Hi! I competed for four years in PF at Newton South and am a first year out.

Short version

I’ll vote on the flow but slower debates are appreciated.

Warrants are crucial.

Please do comparative weighing.

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense/turns on any arguments that will be extended.

I’d prefer not to judge prog.

Tech > truth, but in the words of Nilesh Chander, “the best teams win on both fronts”.

Long version

How I judge:

- I will only evaluate what is extended in the second half. This means that if you want me to vote on an argument, you should extend both warrants and impacts. Missing warrants to me means that your argument isn’t true. Also new implications/responses late in round won’t be evaluated.

- Please, please frontline all defense on what you’re going for in second rebuttal. Also please collapse and don't extend your entire case.

- Doing comparative weighing will help me differentiate between arguments and also increase the chance that you’re happy with my decision.

- I won’t kick an argument for being too tech but I’ll accept weaker responses the more unrealistic it is.

- I default to and would prefer to use a util framework.

Speed:

- I can handle most speeds, but would prefer rounds to be slower overall as I’ll be less likely to miss things. When in doubt, send a speech doc.

Evidence:

- Paraphrasing is fine but direct quotes are better.

- I’ll only read cards at the end of the round if teams request it.

- If you can't find a card that's called, I'll treat it as an analytic.

- I will boost your speaks for disclosing on the PF NDCA wiki but there is absolutely no penalty for not disclosing.

Other stuff you might want to know:

- I don't flow cross, so if you get an important concession that you want me to evaluate you should bring it up in a later speech.

- I do time speeches. If you go overtime, I won't stop you but I will also stop flowing.

- I generally give high speaks, and I will also disclose if the tournament allows and both teams are okay with it.

- I don’t think I will ever presume, but if I did I would presume for the team that lost the coin flip.

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

Prog:

I think progressive arguments make the activity more confusing and am generally opposed to them.

On theory specifically: I dealt with a lot of theory when I was competing. I really don’t want to deal with theory as a judge unless there’s an actual violation that occurs in the round like a piece of evidence being seriously misconstrued, and even then I would prefer an IVI instead of a shell that kicks the substance completely. I’ll raise your speaks if you disclose but I don’t want to hear disclosure theory.

I feel uncomfortable in my ability to evaluate Ks and would highly prefer it if they are not read. Tricks etc are also too much for me.

I will not evaluate any kind of progressive argumentation in a novice round.

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

If you’re confused about anything or have additional questions, please ask me before the round!

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Hi guys! I’m currently a PF debater at Newton South.

Add me to any email chains: advikc.07@gmail.com

Some general stuff:

1.) Tech > Truth

2.) Speed isn’t a big problem for me but make sure you speak clearly.

3.) Signposting is really helpful for me to follow what’s going on!

4.) Make sure to weigh and warrant your weighing throughout your speeches (just saying “solvency” or “magnitude” isn’t enough, it has to be comparative and it has to be well-explained). Winning good weighing is almost guaranteed to win you the round.

5.) For back-half especially, make sure to collapse on 1, maybe 2 arguments max. Quality > Quantity. Also don't bring up any new warranting/weighing in the back-half (unless you are front-lining in FIRST summary which is the ONLY exception).

6.) Be respectful and kind to everyone. Any homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. will not be tolerated and will result in an automatic loss.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!!!!

Ethan (he/him) - etc.ethancheng@gmail.com.

Generally speaking, I love debate, and I think debating about things is good. If you do anything to make me not like debate (being any sort of -ist or preventing your opponents from engaging in the round ) it's an auto 20L.

If you want my thoughts/advice on anything debate related, feel free to ask. On another note, if you have any paradigm questions, come early to ask or email me.

Debate however you want stylistically, I enjoy all kinds of debate. But here's a general guide to how I will evaluate rounds.

Tech > Truth: As a self-proclaimed lay demon, truer arguments are simpler to explain and do resonate more with most judges. However, what is considered true in a round I'm evaluating is dictated by the more technical side of things.

Second rebuttal needs to frontline. My threshold for finessing frontlines in the backhalf is fairly high so it needs to be in 2nd.

Evidence: I care about evidence quality, y'all should know what blatant exploitation looks like. I also like good analytics! No matter how much evidence someone has, there's always more than enough room for logical responses and I prefer hearing them when done well.

If you want me to check back against evidence abuses, tell me to call for it in-round.

Weighing wins you rounds: If arguments aren't weighed, I can't evaluate the argument without intervening.

Cross concessions matter, but only if you bring them up. I will not flow cross nor pay attention to it.

I will disclose who I voted for unless there's a rule against it. If you don't want a verbal RFD, I get it - there will always be at least some explanation on the ball.

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

last updated: 3/10

Ammu Christ (they/them/their)

Midlothian '22

UT Austin '26

please add both garlandspeechdocs@gmail.com and graduated@gmail.com to the chain

active conflicts: Garland (2024) + various independents

**Follow the bolded portions of the paradigm if you need to skim.

---

post-TFA State 2024 updates:

The state of LD has always been in a desolate state, but this past weekend has been extraordinarily disappointing. The frequency of judging beyond this point is up to my wellbeing and being compensated beyond minimum wage.

1 - I'm not sure why debaters feel the need to be cutting necessary corners to explain and win their arguments sufficiently well. It disservices you from winning by underexplaining your arguments and hoping I can make

2 - Be considerate when you're postrounding your judges. Many of us are paid well below minimum wage and volunteer/prorate lots of hours into the activity with little to no return in favor of keeping the community having adequate judging. I'll do my best to explain how I reached my decision and answer clarifying questions, but if you expect me to automatically change my decision, its too late, try again next time.

3 - I am not your babysitter and will give you a stern look if you or any person in the room acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Especially things such as grabbing another debater's laptop without their permission and turning it towards the judge.

4 - I hold absolutely no sympathy for individuals that don't make a concerted attempt for disclosure (ie explicitly refuse to send their cases over, not disclosing on opencaselist dot com) and then read some 2000s-esq theory shell saying they are unable to engage with the 1AC. Go argue with your coach, not me.

5 - It should go without saying that if I find out that you attempt to make a structural/ontology claim (or analogously use some grammar of blackness) through cutting a sui**de note as your basis, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will contact your coach either by the RFD or directly. Absolutely ridiculous.

---

I would best describe myself as a clairvoyant when it comes to judging. I have no strong feelings when it comes to how I evaluate arguments, and feel that I agree with a wide spectrum of opinions and debate takes, even the usual divide that exists within educational/“non-educational” forms of debate.

I will vote up anything except anything morally repugnant (see: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) or out of round issues. Some arguments require a lot more instruction than others in front of me, choose accordingly.

General takes:

• Evidence determines the direction of argument quality - Bad arguments will either have little to no evidence, but it is possible to spin smart arguments from bad evidence. Arguments without evidence is definitely doable, but then again, y’all are high schoolers.

• To win an argument, you need to sufficiently win that it has a claim, impact, and warrant.

• The 1AC will “set the topic” (whether it adheres to the resolution or not), the 1NC will refute the 1AC in any form. I am inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative world is more preferable than the status quo or a different world proposed by the negative.

• Debate is a communication activity. It may or may not have “spillover” into the real world. I am of the opinion, by default, we probably don’t. I can be convinced either way, though.

• My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting.

• At bare minimum, I need to get submit my ballot in before tournament directors nag on me. Other than that, do whatever other than being violent.

• As a neurodivergent person, it is sometimes a bit hard for me to follow implications/strategies of things as well as deciphering rebuttals. My favorite type of rebuttals will respond to things top-down in the order of the previous speech and/or group and do sub-debates in specific areas on my flow. Your speed when it comes to the rebuttals should be 70% of the speed of the constructive.

• I care a lot about form and content. The 2NR/2AR must isolate and collapse to one argument (most of the time). I am very receptive to arguments that specifically complicate the reading of multiple conflicting positions in the rebuttal. (See: a non-T aff going for condo, collapsing to multiple Phil positions and a util advantage, etc). This doesn’t really apply if conflicting positions are read before the rebuttals.
• I default no judgekick.

• I think I’m pretty good at nearly transcribing most speeches. My typing speed spikes anywhere between 110-140 words per minute. I tend to flow more and try to isolate warrants since my brain tends to forget immediately if I don’t write down full warrants/explanations for things. Not a you problem, just a neurodivergent thing. In terms of speed, not a problem, just need clarity and will clear you if it is not present or give up not typing anything if I can’t legibly type anything.

• Speaks are based on execution, strategy, collapse, and vibes. 28.2-28.6 is the cume for average. 28.7-28.9 means you’re on the cusp for breaking. 29-29.3 means you’ll break and reach early/mid slims. 29.4+ means you will go deep elms and/or win the tournament. Not all speaks are indicative of this, but normally they will try to follow this guideline.

LD specific takes:

• Pref guide:
• I feel best apt to evaluate K, non-T, policy, Util/Kant debates.
• I can adequately evaluate theory. I find that these debates aren’t impossible, but I definitely will be thinking a lot more harder in these debates.
• Exercise caution around tricks and “denser phil” (anything not Util or Kant). I can still evaluate these, but I find in these debates I need arguments overexplained in terms of strategy for me to follow.

• I default comparative worlds over truth testing. I think offense under either form of argument evaluation is doable, but I need that blatantly explained to me.

• I’ve changed my thoughts on tricks. I think that I was formerly being dogmatic by saying they don’t hold “educational value”. I actually don’t care now. Read them if you fancy these arguments, but I require a lot more judge instruction to understand strategy/collapse.

• As formerly for tricks, I’ve also changed my thoughts on theory. A shell must have a violation to be legitimate. See below in a later section about specifics with theory offense.
• A caveat for evidence ethics theory. I do not find this shell convincing at all. In order to win with this shell in front of me, the alleged violation must prove that there was malicious intent with the altercation of evidence. I will also ask if both debaters would like to stop the round and stake the round on evidence ethics. If the person who read the shell says no, my threshold for responses on the shell automatically goes down to the lowest possible amount of responses. The threshold to win the argument at this point becomes insanely steep.

• If I haven’t made it clear already, please spend more time explaining function and implications of these arguments if you want to win my ballot. I find that I am following these arguments more better than I was like a year ago, but you should do more work to overexplain to me to win. I don’t know to make that more obvious.

• I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater on theory shells.

• I am willing to zero out a theory shell’s offense if there is no real violation. It is up to the person reading the shell to prove that there is either a textual or functional violation in the first place. No amount of competing interpretation justifications will matter if there is no violation to the shell. I don’t care if the violation is textual or functional, I just need one to grant offense to the shell in the first place.

• I find that paradigm issue debates are sailing ships in the night — you should really group them whenever they’re spread across multiple pages. If the warrants to your paradigm issues are the same I’ve heard over the past year and a half, I will flow them as “dtd, c/I, no rvi” (and vice versa when responding)
• I enjoy unique warrants to paradigm issues, but find non-T offs trying to come up with their own warrants sort of fall flat if they reject a conception of debate.

• IVIs need an impact when introduced. Will not vote on these without one.

• I default theory > K >= content FW > content — this is a rough diagram and open to different justifications for weighing.

• You can find any other relevant thoughts on the K and policy here in the archive for December 2023. My thoughts really haven’t changed as much for the K nor policy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KidiW8WJQi0-PWf2lx33GPi9kiRySLl1TbV_fGZ1PY/edit?usp=sharing

You can request a copy of your flow at any point after the RFD is given.

Good luck! :>

I am a middle school debate coach, and I participated in PF debate in high school. I am familiar with basic Public Forum conventions, terminology, etc. I request that debaters speak at an even and measured pace.

Hi everyone! I'm Bella, a public forum debater at Newton South.

Some general things to know before round.

*Please be respectful.

*Comparative weighing and analysis is really important for voting.

*I can do speed, but I prefer a general pace.

*Make it clear where I should be voting in the round and when something is conceded.

*I'm not gonna vote off what you say in cross, so if its important please bring it up in speech.

*I do not like Theory.

If you have any questions, just ask me.

Heyy, Im Murphy!!

Please put me in the email chain murphy6047@gmail.com

I graduated from centennial high school and have debated for my whole high school career. I have qualified and debated at TFA state (late out-rounds), UIL regionals, and placed at high competing tournaments.

TLDR- Please give me a coherent argument to evaluate

What I like

I love debates that have a lot of genuine clash, I can just about flow anything so please go wild with whatever you want to do. I am not a super technical debater so you may need to adjust for me. Please make it clear what your winning or losing on!! I do not and will not intervene on the debate YOU need to make it clear what your winning!! I also have done very little topic literature besides the generic information. So please make sure that your case is clear and coherent so that it will make it easier for me to understand.

What I wont vote for

I will not vote for frivolous theory, I personally believe that it is a bad norm for debate and will not vote for it. On the other hand if their is a clear sign of abusiveness i have no problem evaluating theory in the round. I am also not super informed on high theory so please make sure to reexplain some things for me. Other than that I will flow any arguments!!

K's

I love K's and I will vote on them. I am most aware of antiblackness and afropess literature, and will vote you down if you are white reading it. I am fine with K affs and non topical k's as long as you justify why they are important.

Off case positions

Fine with flowing them and love to hear them!! Just make sure that you make the tags are easy for me to understand.

Any questions you have please dont be afraid to ask me in round!! (I had to make this quick)

Middle School Paradigm:

• Choose a few arguments and make it very clear why they’re the most important

• Weigh your impacts!

• Explain everything (and remember to re-explain your argument from the resolution to the impact in Summary and FF)

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

• Use they/them pronouns unless your opponents tell you otherwise

• If you are racist, LGBTQ+-phobic, ableist, rude, sexist, or are discriminatory in any other way, you will lose the round and may be reported

My longer paradigm - https://docs.google.com/document/d/17teFyL5H25AsRRIW5DLGVcL5NeqJjk4UPxy8e-RUKeE/edit?usp=sharing

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

Few main points:

1. I can handle speed, but that does not mean you should read a bunch of unwarranted arguments and hope that I pick up on them. Always prioritize clarity and good reasoning bc I'm not gonna vote for smth that doesn't make sense
2. I will vote on anything as long as there are no glaring evidence or warranting issues.
3. You must frontline in rebuttal. If you don't respond to something that your opponent said on your case, then your argument is dropped. Same thing with extending in first summary, you must extend at least one contention.
4. If something is brought up in final focus, it must have been in summary; otherwise, it's new, and I won't evaluate it that late.
5. Please collapse. I know it might seem strategically better to go for multiple arguments, but I have seen too many kids shoot themselves in the foot by going for too much.
6. WEIGH. If you don't weigh, then I have to intervene to decide which argument is more important, and neither of us want me to do that. Think about it like you're writing my ballot for me.
7. Don't get too heated in cross or in the round. It's never that deep, and this is supposed to be a fun activity. If you start getting too aggressive and personal, I will deduct speaks and, depending on the offense, vote against you.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm in round

I will give both you and your partner 30 speaker points if you bring me food in the round. (I am allergic to nuts tho)

+.5 speaker points for making a Dallas Mavericks reference in round

+.5 speaker points for incorporating the phrase "my glorious king" in one of your speeches (It has to be organic tho and not overly forced)

Hi everyone! I'm Thomas and I'm a third-year PF debater for Newton South!

FOR NOVICES:

• Just remember we're all here to have fun! I know this is stressful for some of you so let me know if you need any help/support
• I'll be timing your speeches and your prep time but you should also be timing yourselves
• Second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal AND first case
• Ideally you should collapse on one arg in summary or even second rebuttal
• Please signpost so I know where you are (this includes telling me if you're responding to stuff on your case or their case)
• Weighing is appreciated!
• I'm fine with any level of speed
• Please let me know if you have any questions at all

For everyone else:

If you need to ask any questions/share evidence/etc, you can email me at thomaswkinney@gmail.com or message me on Messenger. Even if I glance at your opponents' sketchy evidence, it won't affect my decision unless you bring it up and I write it on my flow.

Quick version: For PF, I'm basically your average flow judge. I want you to do as much of the work for me as possible, and I shouldn't have to do any of my own analysis. For other events, treat me like a first-time lay who can handle speed.

General stuff:

Tech > truth but don't say something everyone knows isn't true (like grass is purple??).

Speed: I'm okay with speed but unless you speak super clearly then send a speech doc with anything over 225 wpm and ask your opponents if they're okay with it.

Special accommodations: If you need anything in particular, let me know (you can email me or just tell me) before round starts. I want debate to be as inclusive as possible, so I'll adjust your speaks accordingly.

Evidence: Don't just say something is true because your card says it is! If your opponent questions you on something, you need to be able to provide warranting for why! (warranting + evidence > warranting > just evidence)

Theory/K's/Trix: I've hit both Ks and theory, and I'm not a huge fan of either. I'll do my best to evaluate anything but can't guarantee I'll do it correctly—If you wouldn't run it on a lay judge, I'd rather you not run it on me.

Timing: Please time yourselves! I'll be timing you, but it's your responsibility to make sure your speeches are the correct length. I'll stop flowing 10 seconds after, and it's okay if you time your opponents but do it silently and calmly.

Signposting: It's so much easier when you signpost and/or lay out your speeches in a logical order.

Be nice! Debate should be about being inclusive and having fun! If you say anything discriminatory in any way, I will automatically drop you and tank your speaks.
-If your opponent says something discriminatory, call them out on it if you're comfortable

Speaks: I don't give 30s too often but I'd say I average a 28.5ish
-I don't specifically give extra speaks for things but if you're extra courteous (like giving your opponents extra prep time, making a clear effort to make the round enjoyable for everyone, etc) remember I will be noticing and your speaks will reflect that
-I can tell the difference between being genuinely nice and being "nice"

Speech specifics:

Cross: Won't affect my decision but it will affect speaks (if you're really rude, expect low speaks)
-I won't flow cross so if your opponent says something important to your case, bring it up in a speech
-Please be respectful to your opponents and let them have a chance to talk too

Rebuttal:
-If you're giving 2nd rebuttal, please please please respond to 1st rebuttal because it makes everyone's lives so much easier
-Collapsing in 2nd rebuttal is pretty cool and makes everything neater but it's up to you
-Not required, but I'd love it if you weigh
-Defense is NOT sticky--make sure to bring up defense in each speech!

Summary:
-Weighhhhhhh (make it comparative!)! It makes my decision so much easier if one team weighs and the other doesn't!
-Please please please collapse!
-I'd love a clear extension and solid frontlines on the argument(s) you're going for
-Voter's is nice but not required

Grand cross:
-It's pretty chaotic so please make sure to let everyone speak

Final focus: Should write my ballot for me! Basically follow everything I said for summary but make it even clearer where I should vote

Decision:
-If everything's a wash and I literally can't choose a winner, I presume neg
-If you have any questions about my decision and/or feedback, feel free to email me at the email listed above
-I'll disclose when possible
-I'm okay with some postrounding as long as it's genuine questions that you have (and if you realize that at some point enough is enough)

If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask me any time before round starts!

for novice tourney: just be nice and have fun! Please time yourself, I will be timing too but I would rather not cut anybody off. And plz wear mask ty

PLEASE WEAR A MASK!! And wear it properly

***Let me know if you need any accommodations before round.

Im a lay judge, ive never hesrd of debate before

Hi, I'm Aris (they/them) and I'm a senior at NSHS. I've been doing PF for four years.

Tech>truth

1. Be nice. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. I will drop you. If you're unnecessarily rude to your opponents, I'll tank your speaks.

2. No theory or K's

3. I only evaluate extended args in FF, dont drop your links or impacts

4. I won't flow over time.

If you are running a sensitive argument, use anonymous opt-in content warnings like the one linked here before round/speeches.

*Also, if you're comfortable, please let me know if you have a preferred name and/or pronouns that aren't in tab.

If you have any questions, email me at aris.li.email@gmail.com

I did PF for 3 years at Newton South and am currently a freshman in college.

General:

I will be flowing the round, but I prefer a flay debate over a super tech debate. If you're spreading, I probably won't be able to understand you. I will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and has evidence extended throughout the round.

Please don't be rude to your opponents, I will tank speaks and it'll be more difficult to win my ballot.

Progressive:

I don't have much experience with progressive arguments, so run at your own risk.I think paraphrasing and non-disclosure are fine, just don't misconstrue evidence.

Frontlining:

Frontlines should be made for any offense you want to go for later in the round. Otherwise, I will consider the argument dropped.

Hi, I'm Anahitha! I'm a junior at Newton South and I have three years of experience with PF debate.

Just some general stuff:

I'm generally tech>truth but narrative is really good and your warranting has to make some amount of sense. I will vote for a turn if it's warranted and weighed well though.

I'm okay with speed, but be ready to send a speech doc if you spread.

Don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. in round. It makes us all uncomfortable and I will drop you for it.

If you make an email chain, please include me:

Email: anahitha.menon13@gmail.com

Speeches:

Frontline in second rebuttal

WEIGH! Above all else, please weigh. There's no easier way to win my ballot.

I've coached debate at a small private school for several years. I was not a debater myself. I would consider myself a traditional debate judge.

I ultimately judge on my flow, but courtesy and respect are also factors. I tend to favor the debater who educates me and seems to have the best handle on the topic -- both the basics and the nuances. I am more impressed by a case focused on educational value than one explicitly designed to win a debate round.

I like to hear the bio of sources and applaud the debater who has deliberated on what source to use.

I am skeptical of definitions that seem to be simply strategic and avoid the context of the resolution. Same with observations -- I am not enthusiastic about strategic attempts to limit the playing field in a way that puts the spirit of the resolution to the side.

Give me clear voters at the end of the round! I like to hear what choices you've made regarding what you think your reasons for winning are.

Hello Debaters. The only paradigm I can have is just remember to quantify your impacts, this means provide numbers to impacts also remember to signpost so I know where in the flow you are. Its okay to speak fast, critical thinking is appreciated. Remember to weigh impacts.

Thank you

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com and gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

If you are interested in debating at Georgetown or attending Georgetown camp, feel free to reach out!

TOC Update: I have done a moderate amount of topic research and have judged 26 rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. Explaining acronyms and highly niche things would still be incredibly helpful.

Conflicts: Westwood, Northside, GBS, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding both.

Great debaters make strategic choices backed up with well warranted arguments and well researched evidence. I love seeing confident debaters demonstrating the culmination of a year's worth of research through the arguments they make, whether that's an innovative new counterplan or a topic specific K.

I don't think I have any major anomalies as a judge that should heavily impact the way you debate. I am open to judging and deciding any argument.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

I have three non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Try or die does exist. It is when either in the world of the DA or the case, there is no defense to the claim that extinction is inevitable (Ex: 2NR goes for only alt causes to climate change). However, I can be persuaded to discount that frame by either team.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroads to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates and what internal links or impacts the Negative is claiming it solves. This necessity is magnified by vague 1NC planks without solvency advocates.

Compare what the counterplan does to the 1AC internal links/impacts. Explicit comparison of these warrants can be a great help when evaluating the "sufficiency" of counterplan planks.

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these type of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

I will flow and listen to any 1AC. You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive, but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good. My biggest comment about going for these sort of impact turn 2NRs is that teams need to do explicit judge instruction about what should be a "win condition" for the Neg. This will help hedge back against a 2AR that says it's only a debate about debate. Similarly for the Aff, I think defending your epistemic commitments, either through substantive answers/cross-apps from case or Ks of the impacts, is more persuasive than no linking everything.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Assertiveness and humor is great and will boost your speaks. Have fun! I love debate and love to see people enjoying the activity.

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better and more helpful decisions (by giving me more decision time), but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. I am an educator that is responsible for the well-being of minors during the duration of the round. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable. I will decide where to draw the line, but it would behoove you to ensure that you are FAR away from that line as possible with your decorum. I will not hesitate to instantly end the round, give you an L+0, and escalate the situation to tab.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .2 extra speaks.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .2 extra speaks (inspired by DKP).

Public Forum Paradigm:

I occasionally judge middle school PF rounds for Holy Trinity, where I am an assistant coach. Although I am a college policy debater, I do not think public forum should be a speed contest or obscure critiques/counterplans should be the focus of the debate. I will not be receptive to teams running these arguments as "cheap shots," especially in middle school.

The three things I care about the most for public forum debates are:

1. Answering your opponents arguments in an organized fashion. I love when debaters specifically reference arguments by labels, (ie: "their biodiversity argument") and then respond to that argument where they reference it. It makes it easier for me to decide the debate. Jumping around different arguments or disorganized speeches make it harder for me to decide.

2. Making strategic choices and doing impact calculus. In final speeches, I think there are little to no circumstances where debaters should be extending multiple contentions/arguments. Public forum speech times are very limited, so it's best to focus on the strongest argument you are winning and play defense to your opponent's stuff. Explain why your impact or argument is more important and why it matters.

3. Paying attention/flowing. Taking notes of what your opponent is saying and paying attention to what arguments they did or did not make are all important. I like it when debaters point out mistakes or what opponents said in prior speeches, because it shows me they're paying attention.

Have fun! Debate is a competition but it's also a fun activity that allows you to learn new things and make friends.

Hi everyone! My name is Wolfgang Wuerker. Pronouns he/him/his.

As some brief background, I competed in traditional LD, Congress, British Parliamentary, and CX at various times, though I also have some level of experience with most events. I'm currently studying psychology & physiology on a premedical track at the University of Wyoming. If you have time, read the general that's the important one.

I have some general notes right below this and some more extensive ones below that.

- I will not tolerate any hatred. This means any sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If you choose to be hateful, you will be given 0 speaker points, the loss or last place, and probably be reported to whoever is necessary. Just be a good person.

- I am happy to answer any questions you have before, during, or after. Do not hesitate to ask. I won't put my email here, but I am happy to give it in the round if you'd prefer.

- Just to keep things consistent, I'll give all events and all speeches a 10 second grace period and I will verbally cut you off after that.

- Have fun and good luck!

Speech & IE Paradigm

My philosophy on speech events is pretty simple: I'll rank the speeches holistically and to the best of my ability. The only thing that's an absolute no-no for me is being rude to anyone including competitors, myself, people in round or out of round. Otherwise, just have fun.

Debate Paradigms Traditional LD (and PF where applicable)

- Starting at the top: I enjoy a good value clash. LD is a debate within a moral framework so go in-depth. I haven't read everything (and at this point I may be a little rusty) but I know my basics and a framework based on philosophical theory has a much better chance of winning than a Merriam-Webster definition.

- When it comes to contentions: Signposting is a must. I will be flowing and if I don't know where you are at in the 2R I will probably lose it and forget about it.

Progressive LD/ CX

- Keep in mind I have some experience with both but not extensive and it was a while ago, so act accordingly.

- On speed, I can understand it but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can barely understand you I will not understand your arguments either.

- Signposting is a must. I'm a flow judge and without signposting, I will probably put your arguments in the wrong spot.

- My CX philosophy is fairly straightforward. I'm open to most things Ks, Theory, etc. but keep in mind that I wasn't too deep into CX and might need a walking through if it's too complex an argument.

- I think that analytics and CX are the best ways to judge how you are as a speaker so don't let these be the areas you don't give any thought to.

Congress

- I will rank the PO in the top 5 somewhere unless they give me a reason to do otherwise so don't be afraid to chair. I will give a PO 1st if they earn it.

I'm a Newton South debater

If you wanna run any weird stuff just make sure it's clean

I can keep up with spreading, but I'd rather not

Be civil-- I shouldn't have to explain that

Have fun!

also if you're funny I might give you more speaker points, but that shouldn't be your priority of course

--for AB NS scrim

I am a lay judge