2. Being rude (talking over your opponents, dominating crossfire)

3. Being abusive (speaking WAY too fast, going WAY over time)

4. Being insensitive (not reading trigger warnings)

Strategic Advice

1. Collapse and extend

   • You are really unlikely to win by going for all 5 of your contentions

   • Do not bring up new things in final focus (nor summary, really) - I won't flow them

2. Framework that is uncontested or conceded will be used to evaluate the round

3. Signpost what you're talking about, and don't give me a roadmap if you won't follow it

4. Time yourself, but I will also hold up my hand when your time is up

5. Theory/K's are really not preferred, unless maybe you run it as a normal argument

6. Crossfire is to ask questions, not read cards (do that in prep)

   • If no one has questions and you instead want to make it a prep session, let me know

Issues

1. Need extra prep time? Someone making you uncomfortable? Internet's been spotty all day?
   • TELL ME! I can't read your mind, but if you tell me, I will always try my best to accommodate you

THANKS FOR READING!! Have fun and good luck :)

I am a high school history teacher and first time debate judge. I appreciate when competitors speak at a reasonable pace and clearly outline their rebuttals of the other side.

Best of luck to all competitors!

Hi friends! I'm a debater and all around cool person.

About me:

I've been doing PF for four years as (mostly) a second speaker at Lexington High School in MA. local and state level. she/her

Debate stuff:

- Keep the round clean. (a) Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddled, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than an arg riddled with conflicting warranting. (b) signpost. (c) collapse in the second half of the round. (d) tell me why I'm voting for you in your final speeches. Make my job as easy as possible!

- Implicate everything: explain the relevance of everything you extend, ie. warrants, impacts, blocks + explain why the arguments your opponents dropped matter so I don't have to do any analysis

- i would advise against spreading. heres an overview of why i think its bad: (a) there's a sizable chance your opponents won't be able to understand you (b) concision is good (c) it can encourage worse argumentation, it’s really hard to listen to a debater dump 30 bad quality turns on their opponent and collapse on the 2 obscure turns they dropped.

- I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory, Ks, disads, pre-fiat args, counterplans, or any other non PF argument you're gonna need to explain it to me in the simplest possible terms.

- I don't time speeches or prep.

- Debate respectfully. If you're unnecessarily patronizing or rude, I'll dock your speaks. I also won't evaluate any discriminatory arguments.

- Have good evidence ethics: your evidence highlighting should be consistent with the intent of your author, avoid paraphrasing in general but have full cut cards readily available if you do paraphrase, etc. I'll call for evidence if you ask me to. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if it didn't exist. im tech>truth unless you say a statistic that is factually incorrect, don't lie.

lastly (a) feel free to ask me any questions before round, (b) i'll disclose and give feedback after round if you want it and the tournament allows, and (c) have a great time!!!

email: mbgordon@outlook.com

Hey y'all! My name is (Judge?) Pranav Gunnala, I am a 3rd year debater at Lexington High School in Massachusetts.

Add me to any email chains at 23gunnala2@lexingtonma.org and label your chain as "Tournament - Round - Aff team name vs neg team name"

Here is what you can do to win a round:

- Tech over Truth (mostly): I will vote on basically anything, but please weigh, implicate and extend

- Weighing: If I hear any meta weighing, i.e "we outweigh on magnitude because our number x is bigger", I will probably not flow it. Weighing comparatively (Your argument vs. theirs) shows me you have a deeper understanding of the topic and will sway me considerably.

- CX: I am a big proponent that Cross is stupid (except for argument clarifications) and people say dumb things because of the pressure of being put on the spot. I don't flow anything in cross, and likely wont pay any attention to what y'all are saying either, unless Im confused on whats going on. Feel free to use cross as evidence review or prep, I think both of those will contribute to a stronger round than will a 3 minute shouting match.

- Prog Debate: Feel free to run theory, K's or spread, but understand that I am still newbish to these strategies, and might struggle. If you do want to run something progressive, it would help me alot if you could disclose your case, or else i might struggle with comprehending whats going on. Read content warnings when you have to!

- In any debate that gets messy, I will default by which team does better weighing and implication (laying the groundwork for strong arguments goes a long way!! :) ), but if neither team does that, i will vote on my own beliefs

- Speaker points are pointless imo, and in the online space especially, put way too much focus on technology. I start everyone at 28 speaks, and typically wont go lower (unless you say anything problematic or be rude in cross, etc), and I reward good signposting etc liberally

Finally, have fun! Debate is competitive and can get heated, but being friendly and respectful to your opponents is a great way to increase education and equality in our space.

I will vote off Grand Crossfire exclusively. Nothing you do can change my mind on this.

JK - TLDR: I am a VPF debater for Milton Academy (Class of '23) on the National Circuit. I am a tabula rasa judge, meaning that I will weigh any argument (traditional or progressive) you put in front of me if you debate it well. Most of my judging philosophy is based on minimizing intervention.

Add me to the email chain if there is one - yaman_habip23@milton.edu.

Feel free to flip without me.

Call me by my first name, Yaman.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Case:

I can handle pretty much any level of speed, but slow down if it's really important (i.e. taglines, impacts etc.). I will clear if I don't understand you.

No Plans/Counter Plans. I will not evaluate these.

I don't like it if you paraphrase in case but I'll allow it.

Rebuttal:

Hit every argument on their case. If something isn't touched during rebuttal and the first arguments against it come in summary, I will give it priority when weighing.

Weigh your turns!

Beyond case, paraphrasing is fine but please paraphrase from a cut card. Please do not use paraphrasing as an excuse to muddle the debate with ridiculously truncated, warrantless blips like "M4A helps the economy, that's from Smith 07." This is especially bad and will cost you speaks when your opponent asks for a card and you send them several lines of highlighted text with warrants and explanations that weren't in speech. If this happens to you, call your opponents out — I won't evaluate anything other than the blip that was in speech so "no warrant" usually works as a response.

2nd rebuttal doesn't have to frontline, but it probably should. Frontlining in rebuttal is one of the main advantages of going second.

Summary:

Anything you want me to weigh must be in summary. In both speeches of the back half you must extend a link and an impact if you want me to buy a piece of offense.

Weigh - Give me a reason to vote for you over the other side, but don't use buzz words like magnitude, scope, etc. Give me a well thought out weighing mechanism or just say "we save 10 lives they save 5." There is no need to tell me that 10 has a larger "scope" than 5.

Unless there is a new card or new argument brought up in first summary, second summary should not contain any new arguments.

Final Focus:

Weigh but there should be no new weighing in final focus (including first final focus) unless there was no weighing prior to that in the round.

Anything you want me to weigh must be in final focus.

If something is new in second summary or first final, the next speech should not say "this is new but I'll respond to it anyway." Just say "this is new" and move on. Don't worry, I promise I won't be evaluating new arguments.

No new arguments (but technically you can use new evidence but I probably will give it very low priority). Kicking out of turns by conceding defense is a new argument so if a kick is new in final focus I won't evaluate it.

Cross Fire:

It's OK to be loud/aggressive, but please don't be rude. If you actually say something offensive or unkind, I will drop you and tank your speaks.

I will not flow CX so if there is something important, bring it up in a speech.

CX is binding - if you say you're not going for something, it is wiped off the flow.

Please don't avoid questions - just concede whatever you're trying to avoid talking about and move on, I'll dock your speaks if you continually use evasive tactics.

Please don't grandstand - CX should be question answer

Any CX that resembles the one from this round at 27:15 will result in bonus points

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stylistic points:

Use off time road maps and sign post! If I don't know where to flow something, I can't flow it.

However, please keep you off time roadmaps brief. "Their case, our case" is great. "A brief off time roadmap, I'll be talking about all of their fraudulent points and why they fail and why our case still stands despite their responses" is not encouraged. ** See exception in bonus speaks section.

Spreading is bad for the activity and does not match the spirit of public forum, I will not flow off a doc. If you're going so fast I can't understand you and don't slow down after getting cleared, I may miss something and won't be able to evaluate it.

I will tank your speaks and might drop you if speed is used to exclude.

Do not use excessive jargon. If I hear something like "uniqueness controls the directionality of the link" I will drop your speaks. I am aware that this is a real argument and have made it in the past, but I would prefer you explain arguments like this in clear, accessible language.

Please do not try to use fancy rhetoric or appeal to me emotionally. Public forum is an event whose winner is determined by an objective evaluation of the flow, thus this sort of argumentation wastes everyone's time.

Tech vs. Truth:

Nuclear war, extinction, and 900 million people in poverty impacts must be well warranted for me to vote off of them. If such an impact is warranted in such an extremely unbelievable way that no one outside a debate round would believe it, I will evaluate on a truth over tech basis.

Other than the exception above, tech > truth, but keep in mind that the more absurd an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response will be.

That said, I will vote off of literally anything that's won and weighed including arguments like climate change good. I get that this is a debate and that whatever "morally abhorrent" stance you take to win is not what you actually believe. I will never reject a (substance) argument on face because it doesn't sit well with me.

Weighing:

I'll default to a utilitarian framework if none is provided. If one is provided, I will evaluate under it unless it is refuted.

If you don't weigh, I will do so for you, probably on strength of link. If both sides get 100% access to unweighed offense, I will presume, unless both teams have the same impact and one is bigger (i.e. in a round where one team wins 5 lives and one team wins ten lives but no one weighs, I'll give the ballot to the team with ten.)

I'm willing to evaluate any weighing mechanism if you can explain why it's important. However, I'm not a fan of progressive frameworks so if you make a good argument against them you'll probably beat one out and I'll boost your speaks.

Do not disguise defense as "probability weighing" in summary or final focus. An argument like "their argument isn't probable because it hasn't happened before in similar situations" only counts if you gave a response like that in rebuttal and extended it.

If both teams weigh their arguments but don't interact with each others' weighing I'll treat the weighing as a wash. In such a situation, if I can't vote without evaluating the weighing (which is almost always the case), I will presume.

Here's how I evaluate clashing arguments: Warranted evidence trumps a warranted analytic which trumps unwarranted evidence which trumps unevidenced claims.

The bolded comparison is really important, I will strongly prefer the side with evidence if both teams give warrants. I believe anyone can make anything sound logical, a credible source matters much more than a high schooler's assertion.

Extensions:

Defense has to be extended whether or not it was responded to but my standard for extension of dropped defense in summary is low (i.e. "extend all five points of the overview, which they drop [then read taglines]" is sufficient.)

Defense must be in final focus and fully warranted if you want me to evaluate it.

All offense including turns must be in both summary and final focus with a full link chain (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. You don't have to name these sections explicitly but make sure they're all there.) This does not mean you have to extend individual authors, I think it's a really efficient way to extend if you can pull through arguments with just your warrants for all four parts.

Offense that is dropped (i.e. no defense on it is extended in any of the last three speeches) is accessed with 100% strength of link.

I will not flow anything extended/argued over time.

When extending turns, if the other team doesn't go for the argument you're extending the turn on, you must extend the entire link chain of the contention and not just the turn.

Progressive Arguments:

Be warned, I have never run any of these arguments outside of theory so my evaluation of them may be suspect.

Progressive arguments (Kritiks, theory, topicality etc.) are fine, and I find them interesting, but if you use them against a novice team that has never heard of them before, expect a low point win or a loss.

I am pretty familiar with theory and run it somewhat frequently, but I have little to no knowledge about K's, high theory, or T. I'm still open to voting off anything, but if you run those three arguments make sure you explain it well.

I'm not inclined to vote off of "I'm ____ identity so I should win" or "I'm spreading ____ message so I should win" kritiks as I don't think non-competitive claims like "discrimination is bad" should decide debate rounds, but I'll try to discount that if you run it. Just keep in mind that I have my own implicit biases about this argumentation and these may subconsciously factor in to how I judge. So, in the interest of transparency, I think it's best for me to inform you of my honest feelings.

No tricks. These are probably the only argument I will just refuse to vote off of.

Theory:

I will default to reasonability on theory. I think this is the most fair way to look at a theory round if neither team is advanced enough to read competing interps.

I'm very 50-50 on RVI's so I'll just listen to whatever you say. However, I will default to no RVI's in that you must ask for an RVI and warrant why you get one before I give you one. Simply beating your opponents theory shell is not enough.

If you win that RVI's are good you don't need a counterinterp for me to vote off of one as long as your opponent has zero risk of offense on their shell.

You don't need to win that RVI's are good to win off of a counterinterp or turns to the shell, you just have to prove that you provide a better model of debate.

I'll do my best to evaluate disclosure and paraphrase theory objectively, but I'm not a fan of either.

I would significantly prefer full shells to paragraph theory, but if that is all you know how to do/have available I will evaluate it.

If you read a shell, I fully expect you to go for it. Your speaks will suffer if you don't commit to the theory debate and I'll be willing to grant arguments about why commitment to theory is a norm I should use the ballot to enforce.

Any theory must come in the speech directly after the violation. That means disclosure has to be in your constructive and paraphrase has to be in the speech right after they paraphrase.

I really would prefer to vote off of theory arguments about something that happened inside the round (except disclosure). Thus, my threshold for a response to other arguments is extremely low. However, if an argument like this is completely conceded I think I still have to incorporate it into my decision.

When you extend shells, extend the standards and the voters. Interp and violation can be extended as just the tag for your shell if it's a really common shell, i.e. "go to our paraphrasing/disclosure/content warning shell."

Drop the debater and competing interps don't have to be extended if they're conceded.

I default to drop the argument.

Independent voting issues are great so go ahead and run them. Just make sure to warrant why pre-fiat offense comes first (or is "a priori") - this applies to all theory. That being said, some of these are probably not, in my opinion, drop the debater issues so you should have good warrants as to why your opponents behavior merritts a loss.

First rebuttal doesn't have to extend a shell if second constructive doesn't respond. Second rebuttal only has to frontline, not extend.

Theory leanings:

These won't (consciously) affect how I vote but I think it makes sense to inform you of them.

Disclosure: 60-40 for disclosure bad/not necessary.

Open Source Disclosure: 95-5 for first three last three/unformatted paragraphs better than or good enough when compared to open source, 95-5 for open source better than full text.

Paraphrase: 70-30 for paraphrasing good, unless there is a concrete example of misconstrued evidence due to paraphrasing. Then, 90-10 for paraphrasing bad.

Content Warning: 75-25 For content warnings bad, but it can change based on how egregious the potential trigger is.

Date: 90-10 for date theory bad, obviously dates are good in speech but just ask for the date off prep time if you need it so badly.

Formal Dress: 90-10 for formal dress bad — this theory objectively makes sense regardless of what most PF judges think.

Friv theory: 99-1 for shoes theory, hat theory, etc. bad.

RVI's: 50-50, discussed above.

Competing Interps vs. Reasonability: 50-50 — I default to reasonability as mentioned above but can be convinced either way.

Strategy considerations:

It's OK to read defense to your own case to kick out of turns but this defense can't come in second summary if your opponents already went all in on a turn in first summary. You can only employ this strategy in second rebuttal or first summary when you're frontlining your case for the first time.

It makes sense to concede defense to kick out of turns and I'm even OK with teams just saying "we concede all the defense" but make sure that your opponents read something actually responsive to their own turns. If they come up in the next speech and explain why none of the defense you conceded actually interacts with the turn, that puts you in a difficult situation.

Please collapse on 1-2 arguments by final focus.

Go for Hail Mary's!

If you say you are going for something/ collapsing on it, you must go for that. As soon as you say you're collapsing on something (this could be two contentions, a turn, etc. just make it clear what you're specifically going for) everything else gets crossed off my flow.

If no offense is left in the round, I will flip a coin with heads to the pro and tails to the con unless you make a convincing argument as to why I should vote for a team off of presumption.

Evidence:

Don't let your evidence paraphrasing become straight up lying. However, ethical paraphrasing is generally OK with me, especially after case.

Analytics are great! "They have no evidence" is not an adequate response to one beyond second rebuttal unless you a) have evidence that contradicts their analytic, and b) have a valid reason why I should prefer that evidence to their analytic.

If you call a card I would prefer that you indict it.

I will review any evidence you ask me to after the round are but will only call a card on my own if it seems like there is serious misconstruing/muddling going on. Also, I may ask for a card if it's really good evidence and I want to add it to my own files. I will do this after disclosing my decision and as a friend rather than a judge. Obviously, whether or not you show me this card is up to you.

When a card is called, everyone should keep their microphone on until the team that called it gets the card to make sure there's no prep stealing.

I will not look at the email chain for evidence I'm not calling for until after my decision. However, after I decide the winner I may read some of the evidence. If something that was never indicted was seriously misconstrued, I won't factor it into my decision but I probably will adjust speaks to reflect this.

Keep in mind that an empiric without a warrant is useless — don't just read that historically x leads to y without an explanation of why that happened. Otherwise it's very hard to not dismiss this evidence as a correlation rather than a causation if the other team points out there's no warrant behind it.

After the round:

I will disclose my decisions unless the tournament says otherwise and I would love for you to postround as aggressively as you want. It will not offend/anger me and I think it's a great way to learn. If you point out that I missed something egregious, I'll probably boost your speaks as a concession.

I will share my flow after the round if asked.

If I entered the wrong team as the winner and you know this because I disclosed, email me ASAP and I will contact tab to change the decision.

Other points:

I will not show my thoughts during the round, (i.e. I will have a poker face).

Wear whatever you want.

I will be timing both teams' prep and speeches. If you go over in a speech, I'll put my fist up. If you go over in prep, I'll just tell you to stop.

If you do anything __ist in the round, you will be dropped and receive 25's.

If you have any questions or concerns about this paradigm, ask me before the round starts and I will address your inhibitions.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bonus speaker points will be awarded for the following:

Adding memes to speeches- for example, "Our opponents suggestion is just like the spongebob meme about saving the city. They say they're going to save the city, but really they're burning it down by tanking the American economy."

Saying rock lyrics - for example, "Our opponents are acting like they can check out of this policy any time they like, when in actuality they can never leave. Voting for them does irreversible harm." Here is a list of awesome songs you can quote or listen to if you want. But really, you can quote most rock and I'll probably know it. If you quote a song I don't know and send me the link and I like it you will get a lot of bonus points.

Entertaining metaphors/similes in speeches that make me laugh and are applicable to the situation.

Doing funny things! Roasts, as long as they are fun and not rude, are awesome — polite ribbing of the other team in speech and cross will be rewared. The use of metaphor to aid your questioning in cross is also encouraged.

Referring to rounds by their March Madness names (i.e. Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four).

Referring to the Coronavirus as "The Rona."

Using the term "moral crusade."

Cool strategies - concede a contention on your opponent's case, go for hail mary's, collapse in second rebuttal, metaweighing, etc.

Weighing turns in rebuttal.

Referencing Calvin and Hobbes or Dilbert comic strips. If you don't know what these are, I highly recommend them. They are hilarious!

** A deliberately satirical long, off-time roadmap like "A brief off time roadmap, I'll be talking about all of their fraudulent points and why they fail and why we're better and then I'll shift to our case and discuss why this is greatest case of all time and why their responses are all invalid and why we have simply reached another level of debate with this case" is pretty funny and will be rewarded.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks:

Low point wins will only be given if speed or progressive arguments are used to exclude. Otherwise, no LPW's. Generally, speaks break down like this within a division before any other speaks considerations I mentioned in the above sections:

0 - You read either 30 or 0 speaks theory. I mostly buy both 0 and 30 speaks theory, but I think that in terms of accomplishing the goals these theories lay out, 0's make a lot more sense than 30's.

25 - If you're a 25, I will let you know what you did to deserve it.

26 - You showed up, but did not speak well or make good arguments.

27 - Slightly below average.

28 - I will default to this, so you either had a bye from forfeiture or were about average.

28.5 - You spoke well and made good arguments

29 - You spoke well and made great arguments, or vice versa.

29.5 - You spoke very well and made great arguments. Another judge would probably give you a 30, but I was even more impressed by someone else.

30 - You're the best debater I've seen today.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

PS: if you win on a meme case, 30's

Hi! I'm Maddie Hatola (she/her), a 4th year PF debater at Bronx Science.

- Weigh please!! If you explicitly tell me why you won the round or why I should prioritize your arguments it will be a better time for us all. Full narratives are the most compelling!

- I won't flow cross so if something important happens please tell me in a speech

- I'm pretty clueless when it comes to theory. If there is a clear abuse in the round obviously feel free to run it, but I will need it explained as if you were talking to a kindergartener (sorry in advance)

- PLEASE remember to respond to warranted turns

- For the most part, I will consider unresponded to rebuttals as conceded (tech>truth)

- Have fun!! Let's make the conscious decision as a group to NOT be overly stressed at 8am on a Saturday. Light-hearted jokes, puns, and smiling are always appreciated!! And this should go without saying but there is no tolerance for any racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism etc.. Everyone deserves to feel welcome and loved and respected.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!! Good luck :)

Hi all,

I am a 4th year PF debater at Bronx Science. I use she/her pronouns

- First and foremost, the most important thing in debate is to have fun and learn. As a debater myself, I know how a good round feels and I know how a bad round feels, so PLEASE be KIND to each other (very important!!) and have a give each other a good round. Do not be offensive (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.), as I won't tolerate it and will call you out.

- Treat me as a flay judge. I am flowing, but I will not be voting solely off of the flow. I evaluate the truth of arguments and if I buy them or not. This means: CONVINCE me! Be persuasive!

- I will flow most of the round- I won't flow cross but I will listen (if something important comes up, bring it up in the following speech). I also don't really flow summary or FF, this is the time for you to convince me (Novices only). I don't always catch card names so please don't say "flow Smith 21" because I won't know what you are talking about. I am also not flowing word for word so just have that expectation in mind

- In summary I want a brief recap of your cases. This means do not just extend your impact- re-explain very clearly what is going on and why your case is still valid taking into consideration the opposing team's rebuttal. Do not treat summary as a 2nd rebuttal. Good summaries will have frontlines, extension of cases, and weighing.

- Not a huge fan of low probability high magnitude impacts. If something is clearly false or improbable it will be harder for you to convince me to vote off of it. I can handle some speed, just keep in mind it is in your best interest for me to understand and retain the words you say

- Add me to your email chains (heldd@bxscience.edu). If there is a card that is disputed throughout the round, I will call for it at the end of the round (please remind me if I do not)

- Please weigh!! :)

Any questions please do not hesitate to email me.

I am a brand new judge and this is my first competition. I will do my best to stay engaged and focused on the debate. I run a software company and am well versed in topics including: technology, politics, environment, social programs, finance, healthcare, and education.

Hey everyone! I'm Faryll, and this is my paradigm lolz.

So just a few quick pointers...

1) I hate theory. All forms of theory. Just don't run theory. Or K's because critique should not be spelled with a K and that automatically makes it dumb

2) I can handle speed, but I don't like to, so unless you really really really want to, pls don't spread. I'm begging you. If you want to talk fast that’s fine but there should be no gasping in between words. If your breathing is audible your probably going to fast

3) I think calling cards is really smart, because to be honest, a ton of evidence is faked in debate, but please have some common sense. For example, if the card say 50-100m people are impacted and they say 100, that's not lying, that's stretching the truth which I'm totally fine with because let's be real here, almost every impact in debate is stretching the truth.

4) On the topic of Prep Time, I do keep track but I usually give you the benefit of the doubt and if you’re nice, maybe an extra thirty seconds, but pls don’t push it. Everyone knows when you take like five minutes of prep and everyone gets annoyed.

- since we’re on the topic of time, I’m not going to penalize you for ending a speech early and I think fifteen seconds to wrap up over time is fine, but once your at twenty five I should be hearing “and for these reasons” if I don’t I’m not going to flow anymore

5) I love the bachelor franchise. if you can tell me something about it that I don't already know you (or have any theories about why Clayton and Colton are literally the same person). get an automatic 30 and my never ending adoration

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

I am a Debate Team Advisor, that does not mean I am the Coach. I have never participated in a Debate. I organize our team and I have judged a few times. I expect that students speak slow enough for me to understand you. Sometimes the urgency in students' voices is not necessary, spoken calmly will end in the same result and it will be easier to understand.

I am looking for you to address the opponent's contentions and prove to me, your impact is more important than the opponents.

This is my fifth year judging PFD. I did not debate in high school or college, so I try to approach PFD as a "citizen judge." When I listen to a debate, I track a lot of factors. The three most important factors are: 1) citing information sources and demonstrating that you performed solid research and know your topic, 2) expressing a clear set of contentions and subpoints, 3) and how well you listen to your opponents and attack their argument.

In terms of delivery, I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well developed arguments.

Finally, it is important that each team respects its opponents. I understand that debates can get exciting, but I do not like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in crossfire. Good luck today.

Hi! I debated in PF during high school and am a freshman in college.

I can keep up with speed, but if you think I'll miss something, please offer a speech doc. Signpost and weigh the arguments in rebuttal. Make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments. For second rebuttal, you can frontline terminal defense and turns. Anything not covered in the summary will not be considered in the round's evaluation. Extend any contentions, blocks, and frontlines to collapse on. During final focus, please do not introduce any new responses. I can evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

As long as you are respectful during the debate and do not make any insensitive comments, I will give you reasonable speaker points.

Add me to the email chain: angieleung24@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Olivia and I am a PF debater at Bronx Science. In general I am tech>truth but for more extreme arguments, the threshold for responses is lower. For the most part, I will disclose unless the round is really close and I need more time to think about it, but I will always give a RFD.

Weighing:

Please weigh in the round. It is the most important thing that I will vote off of. I would prefer weighing starting from rebuttal, but make sure it is at least in summary and final focus. Also make sure that you are comparatively weighing your impacts against your opponents and not simply restating your own. Probability weighing, or strength of link, is one of the most important components of weighing and I will generally weigh it over scope or magnitude. In order for me to vote off of a turn, you MUST weigh it.

Warranting:

Don't read cards that don't have any warranting attached to them. If you are reading cards, make sure that there is a clear warranting behind it. I will always prefer analytics over unwarranted carded responses. This is especially true when rebutting or front-lining arguments. Don't just read carded responses, make sure you explain why their argument isn't true or why I should prefer your evidence or links. Also, please be explicit when you are implicating your responses.

Speed:

I am generally okay with fast speaking, but please no spreading otherwise I will not write down anything you say. Please note that if you are trying to speak faster so your opponents don't catch what you say, I will probably also miss it, and not write it in my flow.

Summary and Final Focus:

These speeches are the most important in the round because they tell me why I should vote for you. Make sure to extend offense, but feel free to drop any arguments that you are not going for. Summary and final focus should be almost the same. I will not be evaluating anything in final focus that wasn't explicitly brought up in summary. Make sure that you are weighing in these speeches and explicitly telling me why I should vote for you.

Crossfire:

I don't flow crossfire. If anything is conceded in crossfire, make sure to bring it up in the next speech so that it goes on my flow. Also, please be considerate during crossfire, and keep it civil.

Theory/Ks:

I generally prefer that you do not run theory or progressive debate.

My email for email chains is lino@bxscience.edu. Have fun!

Hi! My name is Lotem Loeb and I am a first-year college student. I am traditionally a Public Forum debater with four years of experience. During a round, I primarily focus on the flow and your speech (how you articulate arguments, volume, and a strong speaking voice). The most beneficial and important things to do during your speech are:

• Provide brightlines for all major arguments. This clarifies the round and reminds me of your important points.

• Weighing in all speeches (including comparative weighing)! If you do this, I can more easily assess your impacts.

• Extending links throughout the round.

• Cross should not be a continuation of debating, make sure to ask relevant questions and not explicitly further your arguments.

• Please be sure to frontline starting in Second Rebuttal or First Summary.

• Do not under any circumstances make any offensive arguments. I do not tolerate any arguments that come at the expense of any groups or specific individuals and I will dock speaker points. Also, make sure to be respectful of your opponents during round.

• If you use a theory/K I will only vote for you if it is presented well (I would prefer you do not since your opponent may not have experience with such).

If you spread during speeches that is okay, just make sure to emphasize clarity in arguments and enunciate.

You will do great and make sure to have fun!

Email: lotem.loeb@gmail.com

I am a fairly new parent judge and follow the guidance that was given to judges in terms of what to evaluate - specifically, “the clash of ideas...communicated in a manner persuasive to the citizen judge”. To me, this means plain English, reasonable pace and organized, well explained arguments supported by relevant evidence and a constructive countering of the arguments of the opposing team.

Hi! I am currently a junior at Bronx Science and have been competing for the past three years in Public Forum debate. I will be a flow judge. Here are a few things I would like to see in order to help you win your round:

1) Do not read case too fast, if I miss something, it would only be disadvantageous to you.

2) Please extend the links of your impacts through all speeches in the round.

3) Interact with your opponents' responses!!!

4) Please begin to frontline in second rebuttal, and first summary for the team speaking first.

5) In final focus, tell me why I would be voting for your side of the debate.

Have fun:)

Email for doc chain: naqibf@bxscience.edu

I am a high school debater who has been competing in Public Forum for 3 years and a bit more.

How will you win?
I'm looking for a good debate from both sides, with organized arguments that I can flow easily. If you can prove that you do more good in the world, you will win my ballot. I will try my best to flow everything but if you don't extend important points, I will either miss it or ignore it during my decision.

1. Cards - Please add me to any email chain. If I notice if a card is clearly fake I'll point it out after the round. If I don't, its up to your opponents to prove it's false. If you or your opponents don't call for cards, I will assume most, if not all, are factual.

2. Crossfire - I will pay attention to cross but I will not vote for anything that is said in it unless you mention it in another speech. Cross is a time to find flaws in your opponents case (or mindlessly scream at them), but if you are rude, I will dock some speaker points. If both teams feel like cross is unnecessary for whatever reason, you can just go ahead and skip it.

3. Spreading - Please don't. I want to be able to flow properly, this means that if you are speaking at 400 wpm, I will not catch everything you say. If you feel you are going too fast, take a second or two, and continue speaking.

4. Disclosure - I will disclose if I'm allowed to, and I may provide an oral rfd. If I can't make a decision because I need time to collect my thoughts, I will let you guys know and write up as much as I can. However, please don't immediately leave after the round, especially if I want to disclose.

5. Note for Lincoln-Douglass- I'm new to judging LD, but the points above that apply to LD are going to be in place (especially spreading).

My range for speaker points is 27 - 30.

Daredevil > all fiction, +0.1 speaker points if you agree

If you have any questions specific to me, you should ask before the round begins. Have fun!

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical

The most important thing to be aware of in my round (and any round) is that you will immediately be dropped from the tournament if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Please be aware of the way you speak to your opponents. For whatever reason, sometimes debaters think being condescending is a good strategy. It’s not. Your speaks will be dropped if you are guilty of that.

Speed - I’m totally ok with speed as long as it is comprehensible. If you fear that it’s not, please send a speech doc. I also encourage sending a speech doc anyway because it makes sure that debaters with internet issues are not disadvantaged.

Evidence & Speeches - I only flow what you say in your speeches. I will watch the crossfires but I will not take notes of any kind. As for evidence brought up in the round, I prefer empirics and the least amount of paraphrasing as possible. If your opponents do not call out an issue with your evidence, I will flow it through onto your side. Please provide analysis & warranting with any cards you use. Pointing out faults in arguments is useless without some kind of logical analysis. Do not assume that I will use “common sense” to make decisions for you in the round. Everything you want and don’t want to be flown through needs to be explicitly stated.

Please make sure all of your arguments have links. I will flow arguments with messy linkage through, but it will be much easier for your opponent to convince me to drop them. Additionally, anything brought up in FF that was not extended in summary will be dropped.

Tech over truth.

Theories/K’s - I actually enjoy hearing these when its beneficial to the debate space, and not a ploy to win. Feel free to run it.

Weighing/Impacts - This is what I am going to make my decision off of. The team that does it better wins the ballot. If neither team weighs nor impacts efficiently, I'm forced to decide based off of who I think has the stronger arguments. I really don't want it to come down to that, because it requires judge intervention.

I am open to sending my flow/ further reasoning for decision if you request it.

Hello everyone!

Thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm.

For some Background: I am a senior at the Bronx Science, and I've been doing PF for 3 years in High school, I previously also did PF in Middle School for 3 years. I am excited to be your judge!

I don't have preferences that are too drastic, just speak clearly, not too fast, and be polite. I also would like you to engage with your partner's speech and participate in cross. I don't know any other types of debate so I will not really understand or enjoy your debate if you use a policy or LD style.

Feel free to signpost while speaking.

No matter what, I would really, really, like to see you weigh. If the debate is at a standstill and one team weighs and the other doesn't, I would strongly prefer the team that uses weighing.

Warrant--> link---> impact, thats the best style to easily convey your points while speaking.

I do not really like hearing debate theory, so I would strongly prefer if you would not run it. However, if you're able to bring up a legitimate concern, I will hear it of course. Paraphrasing is fine, but please do not skew evidence, If I ask for evidence or a team does and I realize you lied, I will not hesitate to drop your contention.

I'd like you to extend! If you mention something in cross, bring it up in summary. If you mention something in rebuttal, then your partner skips it in summary and you bring it up final focus, it's not fair to the other team and I can't vote on it. Don't bring up new evidence in the later speeches, I find that a little sly.

Do some offense. If the whole debate is on defense, I can't actually vote on anything.

Please, no racism, sexism, homophobia, trans-phobia, xenophobia, and other -isms. I will drop you if you do that.

We're all here to have fun and learn, and during these difficult times we all need some happiness in our life, so make sure you enjoy and have fun!

If this is your first time debating or not, I wish you the best of luck. Its ok to take a few seconds to catch your breath or reorganize your thoughts, I will definitely understand, after all I too was very, very nervous in my first debate.

If you make a Doctor Who, Percy Jackson, or Harry Potter reference you get +1 speaker points.

My email is ogunbiyis@bxscience.edu for evidence chains and any questions you may have.

Currently a PF debater at Brooklyn Technical High School (2018-2022).

TL;DR: Just debate good.

Strike me:

- If you are _____-phobic or _____-ist. This is an automatic drop for me. I don't care how much you are winning on the flow, making the debate space safer comes before substance.

- If you don't cut cards properly. If I want to evaluate a card, I don't want to cut it for you mid-round.

- If you steal cases or prep from other teams without asking.

Speaker Points:

- I'll generally inflate speaks if it's an important tournament because I don't want my biases or preferences to decide your seed.

- Speak clearly, although you can safely get away with spreading if you send a speech doc.

- It's impressive when you can outsmart your opponents rather than speak better than them. If you can do something big brain, speaks go up.

- I don't care what you do in cross. If you can make me laugh, speaks go up.

- If we ever go back in person, bringing me snacks is an automatic 30.

Extensions and Weighing:

I will automatically assume that any points you don't extend after second rebuttal are dropped and I expect that you collapse on at least one argument during your summary. If you expect me to vote on random points that you gave throughout the round or a rebuttal to your opponents' contention, that will not be convincing enough for me. I'd rather have a fully fleshed-out argument or fully fleshed-out turn to your opponents' argument to vote on rather than fragments of reasons why your side is better.

Make sure you weigh effectively and convincingly as early as possible! If you were losing the whole round but win on weighing at the very end, you have the round right there.

Evidence:

What ever happened to debaters talking about the credibility of sources? You don't necessarily have to mention it in round, but be wary of what sources you use and call out your opponents' sources if they're faulty. If I end up calling for the card at the end of the round because you didn't explain it enough, trust me, I do not care if your uncle wrote a shady article in the New York Post about extinction being imminent, I will vote it down.

I would prefer the least amount of paraphrasing as possible to avoid falsifying the sources you use. Imagine that the author of the source is listening to the round; they should generally agree with you, not shake their head in disappointment. Never assume that I will use logic or make decisions by myself, you must tell me everything that you want, and don’t want, me to flow through.

Speech Formatting:

I expect the second rebuttal to include frontlines to arguments brought up in the first rebuttal. I'm down for whatever strategic method you may have in terms of organization, but summary (especially second summary) is the most important speech in the round so make sure that it effectively explains the position you are in and why it is the best position to be in. As most judges say, your final focus should be my RFD, try to make me think as little as possible by the end of the round. Stay away from bringing up new evidence/arguments in both summary and FF as your opponents will call it out and I won't flow it through.

I am all good with theory debate and progressive rounds as long as you can make them work in the CONTEXT OF PF DEBATE.

Public Forum:

I evaluate debate rounds based off what I've written off my flow. Therefore, debaters must be clear and make sure to signpost throughout speeches. Debaters must be both offensive and defensive (emphasis on offensive). All crucial information that was brought up during the debate must be carried out to the Final Focus. Also, any arguments you want me to vote on must be carried out to those last two speeches. Finally, weigh. Make sure to weigh the debate and make it clear to me why you won and why your side matters more.

*Don't spread

*Don't be a jerk. It'll cause a deduction in speaker points and no one's comfortable.

Hey guys! I'm Solai Solaiyappan and I'm a Senior at Lexington High school and I've debated PF for 4 years.

I have a few things that i'm picky about.

1) Don't Spread (Speed reading) during any speech and speak CLEARLY.

2) No K's and theory and anything that is not PF.

3) Pls weigh. Weighing is very important and if you don't weigh I won't really know what your impacts are at the end of the round.

4) Try and go down the flow. This is a pretty hard thing to do but it is very rewarding because every judge can follow you and comprehend your points.

5) Do not be mean in cross. If you see that your opponent is struggling please do not bombard them with questions. Let them have time and let them try and respond. If I feel like you are being mean I will dock speaker points. The max I'll deduct is 3 points.

6) If your opponent dropped a contention or point that is important in the round don't just say it. Explain why it is important that they dropped it.

7) Same with extending points. Don't say "extend the johnson 18 card". Extend it and explain what the card is briefly.

Also, I'm fine with complex language as long as it doesn't go overboard. If it does I will ask you to explain after your speech. I really want to express my concern about spreading because when you spread I won't be able to catch all your points. I want you guys to focus on diction. Try and have fun y'all.

P.S. I'm a pretty chill person and I will be giving y'all good speaks as long as y'all don't say anything racist or mean.

Hello Everyone,

I'm a parent judge who is relatively new to this. I've judged two online tournaments, and Little Lex will be my first in-person.

I appreciate when cross fire sessions are productive, but please try to avoid monopolizing the section, or talking over someone.

I'm OK with a little speed as long as your speech doesn't become garbled or otherwise unclear. All things being equal, I appreciate slower, clearer and well organized over fast and sloppy. In my limited experience, you have to be a pretty experienced debater for speed to work in your favor.

Please be reasonable with your evidence and stick close to the original intent in your interpretation.

Thank you.

I'm a freshman in college, and I debated in public forum in high school. I judge a lot, so I'm happy to give advice and answer questions at the end of the round.

Add me to the email chain: rv2529@barnard.edu.

• I'm open to theory and progressive arguments when ran well.
• I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

• In both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

• For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns.
• PS: I like link-ins from case and preq. arguments a lot. I don't like when teams use their case arguments as their only responses ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate (interact with the individual warrants and links!)
• In summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another.
• I like meta-weighing -- tell me which mechanism is better.
• Not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
• The final focus speech is a good time to slow down and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. Please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.
• I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. Still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.
• Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

• I like framework when it is well warranted and unique... I don't like "cost-benefit analysis" framework

I did PF for four years at Shrewsbury HS, and I'm currently a freshman at Case Western. Although I mostly competed in PF, I also have experience in Congress and World Schools.

TLDR

At the end of the day, I'll consider most args/frameworks and vote off the flow, but make sure you don't dump substance and cut corners with proper warranting. That said, if you can maintain a consistent narrative throughout the round and the warranting/weighing is there, I'll be more inclined to vote for you.

Preferences

1. I'm comfortable with speed but don't spread.

2. Please collapse. It makes it more difficult to assess the round when teams extend 12 different links with incomplete warranting/frontlining and such. You'll do a much better job if you choose 1-2 of your stronger arguments and make full extensions. That said, I also love when teams collapse on turns. Don't be afraid to use bold back half strategy if it means you can crystallize the round on an impact you both agree is important.

3. I don't really care for progressive args. I find substance debate more useful/interesting in the grand scheme of things.

4. Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other --> The more correspondence between these two speeches, the better.

5. Time yourselves

6. Be nice! I'm sure none of you will have a problem with this but be a good person and don't make snarky remarks, eye roll, ad hominem, etc.

Hi, I'm Joshua, a freshman at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has debated in pf for 4 years.

Speed if fine as long as you are clear, don't spread. Don't be mean, weigh plz; tell me why you win the round. Signpost.

In-depth preferences:

- Just like, don't be mean in cross. I understand the distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness, but aggressiveness will greatly lower your speaks. Don't go over the time limit as I will not flow it. A few more seconds is fine to finish your sentence or point. Also if you're going to steal prep, don't be obvious about it.

- Make sure to Signpost, tell me where you are on the flow so I can follow and write down your arguments!

- I do not flow cross, if something important comes up, mention it in your speeches.

- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- First rebuttal: don't go back to your own case and re-read what's in it. Feel free to weigh their case against yours, or make new analyses and even sub-arguments, but do not simply reread what's already in the case that I heard the first time again. If you're really done, end early.

- Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important. I don't care if you tell me that this program will cost the U.S. $50,000 if you don't tell me what that means in the wider context of things. Will healthcare funding also go down? Will taxpayers have to pay extra? Will we have to cut other government programs? Tell me what is going to happen as a result of the numbers you tell me.

- I give really good speaks, perhaps to good, you basically will always get above a 28 as long as you aren't like mean in cross.

-Let me know if you have any questions

speak clearly and not too fast

Hi! I'm Grace and I'm a junior at Bronx Science.

I'm pumped to hear you debate.

Here's a couple things to keep in mind:

Make me laugh lolz. If you say something funny in round that's clever, I'll like you more and probs give you higher speaks.

Please don't waste anyone's time-show up to your round on time (preferably early!) so we can get the show on the road.

In order for me to weigh your argument/impact, you have to extend it in every speech. If you drop it in one speech and go for it in the next, don't expect me to vote on it.

Collapse on your impact, and tell me why it's important. I'm not going to search thru my flow to find your impact for you.

Frontline and signpost otherwise I'm not gonna know what you're talking abt. This keeps speeches organized.

Be nice, be cool, be dope.

Hi everyone!

I'm Mia (she/her) and I am a third year PF debater at Bronx Science.
Email chains/Questions/Feedback: zaslowm@bxscience.edu

Some general things:

- I am tech > truth, however, be reasonable. I am a flow judge but appreciate lay appeal because it usually means you are warranting more, so give me a narrative.

- I do not flow card names, so if you want me to flow your evidence through the round you need to re-explain the content of the card. Just saying "extend Smith 21" doesn't cut it for me.

- I listen to cross but do not flow it, so anything you want me to evaluate should be brought up in the next speech.

- I'm fine with some speed, but just remember you want everything you say to make it on my flow.

- I don’t really like progressive arguments so run them in front of me at your own risk.

In terms of debate structure, I just want you to make it as clear as possible why I should vote for you. This means your warranting and impacts should be extended and weighed.

Finally, please be kind. Don't do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I know how awful a bad round can feel so let's have a good time. If you can make me laugh during the round I will boost your speaks.

Email me with any questions :)