I've debated PF for the past 3 years and I'm in high school.

I know how to flow. I'm fine with spreading but it needs to be understandable. Make your contentions clear and make sure I know what your impact is throughout the entire round.

I think that crossfire is a great time to poke holes in your opponent's case. I won't flow crossfire but I will be listening. So, if you find a flaw in your opponent's case, make sure to bring it up and make it clear to me why that 'flaw' is important and impactful.

Remember to have fun and don't hesitate to ask questions!

Hello! I'm a sophomore at Walt Whitman High School! I've been debating for five years and like to consider myself a flow judge with a few quirks, but you could get away with calling me a flay judge at times.

Add me to the email chain! rsbarold@gmail.com

GENERAL NORMS

1. Be nice; the worst round I ever watched was finals at Apple Valley, where it got to a point where one team was being obnoxiously rude. If you're rude, I will certainly drop your speaks, and if it gets to a point where it's too much, I won't hesitate to stop the round and drop you immediately with 25s.
2. I don't care if you stand or sit for your speeches, but make sure you're projecting and you're not quiet.
3. Don't talk super fast, please; it gives me a headache and annoys me. Make your max 200 wpm. If it's online, make it less. If I can't hear you, I can't evaluate what you're saying.
4. Time yourself and your opponents, I will stop flowing when speech is over but it's your job to cut your opponents off after 10 seconds of overtime
5. If you have a speech doc, send it, it's just good norms
6. I'm usually pretty knowledgeable on the topic and the topic cards as I have likely debated it myself, so don't misconstrue cards
7. Evidence ethics are IMPORTANT!!! I have miscut many a card in my middle school days, but alas, those days are behind me. Don't paraphrase, don't miscut cards, and be open about evidence

SPEAKS

I start at 28.5 and change from there

1. Yet again, the number one thing is to be nice, if you're nice I'll up your speaks.
2. Know your stuff in cross, if you sound and act confident about what you're saying, I'll up your speaks
3. Fill up your time, don't leave me with 30 seconds on the clock, it looks bad. Just repeat what you're saying before in different words and sound confident
4. On the topic of confidence, BE CONFIDENT!!! If you make me think that you know everything about anything you're talking about it looks good to me, and this is a universal thing for every judge, it will increase your speaks!
5. Signpost!!! Do it too much, do it to the point where I'm annoyed. If you can annoy me by signposting so much I will give you 30 speaks.

CASE

1. 600-800 words is your sweet spot, don't read some 1000 word crap on me
2. Always send a speech doc in the email chain
3. Nothing blippy please, just read fully fleshed out contentions

REBUTTAL

1. signpost.
2. 2nd rebuttal MUST frontline, if it's not frontlined I'm gonna have a REALLY low threshold for responses to it
3. If you really want to impress me start weighing in rebuttal, it'll vastly increase your chance of winning.
4. Turns would make me smile, I like to run them and I like to judge them

SUMMARY

1. gonna say it again, signpost.
2. Nothing new in 2nd summary, but do as you please in 1st summary
3. If you don't weigh you're inviting me to intervene in the round
4. EXTEND YOUR CASE AND ALL OFFENSE AND MAKE IT CLEAR (If you're collapsing on turns reallllly explain all your links)
5. collapse. Please stop running five different arguments in summary, it's too much and you do not have the time to extend all of it
6. Voters summaries are my favorite, I like to do them and they make me happy

FINAL FOCUS

1. yet again, signpost.
2. WEIGHHHHHHHHHHHH. If you're weighing you're already ahead in the round.
3. Collapse further from summary and really hone in on what you want to extend
4. Extend all offense clearly
5. Final focus is the last thing I'm hearing, be perceptually dominate.

THEORY

I'll evaluate most theory, but if it's some crap like card clipping theory I will have a super low threshold for responses and anything I view ridiculous will land you with some pretty low speaks

1. Only meme the round with funny theory if your opponent has agreed to it
2. My threshold for theory is high, if you're running it make it good theory. Don't run some blippy crap in rebuttal and then blow it up in summary (cough cough Apple Valley finals, I really hated that round)
3. My general world view is that paraphrasing is pretty bad, so paraphrasing theory wouldn't be the worst thing to run on me
4. Don't run theory in the novice division please, your opponents may not even know what it is let alone how to respond. If you're running theory in novice it's gonna take a LOT of work to win
5. Disclosure theory is fine, but don't go into hyper specific norms, like "disclosure can't be open source!" only run this if they fully don't disclose

PROG

I've never run a K before and may not be the greatest at judging them.

1. Topical Ks I understand, and I wouldn't mind judging one
2. Non-topical Ks (cough cough fem rage) I'd be less likely to enjoy judging, and I would take pretty much any response as terminal
3. most Ks involve spreading, but modify your K to a point where it's not spreading.

OTHER

1. I will always disclose my decision, it may take some time to decide but as a debater it makes me mad beyond belief when judges don't disclose so I won't do that to you
2. Most feedback will be verbal, take notes or at least look like you're taking notes, that's a good norm for all RFDs in your future
3. Have fun! Debate is a fun space and shouldn't be taken too seriously and shouldn't have hard feelings.
4. Chat with your opponents before round, make friends, get people's phone numbers. Before every round I make a point to talk to my opponents and make friends, cuz that's what it's all about!
5. You can post round me and ask questions, but my decision won't change. I love it when people ask question after round on how to get better, it's the best way to improve!
6. Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm, I know it can be a lot
7. To everyone who's read this whole paradigm, one little tip that if you use in your final focus I'll give you 30 speaks is to give 20 seconds to just giving an overview of sorts on everything in the round, just tell me whats going on. I learned it from Crawford Leavoy, and it's proved extremely helpful.

Sorry for making you all read this, but knowing your judge is a huge thing in debate !!! See you in round!

lay judge

will evaluate all arguments (tricks, friv theory, K's etc.)

no bigotry

Paradigm:

I prefer traditional debate, and have only debated Public Forum.

I can follow fast paces, but I prefer that you make your words clear instead of mumbling or messing up while going for speed.

For everyone’s openings, I expect everyone to say their contentions and warrants clearly, just for organization purposes. I’m not that lenient if you go off time, so please make sure that it is 4 minutes or less.

For rebuttal and summary, I expect everyone to speak clearly and to have organization. I prefer to have a roadmap for your rebuttal or summary so that I can track your arguments better. I expect to have some weighing in these arguments.

For final focus, I expect everyone to weigh a lot, and to actually summarize the whole debate. I also expect some kind of organization.

I don’t care too much if you go off time, but if you go more than 10 seconds off, that’s a little bit concerning for me.

Hey guys,

I'm a high school varsity pf debater

my email: cleo@4-outdoor.com

meet all of the criteria and ill vote for you-

BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, pls don't be rude during cross, don't interrupt the other teams. I will take away 1 sp for every interruption. Also, don't go over time, I will be timing you

I absolutely hate environmental/global warming arguments, do not run them

Triggering content is fine- a simple warning before constructive is enough for me

Speed: Speed is alright but doesn't go super fast (your words must still be legible) or I'll stop flowing

Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine, but you have to be able to find the original sources and quotes fast: I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO INTERVENE FOR EVIDENCE so don't run blatant false or bad evidence, be ethical

Weighing: Start weighing as soon as possible, I prefer magnitude impacts, but also be creative- surprise me, I am also partial to moral weighing....take that as you will

im also partial to prereqs sooooo take that as you will

start collapsing in rebuttal- and extend that to final focus-- provide a clear picture of the round, tell me why I should vote for you, also I want a clear narrative make sure both of your speakers are on the same page

For 2nd rebuttal, respond to claims made in the first rebuttal. Use evidence to support your rebuttals, Im fine with logical arguments but don't rely on them fully

On final focus- weigh a ton, and extend impacts from summary

Theory: Stupid stuff is fine +5 speaks if you can make me laugh

K's: pls spare me

on speaks

30: ur amazing

29: ur pretty good

28: getting there :)

27: eh

26: u made a few errors

25: u really messed up some crucial elements of the round

0: you defended racism, sexism or like bad things

HAVE FUN GUYS!

Hello! I have a lot of experience judging/competing in many debate categories. I tend to be a technical judge that votes on the flow.

hi! I debate pf for Poolesville HL, toc qual x2

Please add me to the email chain: leavy.hu8@gmail.com

--

-I do not have background knowledge in this topic, so treat me flay; please explain things

-tech > truth

-please signpost for me!

-offtime roadmaps are very much appreciated

-don't misconstrue your ev.

-comparatively weigh- ex. not just "our impact is big" but "our impact is bigger b/c x y z"

-speed is fine, but quality>quantity always. you should collapse in summary!

-2nd rebuttal should frontline 1st offense

-be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and I will tank your speaks (so please be nice!!)

-most importantly: have fun!!

theory/prog args: not really comfy evaluating them

bye

Email: georgialevine@gmail.com

^ please put me on the email chains, feel free to contact with either if you need something, like speaks or whatnot

THIS IS A LONG PARADIGM AND I PUT A QUICK TL;DR BUT I RECOMMEND YOU SKIM THE FULL THING

Background on me:

• she/her

• Varsity debater (3 years of modified parli, 3 years of PF)

• HS senior

• I always disclose and give rfd (time permitting)

• I've been judging for 3 years

• I’m tech > truth so call people out on incorrect things, don't just assume that I'll intervene

TL;DR (I recommend you actually read/skim the full thing though)

Frontline in second rebuttal, you can run theory but not Ks, you can talk fast but don't spread, weigh!!!, trigger warnings if applicable

Round things:

No: (as in put "don't" in front of all of these)

• Frontline in second summary instead of second rebuttal. I know it’stechnically allowed but it’s not good debating, don't do it.

• Run Ks; tbh I do not understand how these are run well enough for you to be able to successfully run them with me, so just don't.

• Expect me to flow what you say during cross. If it's important, say it in a speech (cross does affect speaks, though!)

• Read possibly triggering content without trigger warnings. Please read trigger warnings before the speech if needed and offer an opt-out, it's an important norm to set!

Yes:

• Talking fast is fine (but don't spread, which I define as 300wpm. Stay at like ~250wpm or so max please! Especially with topic-specific abbreviations/terms, if it's r1 of the tournament or early in the month I might not know right away!)

• Weigh. Please don't make me do this myself, use clear and signposted weighing mechanisms that actually compare your cases (do not be 'two ships passing in the night'! interact!)

• Off-time roadmaps aren’t required and I’m not gonna take off speaks if you don’t do them, but for summary especially it’s nice to know what part of the flow you’re starting on

• Signpost! If you're just reading a straight block of text without any headlines or sign posting it is 10x easier for me to miss a response. Number & name your responses! (i.e. "on contention 1, I have 3 responses. first is a de-link [blah blah blah]")

• Repeat data points in multiple speeches if they're important

• Use warranting/analytics, not just random cards that don’t explain why something is true/false

• Running theory is fine (I'm not always the biggest fan of disclosure/paraphrase but if you're a real believer in it then feel free to run it and, as long as it's argued well, I won't just vote against it!)

• Also, defense is sticky (so you don't have to extend defense 2nd summary if you don't wanna waste time)

How to get speaks: (default to 28)

• Let your opponent talk in cross

• +0.5 (i.e. default to 28.5) - Tell me your favorite anything (ice cream flavor, color, movie/show, song, etc.) before the round so I know you read this (you can tell me on zoom chat if you'd prefer)

Hi! I'm Ishan and I'll probably be your judge. I don't have a lot of preferences about style, so this paradigm will be short (if you still have any questions, feel free to ask before round!).

Case

First off, it's going to be helpful if you signpost. Make sure to label your contentions and announce verbally if you are moving onto another contention. If you don't do this, I'll probably catch what you're talking about, but I'll be jumping around the flow when making a decision (something which probably won't help you).

I can handle speed but make sure not to spread. Somewhere between 750-900 words is good.

Rebuttal

I don't have many stylistic preferences on rebuttal but again,make sure to signpost. If you cite evidence, give me an author and a year so I know where it's from. On second rebuttal, make sure to frontline.

Summary

Make sure to extend a contention and start comparative weighing. Weighing makes my job much easier, and it allows me to understand why I prioritize your argument over the opponents.

FF

make sure to weigh. when making a decision good weighing is going to win you the round most of the time, so dedicate a good chunk of time focusing on weighing. again, comparative weighing is probably the most beneficial since it tells me why I should prioritize your case over theirs. don't just throw around magnitude, probability, scope, etc. like buzzwords. Tell me why you outweigh on a certain factor and explain the reasoning behind it.

Cross

Pretty standard, make sure to be respectful and don't shout. Make sure that grand cross doesn't turn into a shouting match.

other:

if you call for cards make an email chain and include me in it.

make sure to time yourself when giving speeches + prep. It's ok if you go up to 10 seconds over time, but when it's more than that I'll have to intervene.

don't introduce new contentions + responses in final focus and summary. if you do, I won't vote on it.

Hello,

I am currently a junior in high school. I do public forum debate myself.

I believe evidence is important, but so is analysis. I don't want to see cards just listed without having their significance explained relative to the resolution. I also emphasize weighing impacts, it plays a large factor in my decision. When weighing, don't simply say "I win on magnitude"/"I win on topicality."Explain your weighing mechanisms. Why are your impacts more important?

I certainly prefer is you signpost/give an off-time roadmap before your speeches.

I think it's best to collapse on the most important contentions, so then a fleshed-out narrative can be formed by the end of the found.

As obvious, this is a formal debate. Don't be rude to your opponents.

And remember, have fun!

-Urja Saha

If you have any questions about my paradigm, my experience, how I judge the round, or anything at all, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

IMPORTANT INFO:

BACKGROUND/INTRO:

Hi, i'm Swati Singh, a freshman at Dougherty Valley High school! I've done public forum debate for 3 years now, and LD a year prior to joining Public Forum. I am a flow/tech judge. I am definitely a tech>truth.

EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: If you are sharing any evidence I would like you to add me to your email chain. I will not read any evidence sent to me in the chat, so create a chain and send the cards there. Furthermore, if I find any evidence sketchy I will call for it so be prepared to send it to me.

EMAIL: swati.singh6608@gmail.com

BASIC NORMS:

-Be nice; Debate is all about respectfully rebutting your opponents and trying to persuade your point, it is not about demeaning other people or being disrespectful to them in any way. If you are disrespectfully, I will drop your speaks down to 25.

- It doesn't matter to me if you speak standing up or sitting down, as long as you project your voice loudly.

- I am fine with spreading as long as you aren't completely mumbling. If I can't understand you I will ask you to send me the case and I will also call you out for it. (In most cases I wouldn't recommend you spread, as there isn't a need to do it during PF debate.)

- I will be timing you, but I expect you to be timing yourself and your opponents. If you go overtime, I will stop flowing what you say, but I will allow the 10 seconds after the timer rings.

- DO NOT MISCONSTRUE CARDS/EVIDENCE!! I have debate experience and I do look at the evidence cards that you send, so do not misconstrue the cards. DON'T PARAPHRASE YOUR CARDS. Maintain evidence ethics and I do expect you to not paraphrase or miscut your cards.

BALLOT/RFD: I shouldn't have to do any work for deciding who I should vote on. You should be telling me what I should write for my RFD during your final focus. I love disclosing and telling people what they could improve on, I will give oral RFD's as I prefer that and I can talk to everyone at once. If you do have any questions on any of my comments please feel free to email me and I will gladly explain it to you.

PET PEEVES:

- bringing up new things in 2nd ff and abusing your power as the 2nd speaker team with the last word

- being extremely aggressive, rude, or using derogatory language to the opponents (especially during cross)

- constantly going over time, abusing the grace period after the time, and not doing anything about it

SPEECHES/TIMINGS:

Constructives: Squirrely arguments should be smart and logical, not just uncommon. and the link evidence better be strong.

1st Rebuttal: SIGNPOST!! Signposting is very important and if you don't, this makes the debate messier. Don't just dump responses in first rebuttal, make sure turns are weighed and defense is explained.

2nd rebuttal: SIGNPOST!! Just like I said for the 1st rebuttal, it is very important for you to signpost and it makes it easier for the debate to go more smoothly. Frontline, no excuses. Even if its collapsing and only responding to turns, but tell me your conceding the defense.

1st summary: Collapse. you do not have enough time in pf to extend everything. MAKE SURE YOU WEIGH!! IF YOU DON'T WEIGH LIFE IS GONNA BE A LOT TOUGHER FOR YOU AND ME.

2nd summary: You must collapse and extend what your partner said in rebuttal. no changing round strategy at this point. you can elaborate and weigh frontlines from 2nd rebuttal. Don't bring up new frontlines to defense dropped in 2nd rebuttal. MAKE SURE YOU WEIGH!! IF YOU DON'T WEIGH, LIFE IS GONNA BE A LOT TOUGHER FOR YOU AND ME.

1st final focus: If you bring up new responses, i won't vote off of it. if you don't extend something through summary that was brought up in rebuttal, i won't take it either. Also won't take new weighing that wasn't in 1st summary.

2nd final focus: I won't take new responses or weighing. and as a flow judge, i can tell if you're bringing up a bunch of new responses and abusing the power of being the 2nd speaking team whom has the last word. if you do that, expect low speaks.

Weighing: Don't just weigh out your own impacts, make sure you weigh using your opponents impacts. Please use the different kinds of weighing (magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc.), this makes the speech and my ballot so much easier for me to vote for your team.

Off Time Roadmaps: YESS!! Please give me an off time roadmap, they are really helpful for flowing and just knowing what you are talking about.

Cross: I don't flow cross, though if there is something you want me to write down on my flow, please say it in the next speech. Again do not be aggressive during cross to your opponents as that will affect your speaker points.

OTHER:

- Have Fun!! Debate is all about the experience and learning, please remember to have fun and enjoy the competition.

Thank you for reading this whole paradigm, I hope you did because knowing your judges style of debate and preferences are great to develop as a debater during rounds as well as judge-appealing for the future!

Hope to have a good round!!

I'm working on restructuring this. We're all aware it looks a bit silly. So some parts might be out of place, but I want to put them in here.

Some updated things to know:
No, you don't have to adapt your strategy to be more K heavy because my paradigm has a furby. In fact, I will be annoyed if you seem to pander.
Along this vein - I wouldn't consider myself a K hack. I find more and more that I am very comfortable voting on conceded procedurals. To me, "this theory argument doesn't matter/isn't good" as a one-sentence response with no warrants is categorically conceding it. But this goes from procedurals generally, and isn't really very K-related in my mind.
I prefer flowing off the speech unless I can't, so I might not notice clipping. Feel free to challenge.
If you are going for a K, the 2NR should make some commitment to explaining your alt.
My topic knowledge is literature-heavy, jargon, not so much. This is to say, please don't rename their DA to another name you've heard for it because this gets a bit confusing to me during roadmaps. Just call it what it was in the 1NC and I will be a happy camper.
I really like weighing debates, especially at the impact level. Link debates I feel require intervention far more often.
More and more I feel like being a good judge means being a lazy judge - not as far as flowing, I try to take the flow extremely seriously. I more find that the more I consider my own philosophy in a decision, the more I worry I'm intervening. That being said, tabula rasa probably isn't possible - my philosophy is a bit less predictable than other judges. I have tried to annotate the consequential things up here. If you're completing TOC prefs and have questions, feel free to email.

Last Update 04/20 (eyo) - Policy debaters, you're in the right spot. PF, scroll down to the bottom for the relevant section.

Sections:
(1) About Me; (2) a section about keeping debates safe; (3) how I give speaker points; (4) a disclaimer about my side bias for neg; (5) my thoughts on K's; (6) general thoughts on evidence/weighing; and (7) a PF section. If you don't care about these things specifically, there is no reason to read the rest of my paradigm. Unless maybe you're bored, but I'd say a game of chess would be a better way to alleviate that. lichess.org is a good place for that.

TLDR: I'll find the cleanest path to the ballot on the flow. Tech >>> Truth. Don't be violent, make debate an educational activity and I'll probably be a good judge for you.

abigailnspencer[at]gmail.com.

(1) About Me
Coaching: University of Chicago Lab, South Shore, Potomac Debate Academy
Formerly: McDade Classical, Lindblom, Phillips Exeter, SWSDI

Competed in NDT/CEDA policy debate and AFA-NIET speech (Arizona State). Top 10 NSDA point earners '20. I've done most events. I can flow. I did a lot of hybrid partnerships, so I've run arguments across the spectrum. Performance, trad, it's all cool.

(2) PLEASE BE A GOOD HUMAN
Disclaimer: I do not give you a W or higher speaker points for respecting pronouns. I think that respecting pronouns is a good way to make debate a safe and welcoming space. If you want to know my values, read my debate background. I am tired of being treated like a judge who will vote for you just because you asked for your opp's pronouns.

that being said, you should use they/them pronouns for anyone who has not disclosed otherwise in your round. I'm seeing an influx of trans debaters cling to this activity as a safe space - don't be what shatters that.

there's also an unspoken imbalance in the accessibility of pronoun disclosure. it takes 10 seconds to update your bio to tell the homies you're cis. for trans debaters this decision carries all the weight in the world and isn't always instantaneous. not disclosing pronouns does not mean you do not care. it is often because it is not safe to do so.

make debates safe before you make them winnable. your words may just change someone's life.

(3) Things that I give high speaks for:
Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness- in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole.

Also, I am always impressed by good topic knowledge. I don't expect this, since topics are broad and you're not required to be an expert, but for me I will definitely bump up speaks if you clearly know a lot about this topic from your research.

Finally, I don't really care about how you speak/where you speak in the room. I don't care about eye contact. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do kind of dislike when people "end prep" and then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.

Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky.

(4) am I BIASED??? (not clickbait)
I've been voting neg a lot recently. I'm not a neg hack, but I think a lot of affs forget how easy it is to vote neg and not intervene when the aff isn't weighed against the status quo. Please extend your impacts! An overview that's even 30 seconds in the 2AR is critical to explaining why the aff is a good idea if you want me to vote for it.

I am finding more and more debates decided during the last speech on each side. I think debates can totally be won or lost earlier, but I'm just not seeing that at the hs level. This is all to say - frame, frame, frame. Cool debaters have cool voters. I vote on the flow and I don't necessarily care that a card or two were dropped, unless you want to explain why it loses the debate. Spend less time extending cards and more time telling me why you win and they lose - I crave judge intervention less than you do, trust me.

(5) Your name makes you sound like a neolib, but you have college policy experience...can I read my K?
I fall into the category of K debater that appreciates a good K but has a visceral reaction to a bad one. I don't see the same novelty most judges do in your performance, I'm sorry. I hit a sex worker/call girl rage performance in college and since then I've realized that anything can happen in these rounds. Please don't assume that me having K experience means reading a K is the best strategy. I will totally vote for your K, but I will hold you to defending it properly and explaining how you solve your impacts - especially if you want me to accept a non-traditional ROB, like "always vote for this K, no matter what."

Essentially, debate the way you want to and I'll evaluate accordingly.

THE DEFAULT IS debate is a game, you win on the flow. You can read another interp though, I'll evaluate whatever you tell me debate is.

(6) The other, less interesting debate stuff you should know.
I will warn that coming from Policy I'm a bit sussed out by why the one card they dropped is more important than all the other work they did on your flow. Do not expect me to do the work for you. I'm looking for the cleanest path to the ballot, but please explain why I should vote on something. Conceded offense probably isn't great for you, but if you just extend a dropped turn that wasn't ever fleshed out and they're winning case, it comes down to who does the better comparative. Framework debates are cool.

You make my job so much easier when you define an aff world against a neg world. What actually happens when the resolution is "passed"? I don't want to re-read your link story after the round, and I'm more likely to believe it hearing it in summary and final focus than I am when critically evaluating my flow. Extend impacts, they won't do it by themselves (trust me).

Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.

Don't use unnecessary jargon. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.

Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.

(7) PF gets a tiny lil spot here
1. I coach/teach classes in ES and MS PF - even though I judge policy more often, I'm very familiar with PF as an event and don't expect you to act like high schoolers or policy debaters. Don't get overwhelmed by my paradigm! I can judge you.

2. Weighing arguments in summary/final focus is essential for me, more than any other thing. Weighing just means comparing your case to theirs and specifically telling me why I vote for you and not them. Just because your arguments are good isn't enough; I need to know why they're better.

3. Crossfire is not a speech, so if you make a good attack on their argument in cross that you want me to evaluate on the flow, bring it up in your next speech.

4. Extensions can be simple, I just need to know you haven't forgotten your case - like, you don't have to rexplain your whole case in every speech, but it also doesn't look good if you spend so much time responding to what they ay that you don't talk about your case after constructive.

(8) I know I didn't put this in my roadmap, so this is a top secret section...Middle School Debate!
Who am I kidding...middle schoolers don't read paradigms. But then again, does anyone anymore?

READ THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PARADIGM

sorry for disorganization

Qualifications: 3 yrs PF, ½ yr Parliamentary

Name/Pronouns: Vyshakh Thejaswi, He/Him

I know what the topic is. Don't spend time explaining it.

I will be flowing, but if your opponent does not respond to some of your arguments and you do not specifically bring it up, it will not affect my decision

I want to hear exactly why you win this debate.

Walk me through your linkchain for like ~20 seconds in your summary.

For the most part, if your opponents say something like “the sky is green because there are a lot of trees,” I will believe them unless you prove them wrong. (I will not believe that the sky is green, I have functioning eyes and a iq higher than 4.8)

Number your responses in Rebuttal, please signpost/offtime roadmaps

Use statistics, but bring up common sense and logic especially in FF and Summary, use more pathos in FF.

I will not be weighing on crossfire, if something happens in crossfire and you want it to affect my decision, you must bring it up in a speech.

BE AGGRESSIVE BUT DO NOT BE RUDE

Please do not attack the person, attack the arguments

If you would like me to check a card after the round, bring it up to me directly after the round ends. I will not be asking for cards myself.

I will be doing analysis of my own, but it will not affect my decision. If I do not hear it in the round, I will not weigh on it.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! Please explain why your impacts are more important through Timeframe, Magnitude, Likeliness and Uniqueness.

I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, etc. If I see this, you will not win.

If you pronounce Nuclear “nyoo-kyoo-ler” or Reuters “rooters” I will be sad.

I will be very lenient on time, but if you go blatantly over time, I will stop flowing. Opponents, if I stop flowing, you do not need to respond to those arguments.

If you say something like “they did not respond to argument X” when they very clearly responded to argument X, it will not look good for you. Same goes for lying.

If you are taking too long to find a card, I will let you know and start running your prep. I am strict on prep time.

If the argument is boring, I will not listen.

Give me the big picture in FF.

Do not make it a debate about rules, definitions, etc. If you start that, it will not look good.

Things like hand gestures, volume and stuff will not affect my ballots, but it will help your speaks.

If you want me to especially notice something, put some emphasis when you are saying it.

It's ok to talk fast, but it should be understandable. Don't be an eminem wannabe.

flow judge

weigh

signpost

keep track of your own speech times and prep