-Try not to spread too much on the Main Point. If you spread too fast, the other team has to call for your speech doc, which takes a lot of time away from the debate

-Make sure to extend your case in summary and final focus

-If you have two contentions, try to collapse on one

-actually weigh, I don't want to just hear evidence

-Try not to go too overtime

-Respect each other in crossfire

-Call for cards in crossfire

Add me to the email chain: aanya2cool@gmail.com

I debate at Ivy Bridge Academy, mainly Public Forum but I've watched Congr, Parli, and Policy

History: Went deep in a couple national tournaments

NOTE: If you're novice or jv the only thing that applies to you is general prefs, ignore everything else

General Prefs:

1) Come pre-flowed unless we're flipping right before round

2) Keep off-time roadmaps simple (don't say "first we're talking about their case, then we're talking about why our case still stands, and finally we'll weigh" - a simple "their case, our case, weighing" will do fine)

3) Signpost - flowing becomes 10x as hard when you don't signpost - have mercy

4) Be prepared for me to call for cards after round - DO NOT cite something you don't have a card for

5) If you spread for any of your speeches please send speech doc or else I won't be able to evaluate the things I didn't hear

6) I'll keep time, for both speeches and prep, but I'll give however long you take to pull up a card as prep time for the other team

Case:

1) As long as you have good warranting and DID NOT misrepresent evidence, I can evaluate almost every arg

2) I absolutely love framework debates, but don't run them if you don't know how

Rebuttal:

1) Implicate everything, don't just read a non unique or de link, tell me why it matters

2) I only evaluate turns under two conditions: a - you have to extend a clear warrant for why it's a turn and b - you have to tell me why that helps you in the round by weighing the turn

3) Second rebuttal MUST frontline every argument, or at least turns, or else I'll consider the dropped responses conceded

Summary:

1) Collapse - It helps you extend and weigh your arg better

2) If you're second summary respond to the other teams weighing (if they said they won on pre-req, explain why they don't, or why you win pre-req more cleanly)

3) Weigh with comparison - don't be like "we win on magnitude" be like "we win on magnitude because while they only impact 1 life and we impact 100"

Final Focus:

1) I won't evaluate anything new in final focus

2) Collapse the debate down to the voters - final focus didn't become a speech just to become a mirrored version of summary, it became a speech so that it could be the final word to the judge, on why you win - if you do choose to mirror summary that's fine, I won't count it against you, but I'll boost your speaks if you collapse down to the key issues and why you win

Speaking Philosophy:

I start everyone at 28, and I increase/decrease based on how you did in the round

You'll get +0.5 Speaks if you:

1) were funny

2) did a line by line

3) used final focus to tell me why you won, not just repeat summary

4) had a good amount of topic knowledge in cross

You'll get -0.5 Speaks if you:

1) spread without sending doc

2) were rude in cross, spoke over the other team or interrupted them a lot

3) brought new things up in 2nd summary/1st and 2nd final focus (if you only brought up a couple new things, it won't be flowed, but I won't dock your speaks - that said, if you bring up a LOT of new things I will dock speaks)

You'll get -100000 speaks and possibly and L if you:

1) were openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

2) misrepresented evidence, let's encourage better evidence norms guys

Tech Judge - I currently do Public Forum debate, Elims at TOC.

Add me to the email chain or evidence sharing doc - aryan.bavera@gmail.com

GENERAL STUFF:

I don't like Spreading.

Truth = Tech, meaning if you have a garbage case, a garbage response is all that's needed to destroy it.

Time yourselves and your opponents.

I'll presume Con if every argument on both sides is dead.

CROSSFIRE:

Crossfire is seriously undervalued. You should use cross to explain arguments or to understand opponents arguments better as well as to find logical flaws between the opponents. I don't really want a massive "who's evidence is better debate" in cross, but I understand that sometimes it is necessary because you have more interaction with the opponents.

FRONTLINING, WEIGHING, AND NEW STUFF:

You don't need to say flashy words like "magnitude, link-turn, meta-weighing". However, an explanation of the word's meaning is necessary (explain your weighing, implicate your responses).

If you say for example, "we outweigh on magnitude", but don't explain how, your weighing was useless.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

Frontline in First Summary.

CARDS:

If you can't pull up a card in a 1min 30, the card is dropped and you get lower speaks.

PREPTIME:

Flex prep is fine, don't overdo it.

Solo's get extra prep time (1 minute)

SPEAKER POINTS:

When I evaluate speaker points, I'm basically a lay judge. That means eye contact, meaningful hand gestures, clear tone of voice and emphasis on certain points when needed. Efficiency is also a key point here as well as how good your collapse is.

(she/her)

I've been a pf debater for almost a year and a half.

Yall don't need to refer to me as judge if you don't want to since I'm not an adult - you can just call me Sanjana :)

Overall, just don't be rude to your partner or opponents during the debate; don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. just be respectful to everyone

Some tips for the debate:

cross: I don't typically flow cross, so if you say something important that you think I'll need to know, then make sure you bring it up in one of your speeches. Also, unlike other judges, I like an aggressive crossfire, so ask interesting questions and be passionate about what you're saying, just don't be disrespectful!

cases: As long as your case isn't disrespectful/has no link to the topic, I'm fine with anything. I'm also good with speed as long as you're speaking clearly. Make sure that I can understand what you're saying. Also, make sure that your cases have good content. If your only impact is something like nuclear war, then it's gonna be very hard for me to vote for you.

rebuttal: Make sure to attack every part of your opponent's case. If you're the second rebuttal, then frontline if you can - if you don't, that could be pretty bad because now you can't really extend any responses against your opponent's responses and you don't really have anything to build your case back up. Also, if you have time, make sure you WEIGH, whether you're first or second. THIS MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER TO WEIGH THROUGHOUT THE DEBATE.

summary: This is THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH. Make sure that you:

1. extend your case- should take like 20-30 secs; just collapse your case and only say the important things (uniqueness, link, and impact)

2. frontline - make sure you respond to your opponent's responses against your case, especially offensive responses like turns and delinks.

3. extend responses - Make sure you extend responses because your partner can't bring up anything you didn't say in summary, so make sure you extend responses that you think are important.

4. weigh - MAKE SURE YOU WEIGH (if you weighed in rebuttal, then you can just extend your weighing). Try weighing on more than one thing, not just magnitude or something like that, but make sure you get to weighing. Proper weighing makes it easier for me to decide who wins the debate.

ff: don't bring up anything new or anything that wasn't said in summary. Again, make sure you weigh. Tell me why I should vote for you.

(If you're novice and you didn't understand some of the stuff on here, that's perfectly ok just debate as best as you can!)

speaker points:

30 - I don't normally give 30s, so if you get a 30 then wow good job

29 - ur really good

28 - this is a good place to be, means you spoke clear and strong, emphasized where you needed to, and just did what you were supposed to do overall

27 - you have to practice a bit more but you're almost there!

26 - this is the lowest amount of points you can get, just means that you have a lot more practice to do but that's ok bc you're going to get there!

to get good speaks, just be confident and clear, and stress what you need to when you're speaking. don't be monotone or sound like you are uninterested because that just makes the debate boring for everyone. also if you ask "is water wet?" or say "Blackpink in your area" I will give u extra speaks!!! :)

put #sanjana2022 in the chat to show that you've read my paradigm!

TL;DR

tech>truth, defense is not sticky

good w substance and theory, explain other prog well (tricks are ok)

I will end the round immediately if you are remotely offensive and give you L20s.

SUBSTANCE

If you don't send docs for case with cards, speaks are capped at 28.

How to win:

Win the weighing debate and win the argument that outweighs. Whatever argument is weighed best, I look there first. Without any weighing, I will vote on path of least resistance.

FL in 2nd rebuttal, New DAs/OVs in 2nd rebuttal are fine but will have a lower threshold for response in summary. +.5 speaks for sending doc.

Defense is not sticky. The more weighing, the merrier. Collapsing is usually good but you do you.

I enjoy very fast-paced debates. Unlike some judges, I don't at all believe PF has to be "accessible and slow." If you are in varsity/open and you have me as a judge, go super fast and I will probably like you as long as you send docs.

I presume the team that lost flip unless told otherwise,

PROGRESSIVE

Good with theory, default competing interps and no RVIs.

I have no bias when it comes to theory (I will not say "they read disclosure so auto up").

If you make me evaluate under reasonability, I will probably be sad, but it is what it is.

Any other arguments like K's, tricks, etc. are fair game but require more explanation. I'm familiar with basic K structure but don't really have much knowledge of the lit. Slow down on tags for K debate.

Hiding a trick in your speech is actually ok as long as it's in the speech doc.

I am an assistant director to Ivy Bridge Academy, and I started out as a novice Debate Coach. I understand the structure of the debate and terms, but you should explain the case to me as a Lay Judge.

I do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying.Please be respectful of your opponents and me as a judge. If you have an issue you should contact your coach.

For your cases, I value impacts and weighing, as well as clarity. Enunciate your words and speak in a moderate speed as to be heard clearly.

I will keep track of time and flow on my own, but you should be timing yourselves and reaching the time limit.

Speaker Points

26-26.9-You fell short of the time, you were unclear or I could not understand your case at all.

27-28-I couldn't understand the concepts in your case fully, you did not work well with your partner.

28.1-29-You did a good job and were understood, with clear concepts. You could develop your case further or be more persuasive.

29.1-30-I couldn't give anymore feedback, and your case was either near, or absolutely flawless.

I will give personalized feedback as necessary, verbally and over tabroom.

+Lay Judge

+Graduate Student

+Previously an IPDA debater (three years in undergrad)

+Novice Coach

+Adjunct professor

Note: Email me your case if you want me to see your cards (jadaf789@gmail.com)

UMich Classic BLP '23

Alpharetta High School '26

Hey,

I have debated PF for 2 years and have completed 1 year of policy debating. I am actually excited to judge you; believe it or not.

Send the email chain 5 minutes before round starts. None of us want to be here all day.

abhivaturi@gmail.com

Generic:

• Don't be rude to your opponents
• Accept that you WILL lose a lot. Winning doesn't help you improve. Guess what does.
• Don't talk about me after round. It's not a good habit, and when you do it to other judges, it eventually comes out one way or another. Word spreads quick. Don't do it.
• Don't be intimidated by cross-ex, it is an art but is not difficult. Remember, your opponent is as scared as you are. You have heard this 10,000,000 times but I promise you, you have to be confident even if you have to fake it. Most cross-exs unless you are in a very high level of debating will require some form of faking your way through it, so be witty about how you answer!
• If you are confused or feel like there is no hope, trust me there is always a way out. Give your best shot at it.
• Don't steal prep. This means talking to your partner about debate outside of you or your opponent's prep time. 3 strikes and i deduct -0.2 speaks off both of you.
• Don't cheat in any other form. It only hurts you.
• flow every speech, yes even the 2ar and speeches you are not giving. flowing = winning debates.

TLDR: Tech judge, warrant out your args as much as possible, do impact calculus, don't drop stuff, pls make cx/crossfire not boring, don't cheat, clarity > speed

Other than the TLDR stuff, here is some arg specific stuff:

Policy

Case: A good case debate is really interesting and really makes me want to know about your 1ac. I have probably seen your 1ac plenty of times so please try to make unique and smart arguments with it. Use any piece of evidence you can to try to answer the neg.

• For rookies and novices, you don't need to memorize your cards, but please know what your 1ac says. I will love you referencing specific pieces of evidence in your debates.
• PLEASE. EXTEND. YOUR. IMPACTS. Your impacts tell me why I must vote for you. If you don't explain it to me throughout the entire debate, you are essentially not convincing me at all. Who cares about a UBI?

DA: This is my favorite neg argument because of its simplicity.

• Weigh your impacts. Why should your disadvantage/advantage matter MORE than your opponents??? If you are debating it you are meant to be arguing about how it outweighs the opponent's argument.
• Don't drop any straight turns, these are deadly.

CP: Can be pretty cool. As a novice, you will probably have a hard time going for perms in the 2ar, so I suggest you argue your solvency deficits well. I will vote on condo, international fiat, and 50 state uniformity.

K: These debates can become very messy and give the judge a hard time. But, if you explain all your args well in an organized fashion, I can vote on it.

T: Very annoying as aff, very fun as neg.

• don't drop standards. The standards are impacts. You have probably noticed by now that I care about impacts because they are the most important thing to debate.
• Please do evidence indicts. Topicality is about debating definitions, so I need reasons as to which one is better

PF

Novice:

Constructive Speech:

- Be clear

- No offensive themes (pretty self-explanatory)

- don't slur your words

Rebuttal:

- respond to the opponent's uniqueness, links, and impacts

- don't drop anything; even if it's difficult to respond to, say something

- please try to frontline in the second rebuttal

Summary:

As you may have heard before, the summary is one of the most important speeches if not the most.

Make sure you:

- extend your case (collapse if you have more than 1 contention or if your sole contention has like 4+ links)

- frontline, ESPECIALLY THE TURNS, EVEN IF YOU DROP ONE OF YOUR CONTENTIONS, RESPOND TO THEIR TURN

- make sure to extend responses on your opponent' case (no new responses)

- if you are going second, remember that you only have to frontline the responses the opponent extended in the first summary, so please don't waste your time frontlining dropped responses

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH; this tells which side to prefer so if you don't weigh and the opponent does it's a win for them unless they pretty much conceded all the responses. Also, please do comparative weighing--tell me why you're opponent's weighing is wrong or is insignificant compared to yours.

FF:

- same stuff as summary

- you MUST weigh no questions about it, pls it matters so much here

-please tell me why you're winning this debate, that helps me when entering the ballot

Speaker scale:

30.0 - You could not have possibly given a better speech.

29.6-29.9 - You have done everything right and gave an almost perfect speech; I see only tiny tweaks required to make your speeches perfect

29.0-29.5 - You had a good speech, you know what you are doing and have a good understanding of the evidence read in a round...

28.1-28.5 - Not bad, lot of room for improvement.

28.0- You are not interested in this debate at all

< 28.0 - Probably never gonna give this out, this is if you exhibited any -isms.

-0.3 speaks for every time I hear you cuss.

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.

Hello!

I was a PF debater for several years and broke at a few national tournaments for JV, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. I am no longer in the debating scene, but I am still familiar with how PF debate works. Treat me as a flay: I understand the tech and lingo, but I have absolutely zero topic knowledge.

For Varsity: I detest theory and K's. Do not run them in front of me. If you do, I will default to the other side.

TLDR: Obviously, no racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. Please respect opponents. Generally, I vote for whoever has the best weighing and whichever case is still standing. I expect a clear warrant to buy a case. Speaks depend on how well you execute your speeches and cross. When calling for evidence, please send a CUT CARD. Include me on any email chains. Signpost all speeches following 1st rebuttal.

Cases: I like comprehensible cases with some nuances. If you do happen to be reading a squirrely case, send me evidence beforehand. Don't read faster than 200 wpm. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, but if you really need to, send me a case doc beforehand. otherwise, do whatever.

Responses: Destroy your opponent’s case on the uniqueness, link, and impact level. I like aggressive rebuttals. Turns are fantastic. Make sure to sign post, so I can flow all your responses. 2nd rebuttal must frontline some arguments or at least the turns. Weighing here is a bonus, but not required.

Summary: Hardest, but also most important speech of the round. My ballot will likely be decided after this speech. I expect these 3 things:

1. Extend case. Bring up some key authors and the uniqueness, link, and impact.

2. Frontline. If you don’t frontline, I assume you concede. I especially love analytical frontlines, but be careful, because some things actually need evidence.

3. Weigh. Give me some good warrants and evidence. I love, love, love pre-req/short circuit. If you weigh like this and your opponent doesn't address it/weigh similarly, then I will vote fore you. Meta-weighing is great, but not needed. This is the most important part of the summary, so give me a clear heads-up when you start weighing.

4. Extend responses. If a turn goes unaddressed, please extend it! Don't go for all responses, just pick 1 or 2 max and properly implicate them

Final Focus: As I almost always have my ballot by summary, I rarely flow this speech. Don't bring up new evidence/responses. I will not even consider them. Please spend at least 30 sec weighing here, as this is one of the main purposes of this speech.

Cross: This is not a key voting place for me, but I will use it determine speaks. If some important point is made in cross, just bring it up at the beginning of any speech and I'll consider it.

i award points to ppl who...

-seem confident. doesnt mean you know whats going on, but if you keep your game together and make it look like you’re still in control, thats pretty good. thats kinda tough sometimes, man.

-not boring voice. dont be monotone. imma fall asleep at the very beginning then.

-hand gestures. love these. more, more, more

-either be assertive or friendly. no aggressive and no passive. and obviously be respectful.

-knows what they’re talking about and can actually debate. you’d be surprised by the number of people who fail to get points from this category. be a good debater guys. stop calling out dumb technicalities

-80s song references

i take away points from ppl who…

-are disrespectful, rude, disgustingly mean, or have bad behavior. i will hack the system to give you a 25 BECAUSE APPARENTLY THIS POSSIBLE I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

-make it obvious that they’re not cooperating with their partner. your partner is like the other half of your brain. please respect them.

-mumble

-concede something that goes against them. good debaters never do this. be a good debater.

-give bad speeches. this is a kinda iffy category and its really hard to decide. if you have a significant amount of time left, i’ll dock points. if you consistently contradict yourself, i’ll dock points. dont worry too much about this part. you have to be rlly bad if i dock points for bad speech.

-any harry styles, olivia rodrigo, ariana grande, doja cat reference

okay, here’s what numbers mean to me:

30: never stop debating. move up to the next level. you’re actually so good. will rarely give this out

29: rlly rlly good. this is expected for excellent debaters and i encourage you to keep debating.

28: you’re getting there. at least you didnt screw up. will use this most often, especially for average debaters.

27: please try harder next time. follow the advice in my feedback

26: what are you doing with your life? i will almost never give this out because im too nice

yea and of course cant forget the "have fun debating!!!1!!1!"

just be a good debater :D

put #samisthebomb.com in the chat so i know you read my paradigm

tech>truth

Things that I don't like and will auto give you a loss for:

1. Profanity, racism, anything else that is offensive

2. No cheating. like stealing prep or any other type of cheating.

Down the debate:

Contention: I dont rlly care what type of case you run as long as it has evidence and warranting. Also, make sure it relates back to the topic. Warranting > Evidence

Crossfire: I'm not going to be listening to crossfire that much so if there is something important you want me to flow, say it in the speech.

Rebuttal: Just go down their case and you can weigh if you want. Second rebuttal must frontline at minimum the offense but defense is preferred.

Summary: As a first speaker, this is the hardest and most important speech. Unless it's completely one sided, I am probably getting close to casting my ballot here. Impact weighing must start here if you want me to evaluate it. Also, defense isn't sticky so extend everything and don't forget to frontline.

Final Focus: Summarize the debate here. This speech should be almost identical to summary and I'm not going to evaluate anything new. The only thing that can be new is weighing mech's but at least extend the ones used in summary.

Weighing: This is one of the most important things in the debate so don't mess up. I need to see interactive weighing or else I'm probably just not going to evaluate weighing at all.

Speaker points: I usually start my speaker points around 28.5, and go up and down depending on how you do throughout the round. Speaker points will rarely affect my ballet.

Theory and most prog: I'm not the best at evaluating prog arguments so make sure you run it well if you want me voting on it. Also, don't run any wacky theory because the more wacky the theory is the less likely I am to vote on it. I dont really know K's yet so you can run it but I'm probably not gonna understand a word you are saying.

Disclosure: I believe that disclosure is a good norm so you should do it.

Make sure to signpost, if you don't I'm probably not going to be able to flow it meaning it's harder for me to vote for you.

If you actually read all of this then make a reference to the Atlanta Falcons, (good or bad) and get +1 speaks.

Hi! I just graduated from college (engineering) and am entering law school in the fall. I debated in middle school and have some high school/college public speaking experience.

I like logical arguments with robust reasoning (specific examples are of secondary importance to me). I am OK with speed for the most part, but please enunciate so that I can follow your case. Also, a pet peeve of mine is when debaters try to cram a speech in during crossfire.

**I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE**

add me to the email chain: stutim304@gmail.com

for context, i’ve done pf debate for 5 years and have been doing policy for 2 years. i’ve taught a couple of kids for summer camp, so i am relatively familiar with the technical side of pf. however, i have not debated pf for 2 years, meaning that i am not familiar with pf kritiks and new theory. please explain those arguments especially well.

case:

cases need to have clear links, impacts, and a uniqueness. if there is no impact, i cannot really evaluate it.

tech > truth in most cases.

summaries & final focuses:

no new ev or arguments in final focus, new arguments in summaries are permitted if the other team doesn’t bring it up. also, since i have no knowledge on this topic, send out analytics.

weighing:

weighing is a super big part of my decision, so i expect it to be in your summary and carried into your final focus. weighing must be extended and fully explained. i prefer pre-req, probability, magnitude, and timeframe in that order.

speaking:

i’m ok with speed, but be clear. if i can’t understand you, i will let you know. however, if i cannot understand you repeatedly, it is not going my flow so i can’t evaluate it.

arguments:

dropped arguments = true arguments. if your opponent drops your argument, bring it up in a speech. for kritiks, i don’t know how these work in pf, but i do understand policy kritiks so explain them well. for theory, again, i’m willing to vote on it but explain it well.

timing:

i will time your speeches but you should as well.

***

hate speech, homophobia, racism, etc. will result in lowest speaks and a loss.

all in all, it’s novice division, i’m going to let a lot slide because this is a learning experience for you all! if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

for +.2 speaker points, buy me a snack before round <3

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 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

I recognize that you may need to talk quickly in some situations in order to cover as much information regarding your issue as possible. I'm OK with pace as long as it's structured and you provide cues throughout the speech that I can follow and relate to.

I also realize that you are vehement about your ideas. Respect must be maintained at all times.

I'll be keeping track of every point in your argument, how you defend it, and how you refute your opponent's case. You should be OK as long as you do it convincingly!

Best regards!

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!

Hello comrades,

***Debate is an inclusive experience, and everyone deserves an equal chance and a fair ballot.***

An email chain is appreciated- Irene.tang.2006@gmail.com

I have 5-6 years of pf debate experience and have competed in several national tournaments.

The biggest thing I am looking for is a straightforward narrative. What are your main points? Why do they matter more than the opponent's main points? In other words, extend your contentions clearly and weigh impacts strategically. I will only evaluate points extended consistently throughout the speeches.

I do not evaluate cross, but I will evaluate points made in cross if you bring it up in a speech.

I do not call for cards unless a debater explicitly asks me to in a round or a card is being flamed extensively for fallacy. In other words, tech over truth.

I do not care how fast you speak, but make sure you speak clearly.

I default to 30 speaks unless you do something to compromise the opponent's equal chance to debate.

Lastly, I enjoy fun rounds, which means informal language and jokes are allowed in speeches.

Add me to the email chain pls - kirtanhthakkar@gmail.com

NO CHEATING- that means stealing prep and things like that

I am Tech Judge. I debate PF and do a little Policy

Tech>Truth EVERY TIME. For example, if they read something about snakes, but they don't prove that snakes exist, and you say that, then I probably won't consider that arg even though we all know that snakes exist.

Try to be enthusiastic when you are speaking. Debate is supposed to be fun and I love a lively debate.

im pretty chill just do ur thing have fun I will give feedback because I flow a lot

Spreading is allowed but IF YOU SPREAD I NEED THE SPEECH DOC. If you spread and don't give me the speech doc, I may not be able to flow it so you hurt yourself. Also I would prefer if you didn't spread but if you do its whatever just send speech doc

I really like a heated debate so don't be afraid to do heated stuff like screaming that they drop something in your speech, just be respectful (ex. no bad language)

PF speech specific:

First off, if you are a geek like me and you randomly read paradigms, you will know that a ton of judges place HUGE importance on weighing, and AND I LIKE WEIGHING A LOT (especially comparative weighing that is amazing).

Contention: I'm ok with wacky arguments, as long as you can defend them properly and know what your own case is about.

Rebuttal: 1st Rebuttal- just go down your opponent's case, and you can weigh if you want to. 2nd Rebuttal- frontline at least all your opponent's turns, but it will be even better if you frontline each response.

Summary: I consider this the most important speech, so don't screw up here. First Summary- definitely extend your case, because whatever you don't extend, I will assume that you don't want to keep using that in your argument. Extend responses as well, because otherwise your offense doesn't stand anymore so you don't actually keep saying that they are flawed. Weighing must start here. If it doesn't, you can't bring it up in Final Focus. Also, I do allow new evidence in first summary for frontlining. Second Summary- frontline first summary, and try and do as many things from first summary as possible. Frontlining your opponent's rebuttal will be even better. Also collapsing is something I really like- you could collapse of one link and one response idc as long as its strong, because any strong argument clearly extended bears a lot of weight. I would rather you make a few strong arguments rater than extend like 5 cases and like a bunch of delinks and turns and stuff like that.

Final Focus: Please give me a viewpoint, and you NEED weighing. Remember, this speech is your final reminder to me about why your argument is much better than your opponent's. Mention it if your opponent dropped something and I will consider it.

Crossfire: LET THE OPPONENT ASK A QUESTION. I like aggressive cross, but just remember to draw the line. I really like cross and I listen attentively to it.