Eduardo Arribalzaga

From me:

I will try my best to time

Deliberation for the result might take a while so the timeframe would be 2-6 mins

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Remember to relax and breathe

*Be clear in your spreading

*Remember to time yourselves (its good practice, not every judge times)

general stuff:

*Send the right documents

if you cut cards then enforce that in your speech so that everyone can disregard that card

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in cross examination:

try not to step on each other

be respectful

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

other stuff to keep in mind:

I will not be disclosing the result

Don't expel assumptions of the opposite team because that will lead to bad judgement and will result in me voting more for the other team

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Luck

Have Fun

LETS HAVE A GOOD DEBATE!!

yes chain: sheima.ben-abdallah.27@dartmouth.edu

4 years HS policy, currently debating @ dartmouth. I am good for what you're good at.

.

If it's policy, I have topic knowledge. LD or PF, not so much.

.

I primarily read kritiks––– good for k affs

I'm mostly in the back of clash debates--- good for framework

I think conditionality is probably good

.

preferences:

(edit: 11/29/2023-- pls do not read LD tricks or PF off-time roadmaps in front of me i will be bored )

please time yourself, ev ethics challenges r not case negs, "concede the ballot and lets have a discussion" = L 24

.

speaks usually stay within the range of (28.4––29.4)

I reserve the right to end the round if I think it's reached an uneducational and unsafe point.

Do well.

Off-case:

K- I like K's

Da- I like less than K's

CP- I like less than a DA

T- It exists, I am indifferent on it

Case: I like impacts, turns are cool, and extend your arguments

Open CX is fine if you want to do it.

If you want to play rock, paper, scissors with me before a round, I will not back down to such a challenge.

noah.calabrese@lmghs.org -- my email.

Hey y'all! I'm Sunay. I'm a Novice Director at Bronx Science, and this is my third year doing PF. You can consider me a flow judge: I'm very generous with speaker points, so 28.5 for an average speaker.

I flow and am tech > truth. When judging, I'll vote for the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Email for evidence sharing and/or any questions: chawlas@bxscience.edu

General preferences:

- Frontline in second rebuttal (at a minimum, turns and terminal defense)

- Collapse (go for one contention in the back half)

- Extend the argument you are collapsing on (with warrants! Card names are not required)

- WEIGH starting in summary (please do comparative weighing. For meta weighing, it needs to be interactive and warranted instead of just saying "prefer probability over magnitude")

- Defense is not sticky (extend your defense if you want it to be evaluated)

- No new arguments after 1st summary (this includes new warrants. Backlines in 2nd summary & new weighing in 1st FF are both fine)

- Implications are important! (what does a response/frontline mean for the argument?)

- Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow. I don't need off-time roadmaps as long as you tell me where to start and signpost as you go)

- Warrant everything! (warranted analytic > card with no warrant)

Other in-round stuff:

- Please cut your cards

- Ev exchange should not take more than 2 mins. If you plan on calling for a lot of cards, just call for a speech doc.

- I won't pay much attention during cross, but cross is binding and anything said in cross must be brought up in a speech if you want it to be evaluated.

- Spread at your own risk. Some speed is fine as long as it's comprehensible, but if you go policy-fast I'll prob miss stuff.

- If you go overtime, you can finish your sentence but I'll stop flowing after approx 10 seconds.

Progressive arguments:

I'm not too comfortable with theory and/or Ks. Don't expect me to understand super niche prog arguments.

Speaker point boosts:

- Make a Drake reference +0.5

- If you are a soccer fan:

- Tell me your favorite national team and football club: +/-0.3 (goes up/down depending on how much I like them)

- Guess my favorite league: +0.5 (If you guess my favorite club in that league, you’ll get an auto 30)

Hi - I've judged several tournaments over the last year and I love hearing different points of view.

First -- make sure I can understand you. If you go fast and mumble, I won't hear your points and will have a hard time following your arguments. Ideally, enumerate your points so I can follow them and keep track of them throughout the argument. If you go fast, make sure I can get your points! Otherwise, focus on what's most important and share that with me.

Second -- use your time! If you have 4 minutes, make the most of it.

Third -- Cite your sources. It is important that you do this so I can compare evidence. Then tell me why those points are important.

Fourth -- (but probably most important) Be respectful. Good sportsmanship and being kind is important to me. If you insult or talk down to the other team, I will not be impressed.

Lastly, listen to the other team.

Good luck!

Hi my name is Edalene. I am a student judge. I did MS Public Forum for 2.

Some Other Notes:

I will be keeping time, but feel free to do so too.

Don’t bring up new information in the summary/ final focus

Weigh your argument. Why is what you said important? Why should I vote for you?

I will not judge based of crossfire, so if any important points were brought up mention them in your speech.

I appreciate signposting

Be respectful to one another

Bring through your argument to your final focus, otherwise I will consider it dropped and will not consider it towards your overall argument, even if th opponent never addresses it.

I am not going to judge based of speaking but please speak clearly and not too quickly so that I can understand.

Good luck and have fun!!

some things i prefer :)

i guess im tech>truth but if your argument is cray cray im afraid i can not believe it, so pls just make it sound convincing to me so i dont ask myself too many questions. in rebuttals i expect weighing as early as first rebuttal and i want every block and turn to be properly warranted. if you dont weigh in rebuttal ill be sad but you ABSOLUTELY must weigh in summary, even second summary is a little too late for me. Weighing and defense/offense should be extended till ff if you want me to evaluate it. i like assertive crosses but not aggressive crosses. oh yea and i dont evaluate theory :( im a traditionalist.

FOR SPEAKS

(+.5 speaker points if you make a taylor swift reference :) Im a die hard taytay stan)

Auto 30 if you buy me a starbucks drink :) suprise me !!

New to Parli; just make sure to weigh and extend your points

Flay for the purposes of judging, competed PF since 2020. I flow the whole round and will vote off the flow, but I value clear explanations and sound logic. Tech > truth, you need to support statements with logic (don't just say things without explaining why). Don't run Theory or K, if you do I am not used to judging it.

Things to remember:

• speak clearly, be confident to the best of your ability
• cross is for you: I don't vote off cross unless it is brought up in a speech
• weigh, weigh, weigh: if the round is messy I will be voting off the weighing
• establish your world and why it is better/worse than your opponent's
• don't bring up something completely new in FF please - however if your partner did absolutely no weighing in 1st summary I will allow it if you weigh in 1st FF bc your opponent has time to respond to it in 2nd FF (you cannot bring up completely new arguments in 2nd FF EVER, just interact with old ones)
• be respectful, don't worry too much, and have fun!

Btw I don't really believe in sticky defense (the idea that if your opponent didn't frontline an argument in first rebuttal, you don't have to mention in in 1st summary and can just bring it up in 1st FF -- the defense is sticky and is automatically extended bc they didn't respond to it). If they didn't frontline it you should just be mentioning important tags/the bare bones of the argument so we understand what you are going for/how the round will narrow. This makes the round cleaner and shouldn't take much of your time, you only need to really fully explain a rebuttal if the other side attacked it anyway.

Please lmk if you have any questions/tech issues!

if you reference a studio ghibli film I'll consider it when assigning speaks

I was a public forum debater for six years. She/her pronouns. If you're comfortable, please introduce yourself with your pronouns at the beginning of the round.

My email is agg7669@nyu.edu. Any questions (and please do ask them if you have them) can be sent there or asked before round.

Non-PF debaters, you should explain both in terms of arguments in the round and conventions of the format why you should win. Don't expect me to be fluent in format-specific jargon, and read on in my paradigm for some of my thoughts on jargon. Non-PF debaters should skim my PF paradigm (below) to know what sorts of etiquette I expect in round.

PUBLIC FORUM:

tl;dr: Extend your links, warrants, and impacts. Weigh. Be respectful. I don't care about your "perceptual dominance," so just be nice and have fun. I'll always disclose.

I will adapt to your style of debating! Just do the following things:

1. Explain your link chain and warrants (i.e. the how and the why, respectively, of whatever you're impacting to) throughout the entire round; you cannot win your impact unless you do this. Warrant everything! I will almost always prefer clear, logical warranting over a card that just says "this happens."

2. WEIGH!!! Tell me why your impact and your weighing is better than your opponents'. Just saying "we have bigger scope/we have more urgency/etc." isn't good enough. I want to know why that specifically matters in the context of the round. Please don't make me do that weighing for you because my weighing may not benefit you the way you want it to. Quality over quantity with weighing.

3. Signpost please!! My flowing skills are not perfect so please make your speeches organized. Otherwise, there is a greater chance that I will miss something and then you will be very angry if I drop you. Avoid this by giving clear speeches! In a similar vein, please use voters in summary/final focus. I want to know exactly where you want me to be voting.

4. Have good evidence ethics. I probably won't call cards unless told to, but just generally, don't be annoying about your evidence.

5. Be kind and respectful. Don't laugh at your opponents, don't be rude and condescending during cross, don't roll your eyes during speeches. Don't overthink it; I can tell when you're being disrespectful and when you're not and I will tank your speaks if you're super rude. If you run or say anything racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, classist, etc., I will drop you. Read a content warning if you deem it necessary (you should always err on the side of caution; running a content warning never hurts!).

Other stuff:

* Speed: I'm fine with fast-ish speaking but it's never necessary to go super fast in PF. Especially if we're online, speaking at a normal, comprehensible rate is always preferred. If you talk super fast and your opponents miss a response or something, I will be more forgiving to them.

* Speaks: They don't really matter. I'll give them based on your grasp of the topic more than your actual style of speaking so just demonstrate that you know what you're talking about and be respectful and you'll get high speaks from me.

* Debate Jargon: Fine, but don't think using debate jargon gets you out of making actual points. Empty jargon with no content is useless.

* Crossfire: I won't flow it. However, cross is a great place to demonstrate your understanding of the topic. Anything mentioned in cross must be extended in speeches for me to care about it at all. I'll be a little annoyed if you use cross to essentially repeat your case. I already heard your case and now I want to hear how well you can ask and answer questions about the content of the round.

*Theory and Ks: Don't run them if (a) you don't really understand what you're doing or (b) your opponents won't understand what you're doing. If you're confident all parties can handle progressive debate, go for it and I will have a good time evaluating it.

We are all here to have fun, so don't undermine that by being rude in round. Literally the most important thing to me is that you are polite. Please ask questions if you have them. I will be more than happy to answer!

Hi! I'm a senior on the Horace Mann Debate team

in general you can do whatever as long as it isn’t offensive

Some small things

1. I love narrative-based debates

2. weigh comparatively + frontline in second rebuttal + defense isn’t sticky

3. I don't want to be on the email chain. If you want me to consider/look at evidence, you need to specifically tell me to do that in a speech

4. I Love an aggressive crossfire as long as y’all aren’t screaming/talking over each other

5. Please time your self/keep track of your own prep time

6. don't run any k or theory I wont evaluate it :(

Ask me questions if you have any!

Hi everyone! My name is Heba, I'm a current junior in high school residing in Dubai. I've participated as a debater myself at competitions such as the world scholar's cup, but I wouldn't call myself the queen of debating! Besides debating, I enjoy judging round as well. Over the past few years, I've judged quite a few debates at school and online during covid. In case of any queries, please don't hesitate to ask me:) I hope we have a wonderful time together!

Hello, I'm Sophia (any pronouns) - I'm a former middle school/high school Public Forum debater with some Parli experience.

A few things to keep in mind during the round:

1. If you say something in crossfire that you would like me to weigh, make sure to bring it up in speeches.

2. In that vein, please try to extend your arguments through summary and FF.

3. Please signpost and give a roadmap of your speech.

4. Please be respectful of each other and the opposing team.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me before the round. If you have questions about my feedback, feel free to email me atsophia.a.freitas@gmail.com.

:)

I focus on logical argumentation when judging a debate round. I expect all participants to be respectful to each other.

I am former scholastic LD debater in the early 90's.

Good Morning or Afternoon! My name is Belmin Rama and if you are looking at this paradigm this means you are interested in seeing what is my experience or prefernces

I have been doing Public Forum debate for more than 10 years and 1 year learning about policy debate. I prefer students if they are able to time themselves, demonstrate great frontlining/rebuttals, provide an analysis between both your side and you opponents, use of weighing and impacts is much preferred. Im not crazy about crossfire since its not a speech, but an opportunity to poke weaknesses at your opponents arguments through questions. Just don't contradict yourselves

Timing yourselves is also key in my judging. This skill allows you to keep track of your time and you don't have to look at the judge to give time signals.

For my experience in speech, I have none what's so ever, but I am interested on the subject and would love to learn this style of debate.

Hello!

My name is Dina Rama, and I'm a junior at Columbia University majoring in financial economics. My pronouns are She/Her/Hers. If you have come across this page, it is most likely that you are wondering about my debate experience. I had competitively debated public forum as a sixth grader until my sophomore year of high school. I became a judge for the NYC Urban Debate League during my junior year and have judged both public forum and parliamentary debate. So, I have at least five years of experience as a judge and few years of experience as a debate coach for middle schoolers.

In order to determine the winning side of a debate round, I look for several things:

• If the team had refuted each of their opponent's arguments in a consistent manner throughout the debate round (not only in rebuttal).
• If the team had utilized statistics and evidence to support their arguments (this won't be the final deciding factor; however, evidence can significantly strengthen your arguments).
• If the team had consistently discussed the impacts of their arguments/contentions.
• If the team had consistently discussed magnitude, scope, and probability.
• If the team had weighed their arguments against the arguments belonging to their opponents.

It is important to understand what exactly does the resolution state and what is being debated. For example, if the resolution is, "The benefits of the International Monetary Fund outweigh the harms", it is important to understand that the resolution isn't asking whether or not the International Monetary Fund should be removed, nor is it asking for alternatives. Instead, the resolution is solely asking whether or not the benefits outweigh the harms. Always try to make sure that your speeches and arguments are targeted towards proving your side of the resolution.

I am a parent judge with several years of judging experience, who did policy debate in high school. I prefer slow to medium speeches, but faster is okay too, as long as you speak clearly.

Good luck!

Victoria Sepp (any pronouns)

Email: victoria.sepp@lmghs.org

OV:

role of the ballot is important for me, pls emphasize this when u can

I am a protector of my flow and I am a tech > truth or tech < truth judge as I see fit. For example, if you drop an argument in a round, I will have to weigh that against you unless you have a reason for dropping it, which I consider is still tech and will go onto the flow of the argument (tech > truth). If you analytically say something, and I know that it is wrong, then I can't vote on what is said (truth > tech). The goal is to tell a realistic audience that has some background knowledge why a plan is preferable or worse (I guarantee you that no tabula rasa judge is actually unbiased, and that's just how it works in the real world). Otherwise, I have no opinions for what types of speeches are ran.

BE MINDFUL: I do not tolerate anyone who targets any person for any reason (ie. race, gender, sexuality, orientation, impediments, etc.) Keep swearing to a minimum, use pronouns in-round correctly, and use trigger warnings for sensitive topics and make sure the other team is okay with it. Don't run affs or negs that don't suit the debater (ie. a white student running a black exploitation performative aff against African American students). <-- be very conscious.

________________________________________________

For all speeches:

Multiple worlds: I am perfectly fine with plans that happen at once, but you have to say in-round if smth is multiple worlds because then I would have to assume both plans would happen at the same time.

Case: I cannot stress enough that you need to extend case. If you don't reiterate your solvency or a solvency deficit, I cannot vote for you.

K's: would vote on these but I wont vote up vague alts.

T's and Theories: I have no problems w/ these.

Framework: Please extend your framework. If you can tell me in-round your framing, framework, and the role of the ballot, I will be impressed and it will give me reasons to vote for you and how I should look at the debate as long as you provide standards.

New arguments: Don't waste time with these, I will know when a new argument is brought up when it's too late (anything new in the block).

Spreading: I'm fine with spreading, just please read the tags slower. I flow by ear, and if I can't hear parts, I will not count them.

Cross: I'm fine with open cross.

TPM: give me reasons why your timeline, probability, and magnitude are preferable for your plan. It makes it look more realistic and implementable unless you have a reason as to why these don't matter.

_________________________________________________

Aff: I have no opinions on what aff is run (and the type of aff). Defending yourself from the neg is good, but you also need offense (why you solve), or why your plan is preferable.

Neg: I'm down with any neg speech as long as there is some detriment to the aff.

Good luck!

also if u wanna tell me ur zodiac or talk abt fnaf lore before the round, that'd be nice :)

Hello, my name is Ayrah and I am a sophomore student in high school. I have debated public forum for three and a half years, and this is my second year of judging debates. That being said, here are a few of my preferences/tips for when it comes to a round:

1) I don't take crossfire into consideration unless you bring up what was said in your speeches. So, if you managed to get your opponent to slip up during a crossfire or perhaps you answered/rebutted their questions/points cleverly and really want to showcase that to me, you should include it in your summaries, final focuses or rebuttals. Be weary not to drop any arguments.

2) I don't mind if you talk fast, just don't spread. I will time you but I also recommend you time yourself to be able to know when and how to pace yourself.

3) Weighing is very important to me, because your weighing is pretty much selling your arguments to me. I would like to see weighing in the summary and especially final focus, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in rebuttal speeches as well. But don't make your weighing just one sentence such as "We win on scope because we affect more people because [insert basic response]" etc. I'd like to see you elaborate on your weighing because again, that is a big part of what sells your arguments to me. In addition, when you state your contentions during your first speech, I need to know why your reason for or against an argument matters because again, you want to emphasize that your contentions matter (impact) and aren't just a list of pros or cons. Also, make sure you don't have any defensive arguments or else you have little to no impact.

4) I prefer the use of a framework but make sure it isn't anything like "If we prove to you that the pros outweigh the cons we win" because that's rather obvious and so it ends up being a waste of a few crucial seconds.

5) I recommend you use your prep time wisely and not let it go to waste because it is given to you for a reason. Writing on the spot can be very stressful (trust me, I'd know), but if you learn to maximize your prep time, it will gradually make things easier for you.

I hope this doesn't come off as intimidating! I am no perfect debater and I've definitely had my moments both in the spotlight and in moments I wish I could forget when it comes to debate. Just because I might be older or have debated longer doesn't necessarily mean that I am much better than you. I am just using my debate experience over the course of the past few years to try and provide any insight I can to help you improve, and of course, to try to be a fair judge. With all that said, I wish you good luck!

Hey! My name is Glenn Sheehan, I am a relatively new judge, and I have judged at a few NYC Urban Debate League tournaments in the past.

I am not necessarily a fan of fast, unclear speaking. Reasonably fast is fine as long as it is clear. I like signposting, as it helps me create a better, more accurate flow.

I enjoy seeing weighing in a debate, and it is usually very influential in my ballot and how I vote in a round. 

I give speaker points on clear and ordered presentation of arguments that follows a smooth link chain (and uses all time available during speeches).

Other than that, I wish you all the best of luck in your rounds!

Hi! My name is Hannah and I debated with Horace Mann School as the second speaker for Horace Mann YS. I qualified for the TOC in both my sophomore and junior years and have 4 career bids. I really like narrative debates that tell a story.

For the UPenn tournament, I'll definitely be more of a flay judge leaning more towards lay. I'll have absolutely no prior knowledge on the topic so please make sure your arguments make logical sense.

A couple of things to remember:

1. Please introduce yourself (name, school, side you are debating) when you walk into the room/before the round so I know who you are.
2. Extend the contention you are going for in BOTH summary and final focus
3. Please signpost in all your speeches
4. I don't mind an "aggressive" crossfire as long as everyone remains respectful- Crossfire was always my favorite part of the round when I debated so don't be afraid to have some fun.
5. When weighing, please make sure you interact with the other team's weighing/argument.

PF/Parli Paradigm for NYCUDL

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Selena. I competed in LD debate for Millburn High School (NJ). Some miscellaneous things to take into consideration:

- I evaluate only the arguments you make in round without using my own knowledge and opinions.
- Weigh/compare between arguments! This is where a large portion of rounds come down to.
- Signpost your responses; it makes them easier to flow.
- I will be very happy if you run a framework and execute it correctly.
- A team once called me "your honor." Please don't do this or anything similar. "Selena" or "judge" is fine.
- If you have any questions before or after the round, ask or email me! I'll be happy to provide information and feedback.

Circuit LD Paradigm

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Tl;dr I look for the path of least intervention to the ballot. Good for phil/theory, fine for clash debates, bad for K v K and larp v larp. I'm less tricky as a judge than I was as a debater; you need to have fully fleshed-out warrants. I AM BAD AT FLOWING FAST SPREADING.

Generic
These are all subject to change depending on what is argued in round. I try to default to what both debaters seem to assume, but absent that:
- Tech > truth
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
- Truth testing ROTB
- Permissibility and presumption are the same thing and both negate
- All pre-fiat impacts (theory, T, K, independent voters) are on the same layer. You need to weigh between them.
- If I don't understand your case after your constructive, I won't expect your opponent to predict your massive rebuttal extrapolation.
- I don't think many things are abhorrent to argue, but I will be biased against args that are legitimately terrible (ex. an entire case that explicitly supports racism, call-out cases).

Larp
- I'm bad at evaluating policy. Please overexplain. And if you're against another larper, I'm praying that one of you uplayers.
- I can, however, evaluate util just fine. In fact, syllogistic util can be quite persuasive against Ks.
- Default to epistemic confidence, yes judge kick, zero risk does exist.
- I have a lower threshold for winning calc indicts than most judges. Util debaters undercover them.

Phil
- Love it. I'm most familiar with Kant, determinism, and skep, and I'm somewhat familiar with most other common FWs, but feel free to run whatever.
- This does not mean you can get away with weak explanations. When I say I like judging phil, it doesn't mean I'll fill in the gaps for you.
- Calc indicts <3

K
- Not the most experienced with Ks, but I'm not opposed to them.
- I view Ks as frameworks. That means when going for a K, you should try to frame it as a phil NC - i.e., heavier on the line-by-line as well as explaining why your offense is relevant and theirs isn't.
- I don't understand why so many K 2Ns have enormous overviews at the top that just explain what the K says and don't explain what implications the arguments have on the round.
- Pathos is not offense.

Theory
- I like theory. I'll vote on almost any shell if it's well-justified. SLOW DOWN ON BLIPS.
- Defaults: drop the argument, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > in-round abuse, text > spirit. You should read your own voters, but if both debaters seem to be at an implicit consensus that something is/isn't a voter, I'll default to that.
- Terminal defense on theory, even under a competing interps model, is sufficient for me to ignore a shell. In other words, I don't default to risk-of-offense framing, but you can always argue otherwise.
- It is much harder to get me to vote on independent voters and paragraph theory compared to regular theory shells. A one or two-sentence argument likely doesn't have enough warranting for a full collapse in rebuttal, but I don't have anything against independent voters if you warrant and impact out the initial argument.

Tricks
- I'll vote on them if there's a warrant in the constructive speech. A lot of times there isn't, like "negating denies the antecedent of the resolution, and statements with false antecedents always have true consequents, which affirms" is literally just words. Yeah I know it's condo logic, but I'm not doing that work for you.
- Keep the debate clean pleeease
- If you extemp a random a priori in the middle of the AC, I probably won't catch it. Just put it in the doc.

I’m currently a Freshman at Georgia Tech.

There are a few things to keep in mind during the round:

1. Make sure to watch speed. I can basically understand anything except the fastest speeds, but you have to make sure that your opponents can understand you. If you’re gonna go really fast just tell everybody before you do so.

2. I listen in but don’t flow crossfire.

3. I’m generally a flow judge. That means that presentation matters little to me; you should focus on getting arguments out there.

4. I won’t be too happy if you run theory or K’s, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for you. Just keep in mind that you are taking a risk by running prog.

5. Be respectful throughout the round. Everybody has worked hard to get to this round and that should be respected.

To get my ballot:

1. If you want an argument weighed at the end of the round, bring it up in FF and summary. I generally won’t look at arguments that don’t show up in both FF and summary.

2. That being said, I’m not super strict on extensions. You don’t have to strictly extend warrants, argument tag, impacts, and cards for me to consider an argument. Of course, the more you extend, the better, but I don’t keep specifics out of consideration if they aren’t perfectly extended. For example, if you extend an argument tag and warrant in both FF and summary, but only extend the impact in summary, I won't immediately take the impact out of consideration.

3. Please, please try to signpost and give an offtime roadmap. The more you do this, the better my flow will be, and the likelier I am to catch your arguments.

4. Debate your style. Whatever I’ve put in this section are suggestions; you don’t have to conform to that exactly. I hate when I look at a judge’s paradigm and they tell me to debate in a specific way that I’m not used to. Take these as recommendations, not strict guidelines.

If you have any questions, just reach out to me at my email (villardilan22@gmail.com) or ask me before the round. I’d be happy to answer any questions I receive!

she/they, trans, autistic, jewish, senior

email is rayenryu47@gmail.com, add me pre-round

big k/theory debater, not a huge fan of policy, i just find it boring

fw: huge fw fan, fw debates can suck but fw is always a prior question and good fw gets me going

t: hate t, don’t run it unless the aff is obviously nontopical (k aff/worlds away from the resolution/butchering the resolution)

cp: if you run a cp and a k, 99/100 times i’ll completely ignore cp unless u choose to lose fw. they’re boring, don’t have much to say.

k: debated mostly cap and identity k’s, the more radical the better, but you won’t lose points for running a “generic” k

general stuff: misgendering ur opponent more than twice will have you lose the round, same with any hate speech, so on. being a twat will heavily deduct ur speaks, be kinda on time, be prepared. arguments like extinction good or death good or removal of x identity good will be ignored.

i am hungry and can be bribed.

no formalities necessary, just Jax is fine

they/he

i give speaker points based on your actual speech and how well you did delivering your points, but the winner is the most convincing- or simply the person who had the fairest win.Not blocking arguments, or lacking evidence is an easy lose, and it can't be made up for towards the end. But, if the other side doesn't mention this, I won't give them the win just for that, when they didn't notice that you left an argument open, or countered with weak evidence. a junior at Leon M Goldstein high school for the sciences(probably will add more to this later)

Flow judge with high school PF experience. Time yourself and speak clearly at a reasonable pace. In other words, don't spread. Don't run Theory or K. I don't flow or vote off of cross. No sticky defense. Remember to weigh and please be respectful to each other. :) If you reference Peppa Pig, I will consider it when assigning speaks.

Hi guys, My preferences are: That debaters not spread, if I cannot follow your arguments it is hard to persuade me, this does not mean you cannot speak fast, you can but do not be Eminem in rap god. That crossfire is friendly to a certain extent. Being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose your points. This is only my second year of debating, but I have been to many debate competitions in those years, so I will try to give you guys the best feedback I can. Good luck!