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4) Be prepared for me to call for cards after round - DO NOT cite something you don't have a card for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

He/Him

Hi I'm 16 years old a PF debater I don't have much rules in a debate but here are some things I take seriously:

Racism, Homophobic, Transphobic and etc.

Im new to judging but I'm experienced in PF debate so speak at a lay judge speed.

Contention: Speak in a lay judge speed meaning your opponent can understand what you are saying and so can I. In your contention speak clearly with a calm voice.

Cross: I normally don't flow cross, but if someone brings up a really good point then I will write it down but most of the time it won't affect my overall vote. Remember to be nice to your opponent and try to speak clearly.

Rebuttal/Response: I will take in if you dropped any of your opponents' points and if you did not properly respond to your opponents points.

I would like if you impact weigh here or in your summary/closing.

Summary/Closing: Dont bring up any new information please try not to drop any of your opponents points as well.

(FF): this is only if you are doing PF debate not ES I would like you to convince me on why you won this debate and how your case is more beneficial.

Hello,

Good luck in the round.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! My name is Jiin, and I'm a new varsity that has been debating for about 6 months. I've been to Harvard and Georgetown- I'm a second speaker, so naturally, I'm going to look closely at your rebuttal and impact weighing. You guys can talk fastly/spread, just be clear.

I also do enjoy intense debates, or aggressiveness

when you're making a turn please have an impact to it!

Notes for novices:

Don't worry about terms you don't know on my paradigm just try your best. Ask if you have any questions.

***

TLDR: Basic tech>truth. Weigh and Extend cases. Anything warranted is fair game.

No spreading, spreading leads to blippy arguments and incoherent logic and reason. You can read at a fast pace but read in a clear manner.

No racism, sexism, or anything of the sort. I'll drop you. Also, leave me to decide what is racist, sexist, or inappropriate in a round. You do not need to point out that your opponent said something that is inappropriate.

Interps, Theory, and Kritiks are great as long as they are thorough and warranted. Reading frivolous theory and Kritiks to simply take advantage of unskilled debaters is not going to win my vote.

2nd summary onwards cannot extend any new arguments. 2nd final focus should not introduce any new weighing.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH... I will literally drop you if you do not weigh. I want you to write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you and not the other team. Extend these weighing mechanisms through summary and final focus. 2nd rebuttal should try to start weighing. Give me a good comparative.

During rebuttals: Please implicate responses. Do not read blippy arguments that waste time.

Summary: Don't extend through ink.

DAs/Disads must be implicated and weighed. I won't buy a DA without an impact. That being said I actually enjoy DAs as long as they are implicated and coherent. If you do read DAs try to impact it on their case. A disad does not have to be long to be better. The structure and link have to be good.

Speaks:

I'll give you a 29 or higher as long as you weigh and do all the above things.

Get up and spin every time you read a turn and I'll give you a 30.

Have fun!!

(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!

As a first time judge, I am engaged by the talent of so many young minds. Being a new judge, I've already determined reducing the speed of your speech (just slightly) will give me a bit more time to grasp everything you are trying to say in such a short amount of time. The more of your points that I hear and absorb allows me to make a decision on your content.

And just remember to have fun!

Hi, my name is Imani Gayasuddin. I have been debating Public Forum for a while now, and am a freshman in high school at the moment.

My first point is please do not be aggressive with your opponents, this should be a peaceful debate.

Make sure to impact weigh, if you forget to do it in summary try to do it in final focus, you will not lose speaker points for doing impact weighing later on in the debate, but you will if you fail to impact weigh at all.

Also, when doing cross, do not waste all of your opponents' time by reading paragraphs as the answer, this not only fails to get your point across, but it frustrates your opponents.

And have fun :D

I would like to be in the email chain if y'all make one. My email is kadiyalasaanvi01@gmail.com.

I prefer well-supported arguments with sufficient evidence and reasonable impacts. I will give you speaker points based on enunciation, creativity, confidence, and eye contact. Stealing prep time will be counted negatively in your speaker points. Pre-req weighing is also the most important in my opinion.

When evidence sharing, prep time starts after the team receives the card they're asking for.

Tech> Truth. I am a tabula rasa judge, but any offensive speech will be an automatic loss and will take a major toll on your speaker points.

Impact weighing is really important to me, but it won't matter that much if you don't tell me why your impact will become true.

If something is not extended in both the summary and final focus, it will not be counted in my decision. I also flow the entire debate, so I will know what you dropped and extended throughout the entire round.

Good luck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Weighing I like:

- Pre-Req

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

-Timeframe

-Scope

-Probability

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

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

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

Speaks:

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

29- Good Job ur not a disappointment :)

28- U were ok

27- meh u need to brush up in some areas

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

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

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

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

Hi!

I'm an HSPF debater with 2 years of experience. I'm a flow judge, and I value warranting over dumping evidence.

In your debate, please keep in mind the handy acronym IMNFCSTEPWSR.

I prefer if you read clearer. If you spread, I won't get as much down on my flow, so it's probably a bad idea.

Make sure everything is warranted. I won't evaluate stuff if you just tell me to extend it.

No completely new arguments in 2nd summary or any final focus. I won't evaluate them, and I'll reduce speaker points.

Frontline in 2nd response, or it's considered dropped.

Collapse on 1-2 arguments. It makes the debate simpler, and it makes it easier for you to win.

Signpost! Make sure I know where you are during your speeches to keep my flow clean.

Try to avoid progressive args - I don't have much experience evaluating them. If you really want to run theory or K's, make sure they're reasonable and you give me a realistic way that it should affect my ballot. It's usually pretty obvious if someone is using theory just to win the round vs. when they are actually trying to improve the norms of deabte. Tricks are bad.

Extend everything you want me to evaluate into summary and final focus. I won't evaluate anything in final focus that isn't extended in summary.

Please keep your own time and keep me updated on prep.

Weighing should be comparative, don't just give me your numbers, give me theirs. Also, metaweigh and tell me why your weighing mechanisms should be preferred. As a judge, I prefer pre-req and short circuit weighing over magnitude and probability.

Speaker points are a function of strategy, not speaking skills. Evaluating speaks based on ability to speak well is ableist, especially considering that the scale is so arbitrary, and it can be used to determine who breaks. If you want good speaks, make strategic decisions on when to collapse, what responses to extend, etc. I tend to give speaks between 27-30 unless there's something seriously wrong in the round.

Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. will lose you the round.

Credit for this paradigm goes to Daniel Huang

Tech Judge with a few caveats:

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

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

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

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

- Extension through ink = a dropped RT/argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Avoid referring to your opponents using gendered language.

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

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

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

For COVID-19 season:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add me to the email chain: kiannajaf@g.ucla.edu

Debated at Milton HS for 3 years

Contact me if you're looking for a coach/judge

Public Forum:

- I don't like paraphrasing

- I'll vote on theory/Ks

Policy/LD:

- K teams should pref me higher

- I don't understand most phil & tricks arguments

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 debated PF for 6 years.

I judge off the flow.

I don't flow crossfire, but if something important comes up I will make notes.

Extend your responses and weigh in summary. If you don't extend in summary then I can't count it in final focus.

Answer turns and warrant arguments well.

Give me clear reason(s) why you win and outweigh the opponent.

Do off-time road maps unless your clearly stating where you are in the flow and make flowing easy for me because if I cant flow it then I'm not going to count it in the round.

Flow your strongest arguments through the debate while properly rebutting and frontlining. At the end of the debate, win in weighing.

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

email chain: reyha09@gmail.com

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

PF JV & Varsity:

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

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

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

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

other things -->

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

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

- time your own prep & speeches

- no new ev after 1st summary

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

tech > truth

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

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

PF Novice:

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

Speaker Points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been debating for 4 years, but took a lot of time off, I am in 10th grade. It's important that I get off-time roadmaps to keep my flow organized. I am ok with whatever speed, but not too fast to the point I cannot understand what you are saying. The most important speeches in my opinion are summary and final focus. I am not very biased to anything, just don't slander your opponents too hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND ALSO ISNT THIS THE BEST PARADIGM YOUVE EVER READ OWO

add me to the email chain - alexwanggoku@gmail.com

pf debater at ivy bridge for like 3 years

tech > truth

I am ok with going fast - if you think it may be a problem, read everyone in the room something random at your normal pace before the round starts to make sure we can understand you

racism, sexism, homophobia, and anything along those lines is an instant L and -219840392820935 speaks

General Info:

1 - I will evaluate anything

2 - have warrants - if you extend a contention with no warrant but your opponent doesn't point it out, I will have to vote off that contention. However, if they do point it out, I most likely am obligated to drop that contention off my flow

3 - i'm fine with tag team CX, I don't really care about cross anyways

4 - CROSS IS NOT A SPEECH. You must extend something said in cross or I will not evaluate it

5 - YOU MUST EXTEND WARRANT AND CARD FOR EVERY CARDED ARGUMENT YOU MAKE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BACK HALF OF THE DEBATE FOR ME TO EVALUATE IT

6 - weighing is incredibly important to me, but don't just tell me a mechanism and say you win on it, you need to give me comparative analysis of specifically why you win said weighing debate, and also preferably meta-weigh

7 - I get that sometimes you have lots of content and it may take a few extra seconds, but I'm 100% not going to evaluate anything that is 10+ seconds over time

8 - K's and theory and stuff like that is cool, just make sure it's believable (don't make it too wild tho im literally 12)

9 - frontline clearly, especially if you're going to spam blocks in rebuttal

Rebuttal

not much for me to say here

Summary

frontline, weigh, extend responses and extend cases

Final Focus

don't extend through ink - tell me what I should judge the debate on and clearly write the ballot for me.

Speaks and stuff

ngl I just copy pasted the speaks stuff from what everyone at IBA writes cuz I was too lazy to actually make my own and I weigh on the same scale anyway sooo

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

immediate + 0.5 speaks if you hit an emote at the end of your final focus

I am also open to bribing and will give you a high boost in speaks if you get me free food

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask

I am a public forum debater and I have been debating for 4+ years.

Add me to the email chain no matter what: yajaman.dhanvin@gmail.com

Cheat sheet:

General overview

Tech over truth: Tech ---------------x----------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with speed: Fast, like policy fast -------------------x---------------------------- lay judge/parent judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory -------------------------------x----- not receptive to theory

Impact calculus that I use:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh (PEASE WEIGH YOU MUST WEIGH TO GET MY BALLOT)

Probability: Highly probable weighing x--------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----x------------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact x------------------------------------------------ Not a severe impact

~Speaking: Ok, here is the deal. If you spread it may be somewhat hard to keep up. If you see me drop my writing utensil, it means that you are speaking way too fast.

I encourage enthusiasm rather than speaking monotone. Monotone results in you for speaker points being as high as 26. If you don't weigh your impacts, you won't be able to get higher than 28 speaker points and will most likely lose the round. (Unless the other team does the same thing)

If you go above and beyond and make funny puns, I will increase your speaker point by 0.5 but decrease 0.5 if it is bad.

<26 means you were offensive/rude

26.1-26.9 means you need improvement and/or probably dropped case

27-27.9 means you probably missed things on the flow and might have made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round.

YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 28 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME.

28-28.9 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing.

29-29.7 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, and, more importantly, you break away from weighing in a vacuum to comparative weighing.

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

~Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal is obliged to frontline all of the opponent's responses (YOU MUST MUST DO THIS). If you don't do so, then I will consider it as DROP. Also, no independent offense in 2nd rebuttal.

~Summary: Both positions must extend both offense and defense for the summary. Again, if you fail to extend defense, it's a clear ballot for the opponents as their offense still stands.

~Final Focus: Focus less on the flow, preferably focus on the big picture.

~Weighing: Please weigh impacts!! It will increase your chances of winning. Also, try to do meta-weighing because it will give you a higher speaks. Try to start weighing in rebuttal.

~Importance of Weighing

-Advance Techniques (Amplifier, Short Circuit, etc.)>Pre-Req

-Pre-Req>Timeframe

-Timefram>Prob

-Prob>Mag

-Mag>Scope

*IMPORTANT: Unless if you can prove to me that your impact weighing is better than theirs or you do comparative weighing, the order doesn't matter.*

~Crossfire: BE Calm and not so abusive although I do like clash and poking holes into the other team's arguments. I will be paying attention, but it won't affect my decision as much. However, I will not be flowing it.

~Paraphrasing: Okay, the new PF rules say it is okay to paraphrase. However, when you do paraphrase an article, do not misrepresent your evidence or I will automatically drop you.

Higher speaks:

A reference to Olive Garden's breadsticks gets you +1 speaker points

If you read a turn and turn/spin around, then you get .5 speaks added every time

You will NOT win if you do not weigh