I debated in PF for 4 years and did Prose for 3 years and was my school's team captain for both events :)

PF

1. SIGNPOST

2. Unless you are kicking case to go for turns/disads, Second Rebuttal has to respond to defense and turns that are read in the first rebuttal

3. pls weigh but don't start shouting random weighing mechanisms to me without clearly warranting

4. extensions are crucial!!!

5. collapse

6. summary and final should mirror each other

7. If you don't know what I'm referring to, don't worry! You can always ask me questions before the round, but essentially I want you to present your arguments convincingly and logically while adequately responding to the arguments of the other team

8. “If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20." -Cara Day

9. I don't have too much experience with progressive arguments and honestly have no idea how to evaluate them so...

10. also pls dont spread

everytime you make a taylor swift reference I'll bump your speaks by 0.1 each time (0.25 if its a midnights reference)

IES

I'm basically okay with anything you're comfortable with, just make sure you indicate your title/piece and keep track of your own time!

If you have any questions feel free to email me at niousha.bastani@gmail.com or just ask me before the round begins.

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State thrice and TOC/NSDAs twice. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon. Do not put me on the email chain and please go at a very slow speed.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

Ask any questions to me if necessary (feel free to contact me at nilaygandhi@utexas.edu) , and remember to enjoy each round!

email: njanga10@gmail.com

UPDATE: 3 ways to get an auto 30 (if only one person out of a team does it, only they get the auto).

1. Drake, amc, gamestop reference in any form

2. showing any pet on camera (dogs are the coolest)

3. emailing Oluwafemi0110@gmail.com saying that "Kishlaya is a better debater than you" and showing proof before the round starts

Also After judging for a while I have realized that for my ballot weighing isnt as important as link debate ie: I could care less about the weighing a team does if they are losing on the link level so don't sacrifice proper frontlines and warranting just so you can say random buzzwords that I could care less about

Just make sure you are winning on the link level, if both teams get full access to their links that's when I look at the weighing

Overall

I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a violation in the round that hurts or excludes someone. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation rather than forcing me to evaluate progressive argumentation. If you read disclosure gl :)

I flow on my laptop and can type pretty fast so you can go as fast as you want pretty much but send a speech doc for constructive

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

General

- My face when you sign post :) My face when you don't sign post :((((((((((((((

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

- If I like what you are saying expect some very obvious head nodding

Rebuttal

- Frontlining turns in second rebuttle are crucial

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttle have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttle and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- You don't have to extend at all in second rebuttle, just frontlining is cool with me

Summary Overall

- Do all extensions with author names and the warrant behind them pls

- If you want me to vote off case offense, you have to extend uniqueness - link - impact and then you should be good

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have an impact ie: if you extend a link turn you also have to extend the other teams impact

First summary

- If you give me some fire frontlining in first summary I will be very happy

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Since its 3 minutes try to extend the defense you find most important

Second summary

- You gotta extend defense

- Weighing has to start here if you want me to evaluate it in the round

Final focus

- Still extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

- Don't be the partner who extends stuff that your partner didn't extend in summary

Cross

- Cross do be binding

- I like cross makes the debate kind of interesting

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- Bless me and skip gc if you want

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it's SUPER important for the decision or the other team tells me to call for it

- You will have around a minute to pull out evidence - if there is something wrong ie: internet is out or there's a paywall that's cool just try to pull it up as fast as possible

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round. I can also email the flow to you so you can see what I saw in the round

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

- For Feb topic I default first speaking team if there is no offense

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those ists

- If you still for some reason want to run something progressive and are doing it for an easy ballot because you know your opponents can't respond properly I am NUKING speaks

Hey guys! My name is Hrishi (pronounced Rishi). I competed in Public-Forum Debate for four years, and qualified to TFA state three times, so I consider myself a flow debater/judge.

Here are a few basic things to help y'all understand me as a judge.

Pre-Round things

1. Pre-Flow before the round starts
2. Create the email chain before round starts, my email is linked below.

Tech things

1. Extensions are important. If you want to go for an argument it must be extended in every speech. If you drop defense or offense, I am not going to evaluate it.

2. Unless you are kicking case to go for turns/disads, Second Rebuttal has to respond to defense and turns that are read in First Rebuttal.

3. Collapse in the second half of the round. Trust me going for one arg is always better than extending 6 different contentions.

4. Don't misconstrue evidence, it's really annoying for both me and your opponents. Please share evidence in a timely manner. (If it takes an abnormal amount of time to find something, it will be dropped from the round)

5. Weighing is important but make sure you do it well. Don't just shout mechanisms at me without explaining the warranting behind them

6. I'm not familiar with progressive args, so run them at your own risk. I never ran progressive args while competing and I have very little experience evaluating these arguments. If you still want to run progressive arguments you are welcome to, but don't blame me if you don't like how I evaluate them.

Other things

1. If you say something that I know isn't true I'm probably not going to buy it.

2. I am a PF debater at heart, I am not a fan of spreading. Don't speak faster than I'm able to flow.

3. If the debate is a wash I will presume Status Quo. (This rarely happens though)

4. Don't be a jerk. If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or xenophobic then I'll drop your team.

5. It's okay to match energy in round, just try to stay civil and respectful towards everyone.

6. My debater brain has deteriorated after I came to college, so I don't particularly care about the minor technicalities.

7. I know debate is stressful, but have fun. Make jokes and laugh, I promise you the world will not end because of the results of one round.

If you have any other questions ask me before the round begins.

TLDR: Focus on warranting, extensions, and weighing and you'll do great.

Good luck with y'alls rounds!

Email: hrishika.marakani@gmail.com

I debated in Public Forum for three years. Overall, I consider myself as a 'flay' judge. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon. Debate as you wish, but the game comes along with adaptation and my preferences are as follows:

1. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. Don’t talk too fast and signpost clearly. Don't be overly aggressive in cross otherwise your speaking points will reflect that.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

Debate is about learning and topic discourse, and please make it as such.

Logistics

- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)

- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here

- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth
• Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Dont do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
• I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Progressive stuff

• there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
• Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
• Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
• I will vote for one team and one team only
• I will evaluate theory
• Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
• Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
• if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
• Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
• I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
• I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.

Donts

• Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
• This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
• Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
• having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other events

• im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
• if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important

I debated in Public Forum for 4 years.

My biggest thing is that you should write my ballot for me. That being said, I flow on paper and would like it if you talked slowly. You should always pay attention to your judge, if they look like they can't understand you, then slow down.

The easiest way to win my ballot is to weigh. Show me exactly why I need to vote for your team and not the other. Why does it matter?

Warranting is key within the round. I won't value any unwarranted claims in making my decision.

Signpost in every speech. Always make sure that I know exactly what you're talking about and where to flow it. If I understand what your saying but have no clue where to put it, chances are I'm going to forget it. I expect everything to be extended, anything that's not, I won't evaluate it.

In crossfire, don't be overly aggressive. Be respectful. However, debate is competitive and I won't penalize you if you forget that. Just remember don't go overboard or the ballot won't be pretty.

Since I debated PF I do not know how to evaluate any progressive arguments so do it at your own risk. Overall, debate is supposed to be fun. So I am always open to any type of crazy or way out there argument. As long as it's warranted I'll go for it.

One of my pet peeves is when people throw out debate jargon (i.e. bright line, magnitude, cyclicality, etc.) and either explain it very poorly or not at all. Don't use them and assume I'm going to buy it just because you said so. Explain.

Overall, I will only call for evidence if I need to make my own inferences within the round. It should never come to that. That leaves room for me to not vote for you. Make it as clear as day, and I shouldn't have to call for the card. If you sneak in a joke and make me laugh I'll give you +1 speaks.

Note: Don't say "our opponents completely dropped _____" (unless you are absolutely sure) and try to bs your way into winning an argument. Don't bring up new evidence in your last speeches. Don't try to sneak prep. I will down you.