Qualifications: 5 years debate experience: 1 year parli, 4 years PF for Thomas Jefferson HS for Science & Tech. current sophomore @ UMich

Add me to the email chain: riyasdev9@gmail.com

Judging:

- I flow debate proper and don't pay much attention to cross.

- Default framing util, default weighing is highest prob first. weighing applies if you are winning on the link level. tell me where to vote

- I try to be as tech as possible

- Warrant everything: analytical warrant > unwarranted card

- Signpost

- Final focus args must be in summary and properly extended. This is true for offense or defense, uniqueness, warrants, impacts, etc.

- No new evidence in second summary onward

- I don't like theory - run at your own risk

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

- Presumption flows neg if there is no offense in the round

- Speed is fine

Background:

I've been doing debate for 6 years. I'm on the Varsity PF debate team at Thomas Jefferson High School.

PF Debate:

Tech ---x------- Truth

Clarity X---------- Who doesn't like clarity

- Respond to first rebuttal turns in second rebuttal or it's too late

- Extend the warrant and impact of argument(s) in later speeches

- Please no theory or Ks

Speed:

- I can only write down things so fast so keep that in mind

- Signpost so I know what you're talking about

As a Russian and Ukrainian, I stand with Ukraine.

MS debate

Parliamentary debate:

I will flow pretty much everything you say in the round to the best of my ability. I can handle speed but not spreading (300+ WPM) without getting a speech document. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Assume I don't know the nuances about the topic you are debating, so if your arguments are complex, be sure to explain them well.

Framework/Definitions: If a framework isn't mentioned, I will default to the resolution and choose which side does more benefits/harms. The 1st prop can choose to define terms in the resolution, but it is not required. If the definitions are unreasonable, the opp can propose their own definitions, but please provide a reason about why you think they are unreasonable.

New Arguments: I won't accept any brand new arguments in the last two speeches unless the 3rd prop, the very last speech, is responding to new arguments made by the 2nd and 3rd opp speeches. That being said, feel free to elaborate on arguments you've already made.

Weighing: It's super important to weigh the arguments at the end of the round. This means explaining why, even if I believe all the arguments made by both sides, your team would still win the round.

Speaker points: At the end of tournaments, my speaker points usually range between 67-83. Eloquence, body language, taking POIs, and a touch of humor in your speeches will help your speaker points while rudeness will hurt them.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round. I will disclose my decision in detail at the end of the round. Most importantly, have fun! :)

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

she/her || tjhsst '24

add me to email chains: gracexyliu@gmail.com (won't look unless you ask me to in a speech though)

for any questions: fb messenger

general (wip)

- will try to be as tech as possible

- WEIGH! metaweighing > almost any weighing > no weighing

- things need to be warranted, weighed, extended & explained well if you want me to vote on them

- frontline in 2nd reb

- no new implications past summary unless you're responding to something new

- cross doesn't matter, anything you want me to consider has to be in the next speech

- speed is okay until it's unintelligible without a doc

prep/timing

- keep track of your own/your opponent's prep, i won't

- will time speeches, won't flow anything overtime

- stay unmuted while calling for and sending cards

other (important) stuff

- PLEASE read specific content warnings with anonymous opt outs (google form) for potentially triggering arguments

- have fun

speaks

- speaks for an "average" team ~28.5

- don't be rude or _-ist

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (RC, SG, BG, LJ). traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

arjunsurya473@gmail.com

Did PF & LD in high school, now do NPDA now at Rice.

Fine with most arguments, just be be clear and slow down on Ks/theory. I'm not super sure how norms are in LD so if you're going to go for an argument be very clear about what the link story is in the rebuttals and do enough weighing so I know how to evaluate it.

I don't have any particular preference for RVIs, Spec, Condo, or anything really. Just make clear arguments about why you should win with it. For Ks, I'm familiar with cap/futurism/Baudrillard/Lacan/Hauntology/ but you should still explain the alts to me like I'm a PFer because I low key don't really know what most of these arguments mean even when I read them.

I don't really know what a judge kick is but from my understanding I would err on the side of not doing that in front of me. Just collapse normally or do weighing to get out of an argument.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

he/they - TJHSST '24 (4 years natcirc pf, 1 year intl worlds on USA d-team) - Harvard '28

put me on the email chain: bzhou2024@gmail.com and tjhsstpfdocs@gmail.com

TL;DR: I will flow; keep speech speed limited; all offense must be weighed; prefer no progressive arguments past theory; I prefer quality>quantity in responses and please implicate them

etiquette

wear & do whatever makes you feel most comfortable

content warnings must be explicit and mentioned before case - please send an anonymous opt-out form as well. don't do a cw and then jump into case what is the point.

important stuff

if you know worlds, treat me like a worlds/flay judge

framing > metaweighing > weighing > cleanest arg > presumption, but cleanest arg w/ contested weighing will probably always win

the second speaking team must frontline

extend extend extend, extend the entire argument

please extend what you are going to go for (including defense not responded to, but you can keep it short)

from andy wang:

presumption

i will presume the team that lost the flip, otherwise first speaking team unless told otherwise

prog

I'll vote on disclo if you warrant it well

i have zero experience with k's or tricks, you can run them but don't spread, make it understandable, and run it at your own risk

don't call ppl bioweapons btw- not cool

speaker points

speaker points are pretty arbitrary and flawed so i'll try to give good speaks, here are some arbitrary ways to get speaker points

L20 for spreading / prog against newer debaters

If both sides agree to drop a new roast/analogy to David Li in each speech that's relevant in the round, I'll give you all 30's for this round & the rest of the tournament. here's some: forehead, you me date, 0 rizz, swim districts, the rest is for you to find :)

+1.0 for an accurate reference to the Game
+1.0 for every funny contention tag
+0.5 for every Oakton HJ joke
+0.5 for mentioning Churchill HT
+0.5 for https://youtu.be/lCe5M3dWx30

paradigms i agree with

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=201071
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=141113
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=60721
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=192404