I debated PF for four years in HS.

Basically, make good arguments and convince me why you won. That's what debate is about. 

I'm fine with speed (as long as your opponents are). Frontline in the 2nd rebuttal, extend defense in the summary, and collapse the debate in the back half of the round. Tech > truth to some extent. I don't like crazy or unrealistic arguments, as I view Public Forum Debate as a means for discussing real world problems and their practical consequences, nor am I a fan of 5-6 contention cases, in which each argument is underdeveloped and poorly warranted, BUT, if an argument is clean dropped, I am very likely to vote for it. 

Please be respectful during cross. Don't yell. And remember, you are trying to convince the judge that you are right -- not your opponents! 

+0.5 speakers points if you make an Atlanta Hawks reference !! 

Email me at aananbiswas3@gmail.com if you have any questions.

TL;DR

tech>truth, weigh

good w substance and theory, ok w other prog

send docs for case and rebuttal if possible

I will end the round immediately if you are _ist or _phobic and give you L20s.

GENERAL

If you don't send docs for case, speaks are capped at 28.

How to win:

Win the weighing debate and win the argument that outweighs. Whatever argument is weighed best, I look there first. Without any weighing, I will vote on path of least resistance.

Contention: Read whatever.

Rebuttal: FL in 2nd rebuttal, DAs/OVs are fine too. New DAs/OVs in 2nd rebuttal will have a lower threshold for response in summary. Reading turns is goat. +.5 speaks for sending doc.

Summary: Defense is not sticky. The more weighing, the merrier. Collapsing is usually good but you do you.

FF: Same as summary but shorter.

I enjoy very fast-paced debates. Unlike some judges, I don't at all believe PF has to be "accessible and slow." If you are in varsity/open and you have me as a judge, go as fast as you want and I will probably like you.

Progressive args:

Good with theory, default competing interps and no RVIs.

Even though I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, this will not affect my decision unless the round is a wash and there is no substance. Same with TW theory, but I don't strongly believe that TW's in general are good or bad.

If you make me evaluate under reasonability, I will probably be sad, but it is what it is.

Any other arguments like K's, tricks, etc. are fair game but require more explanation. I'm familiar with basic K structure but don't really have much knowledge of the lit. Slow down on tags for K debate.

Hiding a trick in your speech is actually ok as long as it's in the speech doc.

Have fun!

Hello Everyone,

I am a lay judge and am excited to participate in the tournament. Some things I would like participants to consider

1) It would be helpful if you could speak at a pace that is easy for me to understand

2) Avoid jargon

3) Sign postings during the debate are appreciated

4) Be respectful and have fun

Good Luck

I am a parent judge . Please speak at a normal pace and avoid any debate jargon.  I do not have an opinion on the topic and prefer logical arguments   

wasd

Hi!

I'm an HSPF debater with around 4 years of experience. I'm mostly tech, but if you make a weird argument and your opponents' responses are pretty logical, I'll prefer their side.

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

If you spread, please send a speech doc though.

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

No completely new arguments in summary or final focus. I won't evaluate them.

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

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

Try to avoid progressive args - I don't have much experience evaluating them. If you really want to run theory or K's, make sure they're reasonable and you give me a realistic way that it should affect my ballot. Trix are bad.

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

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

Weighing should be comparative, don't just give me your numbers, give me theirs. Metaweigh and tell me why your weighing mechanisms should be preferred.

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

360 jump when reading a turn = +0.5 speaker points

I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the Milton High School Debate Team. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:

-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.

-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.

-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.

-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.

-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.

-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.

-Preflow before the round.

-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.

-Speaks: Do not become "insufferable," and you can expect a fair score.

-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.

Any other questions should be addressed before start time.

email for chain: jivangikar.sameer@gmail.com

Policy

---you do you

---never stress about debate, have fun

---final rebuttals off the flow get good speaks

Please try to not speak 'too' fast. Fast and clear pronunciations are preferred.

Tech > Truth

Please don't spread if you can help it

Off-time roadmaps are always recommended, they just make it easier for me to catch all your arguments

Winning with slower talking speed helps speaks

If there is a problem with evidence, ASK ME TO CALL FOR THE CARD OR READ THE QUOTE DIRECTLY, otherwise I can't resolve

Tell a story with your case, not just a few random contentions and arguments.

Please number your responses

2nd rebuttal should frontline

Almost always collapse in summary

Extend offense and defense in Summary

start weighing in summary

Don't bring up arguments in summary that weren't in Rebuttal or Case

Don't bring up arguments in Final Focus that weren't in summary

Obviously no bullying, homophobia, racism, etc.

I have been debating for a few years, and have judged a few debates.

Info For What I Want In Debate:

When debating, it is important that I am able to hear and understand all parts of your case. Also be sure to give the full forms of acronyms if they are uncommon. Be respectful to your opponents, do not criticize or be overly mean to them. Make sure that you weigh impacts and clearly explain why you have won the debate in your Final Focus. 

Tips:

Frontline in your response if you are going second.

Tell a coherent story with your cards as opposed to having random, unconnected arguments.

Extend your case throughout your speeches.

Begin to weigh impacts in Summary.

Do not bring up new arguments in Final Focus as your opponents will not be able to respond. All new arguments introduced FF will be disregarded when I am judging.

You will automatically lose if you do any of the following:

Bully your Opponents, Judge, or Teammate.

Make Racist or Homophobic Comments.

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging debate. Please do not speak too fast and speak with clarity or I will not be able to understand you, and I won't be able to vote for you.

I value research and empirics heavily and well backed up responses and frontlines.

Tech Judge with a few caveats:

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

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

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

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

- Extension through ink = a dropped RT/argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Avoid referring to your opponents using gendered language.

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

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

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

For COVID-19 season:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speed: don't go above 40mph

Weighing: minimum 10Ibs

Tech over truth

Be nice to each other

no stealing prep

If you have any questions ask me before the debate starts

Thank you for reading

Hello! My name is Shivani and I am a current Sophomore and Psychology-Premedical major with double minors in Chemistry and Biology at Mercer University! My pronouns are she/her. It's nice to meet you! I have done both Public Forum and a variety of speech events for 4 years at Milton High School. I have also attended a few respectable debate camps such as the National Debate Forum and Emory's Barkley Forum so it's safe to say I do know a bit about debate hehe.

With that being said, I have a few things that you should keep in mind :)

*Speech- I am okay with any speed. As long as you speak clear and with confidence! This is public forum so please do not spread!

*Please make sure you are weighing and really impacting out throughout the round. I firmly believe that every speech is important but your summary and final focus really needs to drive the point home in order for me to consider it!

*I am huge on respecting pronouns so please let me know or correct me if I do not use your preferred pronouns!

*I am okay with off-time road maps but like it says in the title, do not make it too long or I will consider it part of your time!

*Please Please Please be respectful and nice! As Thumper from Alice and Wonderland said, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all"! I take this very seriously and if you say anything offensive or rude, I will immediately take off speaker points. I like humor but I also like professionalism!

*I will keep track of the time but please keep track of your time as well and be honest!

*Theory, Disads, and Kritiks....not a huge fan of using them personally but I am perfectly fine with them as long as they are reasonable and in boundaries of what you are talking about. Do not go overboard

*I like to go through the round at the end in my oral feed depending on time so if you do not prefer this, let me know! I will be more than happy to write up a more detailed written feedback!

*More than anything, I know how stressful and intense debate can be (trust me, I have gone through my fair share of heels by anxiously pacing up and down the hallways before rounds). So relax, try your best, and give it your all no matter how difficult the round may seem!

*If you have a questions, concerns, cries of woes, etc..., please ask me or let me know before or after the round! No question is dumb but please let me know beforehand!

With that being said, let's close this paradigm and debate! Good Luck!

-SDN

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

-I have been doing pf debate for 4 years and around 1 year of policy before that (not that I remember anything)(so don't you dare lay adapt me, I know what im doing. most of the time)

bribe me with food and you will probably win because food=life (bring me boba for more speaks)

-don't give me bs cards and take 5748 years to fine them

OVERALL: Don't be stupid, dumb, drop cases, racist, homophobic, etc. I hate abusive ppl, dont be abusive!!!!

Case- Don't make crazy stupid arguments, stock contentions are better than arguments I don't understand. But if your running stock cases don't make it too boring or i'll fall asleep and you will not win. Also, try to run more than 1 contention. Extend your case throughout summary and ff or else I will consider it dropped.

Rebuttal- Frontline in 2nd Response. Go down the flow, and please signpost or I'll be sad. If reading a turn spend time on it and give me an impact, not some wishy-washy "we turn their case bc turkey actually supports terrorism. the end" You need to spend at least 15 sec on it if you are going to extend it. DON'T HAVE TIME LEFT OVER. This goes for all speeches but if you have like a minute left just weigh or do analytics, time is money in debate.

Summary- Don't bring up anything new. Just extend responses, defense, and offense. Summary is extremely important don't drop stuff. Dropping= Bad. In summary heres what I need to see:

1. Case extensions (your case) if you don't extend then i will say you dropped your case. Here you can concede on one contention, link, subpoint, etc. This is a good tactic but make sure to extend responses completely.

2. Frontlines. Yeah just frontline your case please, if you don't frontline in 2nd response then it this dosen't matter SO FRONTLINE IN 2ND RESPONSE.

3. Extend offense. yup do that please!

4. Weighing. YOU BETTER WEIGH. And please weigh more, don't just weigh on magnitude that's stupid. Also, make sure to give me warrants and quantification. Don't just be like: We win on magnitude because we save lives, We win on timeframe because our impacts come first. Please don't do that. see weighing section for more info)(also see charlie zhangs paradigm where he took the time to write a paragraph about it)

FF- Just basically say what you said in summary but don't make it boring. Make sure to weigh or else I won't count your impacts. Try your best to gimme voters.

Cross- It's useless unless you bring it up later

Weighing- Don't be ✨basic ✨. don't just weigh on magnitude or probability or timeframe. Also weigh on prereq, short circuit, etc. I'm fine with meta weighing Don't just weigh on 1 thing. When you got same impacts but dif mechanisms META WEIGH. WEIGHING IS IMPORTANT. Found this on someone paradigm i forgot who-

K/Theory: I HATE K'S WITH A DEEP PASSION, IF YOU USE ONE I WILL DROP YOU. THEY ARE STUPID AND USELESS. IF YOU DARE READ A THEORY IM GONNA FIND A WAY TO GIVE YOU NEGATIVE SPEAKS OR JUST GIVE YOU A 10 I DONT CARE IF TABROOM DOESN'T ALLOW IT. I WILL FIND A WAY.

Speed: I fine with talking fast, but don't spread. If I can't hear you I can't flow you. If you read faster than 300 wpm send me your speech doc.

Time: Keep your own time. Finishing your sentence is fine but I won't flow any other points after time. Also keep your own prep, im to lazy to sit there with a stopwatch. If you go over prep I will dock speaks. Please don't abuse time. I had teams go "im just finishing my flow" 20 seconds after a speech or making ff 4 min and making us interrupt them twice. Don't be like leaping learners please!

Other things:

Turns: If you want me to evaluate one you must extend it clearly with an impact. Dont just be like "they dropped this turn, vote aff."

Defense isn't sticky

disads bad

Speaks (speaker points):~~~~~~~~

I start you at 28

-speaks to fast= -1

-funny contention names= +1

-be rude= -3

-interesting to listen to= +1

-be not boring=+.5

30- rare

29- I will usually give out these if you are a great speaker.

28- Ig my average if your 28 and over you are great in my opinion

27- Still good don't feel too bad

26- get better lol

VOTING:

how i vote-

have a strong case, read turns please, don't drop things, don't randomly point out the other team dropped things. And if you read a turn about nuclear extinction wiping west Africa off the map you will instantly win.

more paradigms

Eshawnvie Kallu, Charlie Zhang, Aditi Kothari, Spoorthi Kakarla, Ella Liu, Aanya Baddela and Paheli Patel. On second thought don't read Ella's paradigm. aka a bunch of ppl who raged after harvard

follow my ig (real)

@uheartfdiona

Hi! My name is Anish Raja (you can call me Anish) and I will be judging you today (I hope). I consider myself what the debaters call the "tech judge". I will have had three years of debate experience come August of 2022. A few notes:

Please give off-time road maps! They're so much more help to a judge so take the time. 

I like to balance my decision heavily on weighing. It is crucial to my decision and if you want to win an impact, you need to weigh it. 

I also expect arguments to be responded to and if they aren't, you will lose that argument automatically. 

I am totally fine with debaters running theory, but just make sure it is relevant to the debate, and know that I may or may not factor the argument into my decision, so just make sure that it is a good use of your time.

I am okay with aggressiveness in crossfire or indeed in any part of the debate, so feel free to speak passionately about your case. Just don't yell. 

You can speak fast, but just don't make it so fast that it is incomprehensible to anybody in the round. 

PLEASE FRONTLINE! It's really good for you and it'll help your case and your speaker points a ton. 

Use all your prep. Even if you are totally done use all of it. Even if you use it just to sit, chill and play Pac-Man or whatever people do these days, use all of it. 

If you are going to read anything that could be distressing to any people within the round, read a trigger warning. I have seen several situations as an observer where a really good team lost a round because they didn't read a trigger warning. 

If anybody is uncomfortable with the debating environment, please inform me immediately on a private message. 

Some general rules:

I refuse to see any discrimination of any kind, whether it be based on race, sex, sexual orientation or identity, disability, or any others. 

No profanity of any kind (swearing or cussing in layman's terms). 

Any violation of any of the above rules will result in a forfeit unless I'm in a REALLY good mood. And I will be looking for these, so be careful.

And finally, as not just a judge, but as a debater, I would like to wish you the best of luck in your debating. Have fun!

PF debater for 4 years, so don't try to be sneaky in front of me. Enough said.

General

-Add me to email chain/any shared docs

-After reading this paradigm email me 'Sneha is better' hmm who knows maybe your speaks will be better(STRICTLY BEFORE ROUND)

-SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST

-Tech>Truth, I will buy anything if it's warranted/argued well

-Spread at your own risk, if I don't catch the argument I won't penalize the other team for not responding

-You probably don't hear this too often but I let you choose on whether I should be a tech or lay judge (be careful....each position has its spikes) - email me which one to do with the 'sneha is better' email

-Time your own speeches and prep

-Don't say 'I need 30 sec prep, starting...now', like stop just say running prep and don't waste time/steal prep by spending an ungodly amount of time setting the timer

-No discrimination of any kind, don't be rude, I will give your entire team L20s and report it to Tab/Coaches managing the tourno

-I will stop flowing ten seconds after the timer ends

-If you want to tell your opponents time's up during their speech, hold up the stopwatch and show them - don't interrupt them

-Don't misrepresent evidence, according to NSDA laws if you call out a team on fake ev and its true, you immediately lose and are reported sooooo... just don't.

-You probably don't hear this a ton either, but I have nothing against cuss words. Feel free to use them in your speech, BUT THERE ARE A FEW RULES:

-IT CANNOT BE DISCRIMINATORY OR HATEFUL AT ALL, OR I WILL REPORT YOU.

-YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE IT AGAINST PEOPLE, OR I WILL REPORT YOU.

-good example: and the impact is really ---

-bad example: my opponents are -------

Constructive:

-Squirrelly arguments are fine as long as they make sense

-Frameworks are cool, just make sure you extend it

Rebuttal

-Frontline if you're second speaker

-If you have extra time, briefly summarize your points(recap it, don't repeat the entire speech) and then weigh impacts

-This is your last chance to bring up any new arguments and evidence, so hit every argument your opponents make NOW

Summary

-Defense is not sticky, extend arguments and ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THEM

-Weigh impacts, if you don't weigh here I won't buy it in FF

-NO NEW EV

Final Focus

-Basically same as summary

-DO NOT ADD ANY NEW WEIGHING IN HERE, feel free to drop anything though

Cross

While I do pay attention in here, NOTHING goes onto my flow, and none of the things said impact decision. If you want me to remember that they contradicted themselves or literally anything else, bring it up in the next speech.

-You can be aggressive and polite at the same time, don't yell and start talking over one another, or I will dock speaks

Speaks:

-Auto 29.99 if you read the lyrics to baby shark in constructive and extend it, AND do a cartwheel and sing happy birthday in rebuttal

-I'll consider giving partial credit if you do some but not all

-I LOVE KPOP SO MAKE A REFERENCE AND +++++++++SPEAKS

-If you make me laugh/smile/make a joke in the round I'll reward you with speaks

-If you bring me food MORE SPEAKS

24-25.9 = you didn't know the order of the debate, didn't respond to anything,were rude and discriminatory, made me question my sanity, and I couldn't understand a word you said. I will 99.9999999999999999999% never give these out, but if you are the lucky person receiving this, know that it was intentional and definitely spend some time hitting speech pronunciation

26-26.9 = Still p bad, but slightly better than 24-25.9. I understood very few things you said and it wasn't an enjoyable experience for me to listen to your speech. Like 24-25.9, you will never get this unless the speech was actually really bad. The only main difference between them is that you get this one if I can tell that you're clearly trying to improve/be better (and if you're respectful to your opponents and me, I am the exact type of petty to vote against a way better team for the worst team ever just because the worse team was actually respectful).

27-27.9 = Not bad, you were a pretty good debater, I just didn't like the way you spoke, but it was for the most part understandable.

28-28.9 = This range is where I start everyone off, if you get this you were a really good debater, but you didn't really stand out to me. I understood the majority of the things you said, the speech was pretty good, but don't blend in, bring some more flavor into this round. Most people will get this, so if you have this, you didn't make me hate you, good job!!

29-29.9 = Good JOB!!! You were a REALLY REALLY REALLY GOOD debater, and there's probably just one thing you have to fix, which I'll go into in the round.

30 = If you're reading this, scroll up and reread the rest of the paradigm. It's even har????der to get this than 26, even the best speakers will probably get 29.9 at max(for context I do give out 28/29 like candy for good debaters, no 30s though) To get this, you did literally everything I said to do in the extra speaks section and every time you gave a speech I was immediately convinced and didn't question a thing you said(in short you were really persuasive). If you get this I think that you'll win the entire tournament easily.

With all that said, good luck guys!!! I look forward to judging you!

case:

good pace

if you're going to spread, send the speech doc

rebuttal:

frontline if you're the second rebuttal

try to respond to everything

if you drop something, just pray the other team doesn't notice it

summary:

go over your case, their case, then impact weigh

if you don't weigh in summary, you cannot weigh in ff

ff:

give me an overview

impact weigh

explain why you should win

voters

About Myself: I am a high school student and have been doing Public Forum debates for 4-5 years. I do debate at the varsity level however I prefer judging debate tournaments as I find this very intriguing. I prefer judging Public Forum (as I have the most experience in this), however, I am also familiar with and can judge Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate!

Things I care most about:

• Weighing
• Logic
• Warranting
• Technicality
• Understanding

I do not care about how fast you talk because I can keep up with it, however, your voice must be clear. Because if I cannot understand it then I will not be able to flow.

I expect all debaters to keep track of their own time, however, I will also be doing this. If your team runs out I will allow you to finish your speech however I will not flow anything after the time ends so anything after the time limit is not considered in my decision.

I treat all debaters equally and my decision is based purely on the ability of one to prove their case over the other teams. I hope everyone treats everyone with respect in any debate and I will not tolerate any rude comments or rage toward others during a round.

Hi! My name is Saanvi Sinha. I have debated Public Forum for 4 years. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to debate, so don't question me on my decision after round.

Non-negotiable, you being rude(sexism, racism. bullying, etc.) in round or before, results in a dent in your speaker points and most probably a loss.

Some general stuff, I will be keeping a timer, but I would recommend keeping your own timer. Please notify me of the amount of prep time just so that we can make sure we have no problems ("running prep", "30 seconds"). Just so you know, I don't flow crossfire, but if you address me, I will write it down. If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc before, otherwise rules below apply.

Be respectful at the end of the round, I know you might be sad about losing, but I still want to see a "Thanks for debating" or "Good debate" at the very least. As a judge, I give verbal feedback at the end of the round. Going verbally allows me to give you more in depth feedback, but if you are not okay with me doing so, please let me know before the round starts so I can type it up. Also, I usually like to give detailed feedback so that after every round you can improve as much as possible. What this means is that I don't think you are a bad debater, just everyone has room for improvement, so I like to point that out, rather than what you are good at.

My contact is saanvisinha261048@gmail.com, so you can contact me before round or before if you have a dying question that I didn't address after the round, but don't sell my information, thanks. Before the round, you can ask me any questions that you have about my paradigm (terminology and if I didn't address anything). I know I sound like a lot, I just don't want anyone to be confused about anything.

At this point, just scroll down to your division, and good luck for the round :)

Novice PF

1. Case- For most Novice students, they aren't allowed to create their own contentions. If you are allowed, I would ask that the contention is not too far-fetched, as you are only a novice student.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses. It is not required for the 2nd speaker to frontline (respond to responses), but I would definitely recommend it. If you do frontline, please frontline the turns. If you frontline, but don't frontline the turns, I might not buy your case and it would be difficult for you to win.

3. Summary- Summary must frontline on both sides if not done so in the earlier speeches. I would recommend extending responses, as I would know what I am voting on, but if you don't, I will still evaluate it. I consider a case extended if you frontline it or talk about it.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important. It isn't necessary to weigh in Novice, but I would definitely suggest it.

5. Speaking- Typically, Novices speak at a good speed, but if you don't clarity is more important. As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I don't usually call for cards, but if I do, I need you to have cards, or I will not evaluate it in the round. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I don't care about that point anymore.

If you have reached this point, tell me your favorite thing to do before the round starts for +0.3 speaker points.

JV PF

I don't like theory or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so don't waste time doing that.

1. Case- Some of y'all have more far fetched arguments. I would say stay out of the memes and focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses.

Try to implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn should have an impact or you need to weigh the turn, otherwise I'd probably evaluate it as offense.

For JV, I would want the second rebuttal to frontline at least the turns, or I will be extending them on your case. You do not have to respond to every single point, but I would like you to respond to the majority of the arguments, and at the very least, the turns.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You can try to respond to they're frontlines, but it isn't required, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended to again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Weighing is the most important thing in final focus, so please spend time weighing in the speech. Comparative weighing is preferred because it allows me to compare why I should weigh one type of weighing over the other.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point.

Varsity PF

I don't really like theories or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so maybe don't waste time doing that. If you have to read theory, just don't contradict yourself (ex. para but your cards are paraphrased).

1. Case- Some of y'all have far- fetched arguments. Focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments. This however, doesn't require it to be on a generic packet, I recommend you do that, but just don't lead to any sketchy or weird arguments. One thing to highlight, and this goes for any judge, if they aren't able to understand what your contention is about, it's not likely for a win, so keep that in mind.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, but just signpost if you don't. Implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn needs to have an impact or you need to weigh the turn otherwise it will not be evaluated as a turn, instead as offense. I'd prefer you respond to the impact, and not just cross-apply your responses on their link-ins. For Varsity, I require the second rebuttal to frontline (most of the responses) to the contentions you are extending, or I will be extending the responses on your case.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Make sure to extend impacts as well, I would recommend writing out how you are going to extend it so that's there's not a lot of "uhs" and "ums." Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You should respond to their frontlines that they made, because otherwise that's just extending through ink. I want to see why their frontline doesn't apply, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." By the way, weighing is not saying "our impacts are .... and their impacts are." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended on your case again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the most important things, so give me the voters of what you want me to vote on. Any offense and defense that you want me to focus on should me emphasized. Weighing is the most important thing in the speech, so please spend most of your time doing that. You must do comparative weighing in this speech. Please for my sanity, don't introduce new things in final focus. My ballot is pretty much already decided by summary speech, so it's not going to do anything, and just make me think of you/your partner as a bad debater/speaker.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point AND speaker points. You cannot miscut evidence after this much experience. There is the evidence out there, you have to put in the effort to look for it, and if it's really not out there, don't run the argument :)

*For time purposes, I underlined/bolded the most important things*

Pronouns: (he/him/his)

Hey y'all!

I am a flow judge, so I focus on the flow and the arguments extended and dropped. However, I do appreciate the big picture because that, overall, clears things up. I am the S in Lambert KS

Hard Rules:

1. No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, disclosing the wrong aff, lying about your disclosure, etc.

2. Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Everybody must stay comfortable during the debate.

Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you

---

~Speaking: Ok, here is the deal. If you spread it may be somewhat hard to keep up. If you see me drop my writing utensil, it means that you are speaking way too fast. I'll also yell "clear" if you don't notice.

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

<26 means you were offensive/rude

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal is obliged to frontline turns. If you don't, the opponent must call it out for me to make it a voter. However, please try to frontline everthing

~Summary/FF: Do what you want. Make it more big picture tho. Also, defense is not sticky

~Weighing: Please weigh impacts!! I care far less about buzzwords than teams making a comparison between link/impact stories. Try to start weighing in rebuttal.

~Importance of Weighing

- Pre-Req>Timeframe

- Timefram>Prob

- Prob>Mag

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

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

~Paraphrasing: Please try to read CUT CARDS. I will not vote you down if you paraphrase, but I will be unhappy. (This also includes your rebuttal speech).

~Evidence. Any evidence violation outlined in section 7.2 of the HS Unified Manual is grounds for me to give you a loss and nuke your speaker points, based on section 7.4. Here is a list of common evidentiary practices in PF that will result in this outcome

• Sending a link to a piece of evidence rather than a cut card in an email chain (and, in a related vein, telling your opponent to “ctrl-f” anything in a PDF or a website).
  
  

• Not including a citation when you send your opponent a random piece of evidence in an email chain (accidents are fine, but if you’re just sending a chunk of text without a citation and you don’t correct it if asked, no). A citation includes everything in section 7.1.C of the rules.
  
  

• Taking more than a minute to produce a piece of evidence. Obviously, this can fluctuate if the opponent calls for a lot of cards
  
  

If this happens for the first time, I'll just drop the argument. if it happens for the second time, I'll drop you. good norms is cool.

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

Extra Info:

- In my opinion, the summary is by far the most important speech in a debate

- I like indicts, so do it if you can. lol

- Sticky defense is bad (boohoo)

- Please do NOT call for like 20 cards. You don't need this. I know you just want free prep

- Turns are useless with at least a link and an impact. Turns with a uniqueness make it a lot better. If you do this, then you are a good debater. Also, if you spam turns, I get unhappy.

- Creative arguments I like – stupid ones I don’t. If you find a quality card that makes a unique argument, I’ll be a fan. If you’re stretching together a couple of words from 4 different blogs to make a unique argument, I will not be a fan.

- Read content/trigger warnings before reading something that could be potentially uncomfortable for opponents, and PLEASE CHANGE YOUR CASE IF YOUR OPPONENTS DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE CASES. This also applies to all the other speeches (rebuttal, summary, final focus). If you don't comply, then I will dock your speaks + auto drop you.

- I'm cool with framing and the "stockish" theories. I don't have as much experience with Kritik's though. However, I HATE Friv Theory, so don't run it. If one team brings up a theory argument in the round, then I will automatically look to that first (I don't care how wack it is). However, if I believe the theory debate is a wash, then I'll just be a normal tech judge who looks down the flow and see what arguments are the cleanest.

- No Tricks. Please.

- If you see me nodding my head, it doesn't mean that you made a good argument. I just do it because I feel like it. Don't take it into account.

- In all, be independent/responsible through the debate. I will be keeping time, but I also expect you to keep your own speech and prep time. Just let me know when you start/stop prep and don't go over the time limit, etc. I dislike it when debaters try to steal prep. I trust all of you debaters and good luck in your round!

- IDC about post rounding. If you think you got judge screwed, then tell me.

- +0.2 for disclosure OR sending a speech doc before both rebuttal and constructive, +0.2 for no paraphrasing

Good Luck Debaters!

I am a parent judge yet I have debated before. When I make my decisions, I look at each team closely and decide based on merit.

Good luck in your debates today! I am relatively new to judging but well versed in politics and history. I am looking for clear, concise arguments presented respectfully and succinctly. Ideal debaters will speak clearly and directly offering compelling arguments rooted in facts and backed by qualified sources. When in doubt, slow down and remember that sometimes less can be more.

UPDATED: September 8, 2023

Douglas Wong

Denmark High School

Philosophy:

I approach debates as a means of educational and intellectual growth for all participants. While I may have personal preferences, I strive to be as objective as possible in evaluating arguments. I believe in fairness, clarity, and respectful communication in the debate round.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to fairly assess the arguments presented in the round based on the debaters' performances. I will not intervene in the debate or inject my personal opinions into the decision-making process.

Argumentation:

I appreciate well-structured arguments that are supported by evidence and logic. Clarity in both speech and argumentation is essential. Debaters should warrant their claims and respond to opposing arguments effectively. While I value creativity, arguments should remain within the bounds of the debate format and rules.

Evidence:

I prefer quality over quantity when it comes to evidence. Debaters should cite credible sources, and evidence should be relevant to the arguments being made. Misrepresentation of evidence or its context is discouraged.

Cross-Examination:

I encourage active and respectful cross-examination. Debaters should ask clear and relevant questions and respond honestly to their opponent's inquiries. Cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify arguments and expose weaknesses.

Topicality:

Debates should adhere to the topic or resolution. I will evaluate whether the arguments presented are relevant to the motion and its interpretation. Counter-interpretations should be reasonable and well-justified.

Speaker Points:

Points are awarded based on argumentation, speaking skills, strategic choices, and overall performance. Clear, organized, and persuasive speaking will be rewarded.

Speed and Presentation:

Debaters are free to speak at the pace they are comfortable with, but clarity is crucial. Rapid delivery should not sacrifice comprehensibility. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand you, and it may affect your speaker points.

Respect:

Respectful behavior is expected from all participants. Rudeness, personal attacks, or discriminatory language will not be tolerated and may result in point deductions.

Flexibility:

While I have outlined my preferences, I am open to various debate styles and strategies. Adaptation to the specific round's context is valued.

Summary:

I understand that you are trying to get a lot of information into your argument and hence you will tend to talk quickly. I am okay with a little bit of speed. Please keep it reasonable or I might miss something. It is more important that I hear your entire argument and I am judging on quality. Make sure you are clear, and organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast, slow down.

Engage with each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on? If at the end of the round, I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please roadmap and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around if necessary but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at.

Follow a logical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, Counter-contentions, etc.

Arguments supported with evidence and good logic are more likely to get my ballot. You should try to explain it a bit more conversationally than you would in other forms of debate. Try to use a little less jargon here.

FOR NOVICES:

hi everyone! to win my ballot, you need to do a few things:

1. be thorough with extensions. this means in summary and final focus, you should be reexplaining your own case and defending it, reexplaining key responses to your opponent's case, and weighing. explain all your reasoning.
2. implicate! explain why your points matter and why they are important. if you have an important response, tell me what impact it has on the round and why it is so detrimental to your opponent's case.
3. no new cases or responses in summary or final focus.
4. 2nd rebuttal should frontline (defend against responses).
5. have good organization in your speeches and tell me what order you are going in and what you are about to do.
6. WEIGH!! in a scenario where both cases are true, why do your impacts matter more?

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

hi! i am a high school varsity debater with almost three years of experience in pf. overall: i consider myself somewhere between tech and flay in that i consider the flow but also don't evaluate tricks & have a low threshold for responses to weird arguments. but here are some more specifics:

general:

1. i prefer slower/clearer reading, but any speed is fine as long as you can send a doc
2. even though tech>truth overall, you still need to have good warranting in both case/response and extensions in the back half (i.e. making a one sentence response and extending it by saying "extend _ card" isn't a proper extension)
3. try to stay away from theory, k's, and other prog. because i won't be able to judge it well - especially tricks or frivolous theory because i have a bias against it
4. signpost and have clear organization of speeches or i will be super confused
5. keep your own time/prep time - i don't time your speeches but usually i time prep
6. i will call for any evidence i think is critical to the round
7. anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. loses you the round plus low speaks

front half:

1. frontline in 2nd response or it's dropped - even against weighing in 1st response
2. weigh your responses, especially turns & make them well warranted

back half:

1. extend everything you want me to consider in both summary and final focus (including case & impacts)
2. i love prereq, link-in, amplifier, & short circuit weighing but any is fine. if you're creative with your weighing i'm probably more likely to like it
3. no completely new arguments in summary or final focus or it won't be considered (besides frontlining in 1st summary & backlining)
4. metaweigh
5. make your weighing comparative - saying "we outweigh on magnitude because we save 100 million lives is not comparative
6. PLEASE collapse - it makes the round so much easier to judge

good luck y'all!

Hi! I've been debating public forum for 4 years now. Here are some of my preferences:

General:

1. As long as you're clear, I don't mind if you speak fast.

2. Warranting/explaining your arguments is really important and telling me how they impact the round will help you win.

3. Weighing also makes it easy for me to vote for you

4. I don't like super wacky arguments, but if you do run one, just make sure you explain it thoroughly so that a) it's harder for your opponents to respond and b) it makes it easier for me to follow along and buy your argument. However, you will win the argument if your opponent does not respond to it well (but this is unlikely).

5. Please tell me what you are responding to or talking about in your speeches.

6. Be respectful to your opponents; no racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc.

7. I would not like it if you read an argument about a group that is not part of your identity.

8. Ask for my email if you want to share ev.

9. Ask me if you have any questions before the round.

Rebuttal:

1. Weigh your turns (and other offense); even better if you implicate them

2. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal; otherwise, bringing up something completely new in 2nd summary is abusive

3. Please tell me exactly what you're responding to. Make sure you also talk about how your response is applicable to their case/this debate (implicate it); don't just read ev without warranting.

Summary/FF:

1. Extend all parts of your case and rebuttal that you want me to consider in the round.

2. Don't bring up any completely new arguments in 2nd summary besides weighing. 1st summary also shouldn't be bringing up completely new responses to the opponent's case, but frontlines are fine of course.

3. Frontlines shouldn't just be extensions of your case.

4. Anything said in final focus should have been in summary. Make sure you're extending the arguments/weighing/analysis you want me to evaluate on the flow.

5. Weighing is really important; make sure it's actually comparing you and your opponents' arguments. Don't just tell me the mechanism, actually explain how you're a pre-req or why you have greater probability, etc.

Tech

thanks