I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

I'm a parent judge in my third year of judging debate. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener of the topic.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made by your opponents), and why your side should prevail.

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

I look forward to hearing you.

4 year long debater, traditional flow judge but prefer slower paced speaking.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

varsity pf debater for bronx science

Hi! My name is Claire and I've been debating at Scarsdale High School for 4 years.

I'm a tech over truth judge. Be respectful, don't be rude, racist, or otherwise offensive, if you are you will be dropped.

Add me to your email chain: cchou23@scarsdaleschools.org

A few things about how I judge:

1) Do not run theory or kritiks in novice (if you don't know what these are that's fine and you don't need to worry about it).

2) Although I listen to cross, I don't flow cross, if you want me to evaluate something said in cross, restate it in your next speech.

3) Extend your arguments throughout all necessary speeches.

4) I won't evaluate new arguments brought up in final focus.

5) Remember to weigh, the earlier you weigh, the better.

6) Signpost throughout your speeches.

7) Be sure to speak at a hearable speed. I am okay with speaking at a faster speed but if I can't make out what you are saying I'll stop you within the first 15 seconds and ask you to redo it at a slower pace.

8) After about 10 seconds over time I will stop flowing what you are saying.

9) I don't flow names of cards (i.e. Smith '21) so during your speeches please refer to the information, not just the card name.

Feel free to ask any questions! :)

For public forum, please speak slowly and clearly. I prefer well-structured arguments with fewer sources of evidence as opposed to an overwhelming number of sources that are not clearly linked to your argument. As you present your case, define terms and abbreviations as if the audience has little to no background in this area. The final focus, closing argument, is important as I develop the Reason for my Decision.

Hi, I'm David!

About me: I am a junior and have debated PF at Scarsdale High School for 3 years. I've found moderate success on the nat circuit. Please add me to any email chains: ddiao23@scarsdaleschools.org

TLDR: I will evaluate any argument if you can explain it to me, defend it adequately, give me a reason to vote for it over other arguments, and specifically bring it up in the summary and final focus. In summary and final focus, you should try to only go for one argument on your side of the flow (1 contention) and that argument should be in both summary and ff.e

I agree a lot with what my partner, Sameer, has outlined in his paradigm. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fDwc241myDm0sP3AKefJZBHsFTGak52yO6dsXs5Fwio/edit?usp=sharing

IT IS LONG. If you don't have the time, just ask me questions about how I judge before round.

Feel free to comment on the doc, I will find it funny. Please note any comments are not from me or Sameer.

----NOTABLE PLACES WHERE I DISAGREE WITH SAMEER----

1. I don't really care how you label the evidence exchange.

2. Do not read from a speech doc. I must be able to understand the arguments you make through your speech alone and any clarifications afterward. I believe spreading a 1500 word case is incredibly unproductive and dilutes the educational value of the round.

Other General Info

1. Don't be rude- I won't vote you down for it but your speaks will suffer

2. Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc- If it becomes a major issue this is one of the only conditions where I'll intervene in the round and your speaks will definitely suffer.

3. Remember to have fun. Y'all are here to learn and get better. While winning is always a nice feeling, it should not be the end all be all of why you're here

4. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with my decision. Judges should be able to defend any decision they make as a way to demonstrate the fairness of the round and to provide constructive criticism for both teams.

5. If you have any questions about ways you could've improved in the round, please ask me. I will give an oral RFD (reason for decision) but it is always good to ask for more feedback.

Good luck to both teams and have fun!

Hi I am Serena and I have debated for 3 years.

I judge rounds most clearly on winning your comparative weighing and giving me a clear to follow extended link chain. Your evidence need to be clearly explained and extended throughout the round if you want me to vote on them (this goes for analytical warranting as well). I don't care about speed as long as your arguments are well structured. Please try to sign post. Thanks! Can't wait to judge :)

Hello! I am a equities portfolio manager at a boutique investment firm. I am also at adjunct professor of Basic Macroeconomics at Fordham University. I hold a PhD in Economics from Fordham University, an MBA from Yale School of Management and a Bachelor's Degree in Economics from Universidad Panamericana (Mexico).

In debate rounds, I am looking for the following:

- Respectful treatment from both teams towards all members of the debate

- Clear and articulated speaking (no spreading)

- Back up your ideas with logical arguments and authorized sources.

- When you refute something, argue why it's not true, rather than simply denying.

- Provide quantified impacts

- Carry through your contentions in summary and final focus

- Weigh in summary and final focus

Congratulations on joining a debate team. I am positive this experience will help you grow personally and professionally. Do your best, have fun and good luck!

I’m a parent judge and I am relatively new at this.

Here are a few of my preferences:

1) Speak slowly. I’m only judging you based on what I hear. The faster you speak the less likely I am to hear and understand your arguments. Again, please speak slowly.

2) Extend and explain. Extend all of your points that you want me to evaluate and explain everything to me. Don’t assume that I have any background knowledge on this topic.

3) Evidence isn’t that important to me. I’m not going to vote for you because of your evidence if you don’t communicate why it’s significant.

4) I am going to try to be tech over truth. If an argument doesn’t follow basic logic I won't vote for it, but other than that I'll believe what you tell me.

5)Be kind.

Good luck to everyone and I look forward to a good, clean debate.

I am a parent PF judge and am an attorney and legal consultant.

Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail. When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.

Please do not spread (or talk too quickly). Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive. Please do not use debate jargon.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause. I encourage tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in cross fire.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. The final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (including why I should vote for your side by explaining why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.)

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.

Hey, my name is Wubet. I am a Senior who does pf debate. Please be respectful of each other. Speak clearly, remember to enunciate, and don't spread. If something important is mentioned in cross, bring it up in your speech so I can flow it. Most importantly, make sure to weigh!

Hello!

My name is Alison (she/her) and I have been debating at Scarsdale High School for 3 years.

Please add me to your email chain: ajiang23@scarsdaleschools.org

Here are a few things to keep in mind about my judging:

1) Please do not run k's or theory.

2) Although I am able to flow pretty quickly, do not speak too fast; any information I do not catch will be on you.

3) Extend your arguments throughout each speech. I will likely vote for the team that can extend their arguments most clearly and logically.

4) Make sure to have a logical, cohesive argument in addition to statistics and cards.

5) Weigh your arguments, and try to weigh as early as possible. I will likely vote for the team that can weigh their arguments most effectively.

6) Please sign-post in your speeches: sign-posting helps me have a clear understanding of your arguments.

7) I will not flow any new evidence brought up in Final Focus.

8) Although I will listen to crossfire, I will not flow. Be sure to reiterate any points you made in cross in your next speech.

9) I do not flow names of cards (i.e. Smith '18) so during your speeches please refer to the specific information, not just the card name.

10) I judge speaker points based on basic civility in cross, clear speaking, and overall making the round easier to judge. Making the round more enjoyable can lead to an increase in speaker points!

11) Have fun and good luck :)

A few technical things:

Before the Round:

1) If you want to pre-flow, please try to do that before the round begins.

2) If there are any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask!

3) Please add me to your email chain: ajiang23@scarsdaleschools.org

During the Round:

1) If you want to call for a card, please unmute yourself so that I know you are not using prep time.

2) If you cannot find the evidence for a card within 3 minutes, the evidence will be dropped.

3) Clearly state when you are starting and stopping prep time--I will be recording this as well.

4) Do not talk to your partner during a speech that you are giving, or I will lower your speaks.

5) I will allow 10 seconds after time ends for you to finish your point. If you do not stop, I will stop flowing and dock speaker points.

6) You will not be penalized for connection/microphone issues, but try to sort that out before the round begins.

After the Round:

1) Feel free to ask about my RFD and anything you would like to improve on!

Hello.

I am a junior and third-year debater for Scarsdale HS in Public Forum (2019-present). I have received 3 career bids and have extensive experience in many forms of argumentation.

TL;DR I am a 100% tech judge. Pretty much do whatever you want. Also, add me to the email chain: skini23@scarsdaleschools.org.

--SECTION 1: PRAGMATICS--

Holistic summary:

1. I am 100% tech > truth. Feel free to run any argument you wish, whether it be a newly discovered kritik or an extremely convoluted disadvantage, but try to exercise proper judgment.

2. I can flow quite fast, but not at an infinite speed. Keep this in mind when reading the requirements and general views sections below.

3. Anything I vote on or evaluate must meet the requirements below and be present in both summary and final focus (except, of course, if you are responding to something said in 2nd summary or 1st final focus).

4. I minimize intervention. This means I will search for the least amount of work needed from my end in order to find a requisite path to the ballot (weighed offense). If there are multiple such paths to the ballot, I will choose the one that requires the least amount of personal intervention.

Requirements:

1. Argugenesis (the process of creating arguments): all arguments (that is, ranging from case internal links to backline weighing in 2nd final focus) must be warranted (explain why it is true) and be implicated (explain why it matters in the context of the round). So long as you meet the criteria, then you may proceed with any claim you wish and I will try my absolute hardest to minimize internal biases.

2. All arguments must be responded to in the speech directly after, or else it is conceded (except for 1st constructive). Conceded arguments are true.

3. If an argument gets a new implication in a later speech, you can respond to the implication in the speech after, but not the original warranting.

My general views:

1. All clash (directly opposing claims/arguments between the two sides in the round) must be settled constructively. Instead of just restating your points, take the extra mile to explain why your arguments are comparatively more true or more important than your opponents. Doing so will push your arguments further while also building on your original narratives. This is also what makes debate fun; if you find yourself bored or out of passion, then the "settling clash" aspect is likely what you are lacking.

2. The average speaker in the average debate will receive 28 points of speaking quality. Ways to increase this are to follow the guidelines listed above as well as speak with passion and distinguishment instead of reciting monotone formulae that you have memorized for speech structure.

3. I look to weighing (or framework, which is just formalized weighing) first. If there are competing weighing mechanisms to which the clash is not settled, then I will start looking at link analysis. If both teams are winning an equal risk of link, then there is no offense in the round.

a. If there is no offense in the round, then I presume towards the status quo (CON on most topics).

b. If there is no offense on the procedural layer, then I will default to the defending team.

c. If there is no offense on the critical layer, then I will default to the recipient team.

--SECTION 2: SEMANTICS--

Before the Round:

1. Finish preflowing by the start time of the round. The flip generally ends 10 or more minutes before, so you have plenty of time.

2. Add me to the email chain: skini23@scarsdaleschools.org.

3. Label email chains/evidence documents properly (e.g. "Scarvite '21 Round 2 Bronx Sci AB vs. Regis CD").

4. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round.

During the Round:

1. I am willing to read off speech documents, but use this function judiciously. It becomes difficult for both you and I to understand/reciprocate the above guidelines when you are going 350 wpm or heavily paraphrasing evidence.

2. Stay unmuted when calling for evidence. Verbally clarify when your prep time is starting and stopping.

3. After a certain point (around 1 minute or so), the longer you take to send evidence, the lower your speaker points will be. If we are in outrounds, then I will keep this in mind as a tiebreaker if nothing can settle the clash.

4. I may listen to crossfire, but I will not flow it. Crossfires are the only speech times in which you are directly speaking against your opponent, so it is an important time to showcase your hard work while also standing your ground.

After the Round:

1. Feel free to postround as hard as you want. I believe it is a good practice for judges to defend their decisions against the heat of the "media".

2. Definitely ask questions about my decision as well as what you could have improved upon. Unless barred by the rules of the tournament, I will try to be as extensive as possible in my RFD.

Finally, remember to have fun. Good luck!

Updated for states '23:

I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago

Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu

Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)

Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.

Background:

I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.

The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.

*********

novpol:

tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.

impact calc is also super important to me!

please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.

use analytics - don't just rely on cards.

extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.

extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!

stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.

i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.

GFW!

jvpol:

tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.

long:

general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!

one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.

speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.

CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.

case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!

especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).

also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.

do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.

disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.

counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!

kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!

k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.

framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.

theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!

overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!

nLD/nPF:

i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!

so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:

note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.

28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.

+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.

+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke

+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)

+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.

+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.

+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.

-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.

-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.

-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.

-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.

***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!

Hello

I am a junior and third-year debater for Scarsdale HS in Public Forum (2019-present).

tldr: Typical tech > truth judge. Be respectful in round, don't be rude, racist... you get the point or I'll drop you. Don't be aggressive during cross and besides for that pretty much do whatever you want. Also, add me to the email chain: kli23@scarsdaleschools.org.

Fine with theory, I'd prefer if you don't run k's, tricks, etc..

1. I am your typical tech over truth judge. Feel free to run any argument you wish but try to exercise proper judgment. i.e running theory just for the sake that you think your opponents don't know how to respond to it prolly isn't the best metric to earn your way to the ballot.

2. I can flow quite fast, but not at an infinite speed. Keep this in mind when reading the requirements and general views sections below.

3. Anything I vote on or evaluate must meet the requirements below and be present in both summary and final focus (except, of course, if you are responding to something said in 2nd summary or 1st final focus).

4. My goal is to find a path to the ballot in the easiest way possible. That means try and lay out my work for me so I don't have to intervene to find a winner. That also means... make sure you weigh and that the weighing is comparative (more on that later in the paradigm)

Things to take note of:

1. Sign post: This lets me know where you are on the flow and makes it easier for me to understand your args.

2. Weigh Comparatively: That is, tell me why your impact matters more than theirs. Saying something like... "We outweigh on scope because we kill 900 million people" means nothing unless you tell me why thats more important than the oppositions impact. Instead, try something like: "We outweigh on magnitude because we cause 90 mil deaths whereas their impact is solely economic but lives always matter more than money..."

3. Implicate your response: That tells me why your argument is important or matters. Having a response like "Crypto regulation can't actually decrease crime" doesn't matter unless you say something like "that means their arguments are non-unique and they don't have solvency"

4. All arguments must be responded to in the speech directly after, or else it is conceded (except for 1st constructive). Conceded arguments are true.

5. All arguments made need to be warranted. Telling me something is happening without telling me why makes me very uncomfortable to believe your advocacy, much less vote for that arg.

6. Speaks start at 28. Anything above a 29 is if you really impressed me. A 30 is a perfect speech. Also if you steal prep, I'll give you the lowest speaks possible.

--SECTION 2: SEMANTICS--

Before the Round:

1. Finish preflowing by the start time of the round

2. Add me to the email chain: kli23@scarsdaleschools.org.

3. Label email chains/evidence documents properly (e.g. "Scarvite '21 Round 2 Bronx Sci AB vs. Regis CD").

4. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round.

During the Round:

1. Stay unmuted when calling for evidence. Verbally clarify when your prep time is starting and stopping.

3. If it takes you too long to find a piece of evidence, anything above 2 min, the evidence is conceded in the round.

4. I may listen to crossfire, but I will not flow it. If something important happens in cross that you want me to know, mention it in the next speech

5. You get 5 seconds of grace time for each speech, if you go above that time, anything you say won't be flowed and I'll lower your speaks.

After the Round:

1. Feel free to postround but don't be rude during so.

2. Definitely ask questions about my decision as well as what you could have improved upon.

Finally, remember to have fun. Good luck!

I'm a parent judge. Will try to flow. Please be patient with me and slow you pace a bit.

I debated public forum for 4 years in high school, so I am familiar with the format.

Please do not spread.

Don't misconstrue or exaggerate evidence.

Don't straw man your opponents arguments or misrepresent what they said.

I prefer good arguments grounded in the truth as opposed to technicalities.

Make sure to explain why your arguments are more impactful than your opponents instead of just explaining why yours are true and theirs are false.

Though I am familiar with some jargon, I'd rather you explain your arguments without using them.

Debate the resolution and not theories or k's.

General

I believe that debate should be about discovering and communicating the truth rather than following the technicalities associated with high school debate. Thus, your top priority should be to offer true, well-warranted, and clear arguments. Although I will flow the entire round and appreciate you following the technicalities of debate, technicalities are a secondary concern in my mind. In other words, I would much rather you go over time or miss an argument in a speech than spread, manipulate evidence, or deliver a false argument. Finally, while it goes without saying, rude or disrespectful behavior of any kind particularly towards your opponents is not acceptable and will likely result in an immediate loss.

Argumentation

As I said earlier, I place a high value on good arguments. I am pretty familiar with the PF topic and should be able to understand technical and complex arguments as long as they are clear, well warranted, and founded in facts. I also tend to prefer tangible arguments with a clear link to the resolution than ones with long link chains or loose connections to the resolution.

Please also avoid progressive argumentation such as theories or Ks. I don't really know how they work and will almost definitely not vote on them.

Timing

1. Please don't spread. I will try my best to understand you, but if your speaking over 250 words per minute, the chances are I probably won't.

2. I am generous with time. You can go a few seconds over as long as you are not spreading.

Speeches

1. Case:

- Don't rush and make sure it's not too long (over 850 words)

- Make sure you cite the source and the date of any statistics or quotes you cite (author last name and year is fine).

2. Crossfire:

-Be polite in crossfire. Do not interrupt your opponent and try to share the time as evenly as possible.

3. Rebuttal:

-Quality over quantity of responses. One or two good counterarguments is often enough.

- Please frontline in second rebuttal so you don't leave that for second summary.

4. Summary:

- I won't evaluate new arguments by second summary. Also, you don't need to waste responding to new arguments in final focus. Just point out any new arguments and I'll judge whether they have been said or not.

- Don't just repeat your case and rebuttal. Compare your contentions to your opponent's arguments and explain why yours are better.

- You should "extend" anything that you want me to evaluate, but that means re-explaining the argument not simply namedropping the tag-line

5. Final Focus

- You don't need to re-explain every argument unless it wasn't clear in summary. Just take what has been said and explain why your arguments and overall narrative is better than your opponents.

- Please weigh your impacts so I can keep my decision as objective as possible

Evidence

Please don't manipulate evidence. I will mostly likely tell if a card is embellished and will call for it at the end of round. If I find your evidence to be embellished in any way, I will disregard it completely.

Miscellaneous

- Please don't lie about what your opponent said or did not say. If you're not sure about what your opponents said, they don't make assumptions.

- Try to avoid using jargon like internal link, prereq, magnitude, scope, or reversibility, especially as a replacement for good logic. They make debate inaccessible, and I don't know what many of them mean.

email: abhiram.masam@gmail.com

standard tech judge. generally look to weighing first, so please weigh and make my decision as simple and easy as possible. signpost so I can follow you pls! wont evaluate theory at all. defense is only sticky if second rebuttal doesn't frontline. any offensive behavior is rewarded with an L 20, and if the round is made unsafe the round ends there and I'll respond appropriately to the situation at hand. please preflow before the round and please do not argue any debater math in front of me. tysm!

•  
• special things for nsd:

• running theory/prog on lambda and kappa kids will result in an L 20
• the threshold for responses to progressive debate is super low if you read prog on a team that is very very clearly unprepared to respond
• no need to shake my hand! seriously all good! ily all
• do not read gentrification good in front of me, it will be rewarded with an L 25! You can ask me questions about why I feel this way if you want but j don't read it. 

I am a volunteer parent judge. I am relatively new to debate judging. Slow and steady wins the race. Be sure to speak loudly and clearly so that I can understand and digest as much of your arguments as possible. The more deliberate and clear you are, the better you will fair. Speed reading will not reflect well on your results. Thank you.

warrant

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

---

also, if we can get the round done in under 45 minutes, everyone gets 30 speaks

Hi debaters! My name is Amanda, and I am a fourth-year PFer at Scarsdale High School. Here are a few of my preferences:

1. Don’t run theory or kritiks

2. I will not flow crossfire, so if you want me to evaluate a point made in cross please mention it in your next speech

3. I will evaluate arguments extended through BOTH summary and final focus

4. No new arguments in final focus!!

5. Please signpost so that I can follow along with your speech

6. WEIGH — explain why you should win the round and interact with the arguments that your opponents make

7. Keep crossfire civil — don't interrupt your opponents, don't be rude, etc.

8. I can handle speed but please be reasonable

9. Have fun!! I will most likely give you high speaks as long as you are respectful

Good luck! Feel free to ask me any questions :)

Add me to the email chain: anudelman23@scarsdaleschools.org

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.

Public forum debater for the last 4 years, some experience with parliamentary debate as well. I'm not strictly a tech judge nor am I strictly a truth judge(I think the debate between the two is pretty stupid). Obviously if your opponents just drop an argument/response/turn etc I'm not gonna weigh it. But, if your argument blatantly makes no sense or contradicts other arguments you make in the round I will factor that into my decision. In a close round, I can't in good faith give the win to a team whose arguments are internally inconsistent even if they access their impacts slightly better.

I don't weigh cross at all so if something important gets brought up in cross, talk about it in your next speech.

Please don't run theory.

If you have problems/questions about anything in my paradigm ask before the round, I'm not gonna dock speaks for it.

Hi! My name is Roni and I’m a 4th-year PFer at Scarsdale High School. Here are a couple of my preferences:

1. Don't run theory or k’s (if your opponent is seriously offensive I will just drop them)

2. Speaking of being offensive, don't. I will drop you.

3. Keep cross civil or I will lower your speaks. This means don’t be rude, don’t yell over each other, don’t repeatedly

interrupt, don’t hog time, don’t use cross time to debate (just ask questions and respond).

4. I don’t flow cross. If you want me to flow something you said in cross, mention it in the following speech.

5. I vote based on the flow, so:

a. I won’t flow new arguments brought up in final focus or new cards presented in second summary.

b. Make sure you are extending your arguments through summary and final focus.

6. Weigh!!! But don’t just state the mechanisms, explain to me why you win the round and not your opponents.

Make sure you have fun!!!! If you have questions about this, I am happy to answer them before the round :)))

p.s. if you want extra speaker points be happy and make friends <3

Hi! My name is Meritxell (she/her) and I’m a fourth year PF debater at Scarsdale High School.

Some things you should know..

1) Must be respectful and respect each other’s pronouns. Especially during Cross-X let people speak but do not let them walk all over you. I will pay attention to cross but I will not flow it so make sure to bring up any important points in your speeches.

2) WEIGH and interact with each other’s arguments. The earlier the better.

3) Don’t cite “basic economics” (please have a card).

4) DO NOT run theory or a K or anything similar!! Basically, don’t run anything abusive.

5) Speed: I can handle a bit of a faster speed but do not spread.

6) Recommended: don’t just cite cards - relate it back to your case/why this card is important

7) Timing: I will stop flowing around 15 seconds overtime. I will most likely keep time for myself but I encourage you to keep your own time as well.

8) I won’t evaluate new arguments in final focus + make sure to extend arguments throughout your speeches

9) Signpost

Speaker Points:

You should get good speaks from me unless you’re just offensive/disrespectful.

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

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

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

Hello debaters. To let you know, I only have judged a few HS PF debates before. Therefore, I would like to ask for you to speak at a regular pace. The faster you speak, the less of a chance I write your arguments on the flow. Anything I dont hear, I will probably not count to the round.

Here are a few preferences of mine:

1) Please signpost. This will make it much easier for me to understand the round, and will have a beneficial impact on your speaker points

2) Dont be mean or abusive in crossfire and be courteous when talking one another. Your points will be affected by your behaviour, and I could possibly drop you because of this behaviour.

3) I value warranting over a bunch of cards. Please explain why your argument is true and dont just tell me that so and so said it. Your link chain is important

4) I prefer you to collpase on 1 argument. When you collapse, it allows me to understand why you're winning more clearly.

5) In the end, the winner of the debate will be decided by who has the most cohesive and supported argument

6) This is something I realized very recently, but I tend to not like high magnitude impacts with low probability, so please steer away from arguments like that

I am a parent judge.

There are a few things that I would like to make clear when you are debating

1. This is probably the most important thing to note on this paradigm: Please speak as clearly as possible (and please speak at a average pace) Anything I don't hear, I will not count to the round. If you spread, I will not understand anything.

2. To help me understand better, please signpost. (It will also get you get higher speaker points)

3. I will be as impartial and as fair to this topic as possible, even though i have biases. If there is an argument I think is untrue, but you still warrant it well I will count it.

4. Speaking about warranting, if you want to win the round, I don't want you to dump evidence everywhere. Explaining and warranting is more important. When comparing arguments, I will evaluate on who has the better warrant first and then the evidence second

I will evaluate the round by going through these 3 things:

1. The most important thing is how well I understand your arguments and warranting. I probably don't know a lot of terms when it comes to this topic, so please explain everything. The more I understand and the more you explain, the better your chances are.

2. I secondly evaluate by the way you respond to your opponents arguments. Please address everything so you have the best chances at winning.

3. please weigh and don't just say you outweigh. Once again explain the weighing. Being comparative is probably the most important parts of weighing.

Some additional things:

1. Don't be rude or else you get low speaks

2. I like when people are intelligent and well spoken

3. Again to reiterate, please speak at a normal understanding pace. PF was supposed to be a debate where normal people off the street can understand it, so try to meet that goal as best as possible.

Hi! I'm Will, a freshman at Yale. I debated for four years for Bronx Science.

Since BDL assigns me to LD rounds, I'll preface by saying that this isn't an event I have competed in. I do flow, but I also appreciate good rhetoric. As long as you are a competent public speaker, you will get pretty high speaks. If you plan on running any nontraditional arguments, read it under the premise that I likely know nothing about it.

For PF, just debate like you would with a reasonable student judge. Talk pretty and make sense. I would prefer it if you collapse on something reasonable in probability.

I do not take cut cards (I want to see what the author said, not what you manipulated them to say), so just send me a link/pdf with what to control F for. If the debate is in person, I give an automatic 29.5+ if you do a speech without a laptop (the rationale being seldom anyone in the outside world delivers a speech off a screen).

Have fun! It's an exciting activity if you care a little less about results.

Hi!

My name is Eliana and I have debated in PF for Scarsdale High School for 3 years.

Things you should know about how I judge:

1. Please be nice to each other!! Don't be too aggressive during cross. Remember there's a difference between being competitive and being mean.

2. Remember to extend! I am more likely to vote for the team who extends the argument they're running through each speech.

3. Weigh and make analytical responses - debate is not just about documents.

4. I will not evaluate any new evidence brought up in final focus

5. I don't usually judge crossfire, but if you want something to be flowed from cross, make sure to say it in the next speech.

Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round!!

Have fun :)

hello debate how u want :D

Hello, I'm Max. I am a junior and third-year debater for Scarsdale HS in Public Forum (2019-present).

tldr: I'm a tech judge.

Strategy:

1. Sign post: This lets me know where you are on the flow and makes it easier for me to understand your args.

2. Weigh Comparatively: That is, tell me why your impact matters more than theirs. Telling me your impact means nothing unless you tell me why thats more important than the oppositions impact.

3. Implicate your response: That tells me why your argument is important or matters, how it applies to your opponent's case.

4. All arguments must be responded to in the speech directly after, or else it is conceded (except for 1st constructive). Conceded arguments are true.

5. All arguments made need to be warranted. Telling me something is happening without telling me why makes me very uncomfortable to believe your advocacy, much less vote for that arg.

6. All arguments must be extended throughout summary and final focus.

7. Arguments must be present in both summary and final focus (except, of course, if you are responding to something said in 2nd summary or 1st final focus).

Misc:

1. Speaks start at 28. Anything above a 29 is if you really impressed me. A 30 is a perfect speech.

2. Don't be rude - your speaks will tank.

3. Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc- If it becomes a major issue this is one of the only conditions where I'll intervene in the round and your speaks will definitely suffer.

Sematics:

Before the Round:

1. Finish preflowing by the start time of the round

2. Add me to the email chain: mzhang23@scarsdaleschools.org

3. Label email chains/evidence documents properly (e.g. "Scarvite '21 Round 2 Bronx Sci AB vs. Regis CD").

4. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round.

During the Round:

1. Stay unmuted when calling for evidence. Verbally clarify when your prep time is starting and stopping.

2. If it takes you too long to find a piece of evidence, the evidence is conceded in the round.

3. I may listen to crossfire, but I will not flow it. If something important happens in cross that you want me to know, mention it in the next speech

4. You get 5 seconds of grace time for each speech, if you go above that time, anything you say won't be flowed and I'll lower your speaks.

After the Round:

1. Feel free to postround but don't be rude during so.

2. Definitely ask questions about my decision as well as what you could have improved upon.

Finally, remember to have fun. Good luck!