General:

L C Anderson '23, Emory '27

I competed in PF for 3 years on the national circuit

add me to the email chain: benjamincoleman05@gmail.com

tech > truth

do whatever u want as long as you’re not being a horrible person idc

go as fast as u want if you're clear enough but go MUCH slower if you're still paraphrasing for some reason

i’ll always disclose - postrounding is fine j be chill and not excessive.

SEND DOCS and if u cut out a lot of stuff send a marked doc after your speech. (a google doc does not count)

absent warrants otherwise, i presume first speaking team in pf

speaks will be good. i want u to break

Prefs Guide:

1: substance, esp if it’s fun / interesting / unique

1: T / non friv theory

2: most K (topic specific)

3: the same debate 6 rounds in a row

4: friv / tricks

5: performance

5: non-t aff

Specifics:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky

i won't evaluate new in the 2 and will attempt to protect first final if necessary

weighing is important but usually optional and i generally don't care as much as some other pf judges, u need to win the link to win the weighing

link weighing > impact weighing > no weighing

i don't care too much about extensions especially for conceded arguments but u obv still have to do it

impact turns are v fun but u should be extending your opponents link if going for them, if u don’t link i will be very sad :(

super blippy frontlining is impossible to flow especially if you're spreading so try to actually explain things. i have won rounds solely by doing this tho so obv it has its place, do it if u want just make sure i can flow it. also if u say things like "no warrant" i'm holding u to your response, u can't go up and explain why their warrant is false later

i don't flow cx, anything important should be brought up in speech but i do think cx is binding

if both teams agree i'm down to skip gcx for 1 min of prep (doesn't apply to novice pf or split panels)

Evidence + Ethics:

I don’t care about what your evidence says. I do care that both teams are able to engage with it.

if you insist on paraphrasing, at least be honest about it. own it. just fully paraphrase your case. be ready to debate theory though.

a case with 59 bracketed phrases including things like [for third-party moderation] and [unlawful activity] and “to p[reserve] profits” (yes i’ve actually seen this before) is paraphrased. a rhetoric doc with no cards anywhere to be found is paraphrased. i view those things as worse than paraphrasing because you’re being dishonest about it. please don’t lie.

taglines are not one word transitions like “currently” and “thus”, i can’t flow that. these kind of nitpicky things don’t matter as much when you’re going slower but if you’re spreading i need to be able to flow your arguments.

“rhetoric docs” are stupid and invite clipping bc your cuts usually don’t match the rhetoric. if u read off one of these i’m now requiring that u send both the doc you read from and the carded case to avoid things like this.

do not send me hyperlinks please i can’t look through that and neither can your opponents.

sorry for the rant. i’ve only ever given one team 25s and it was for doing everything i listed above in one round. if you insist on doing any of this PLEASE strike me.

Progressive Arguments:

my general rule of thumb is: if you're competing in varsity at a real circuit tournament, you should be able to handle progressive debate. anything else and you'll prob lose anyways bc you should get better at subs first

theory: default CI, no RVIs, spirit > text, DTD - read whatever shells you want, i'm very comfy evaluating

i won't inject my personal preferences in debate into theory rounds at all - while i do believe disclosure and cut cards are good, i'll vote for anything u can think of including args like theory bad

i really don’t like hearing debates about how small your school is especially if you have like 3 private coaches

IVIs are really stupid ESPECIALLY ev ethics IVIs, winning that is gonna be a massive uphill battle with me. shell format is nearly always better just bc most IVIs are super shifty and do not have explicit paradigm issues until the backhalf making them annoying to evaluate.

OCIs are good and circumvent the RVI debate

read theory immediately after the violation and answer your opponent's shell in the speech directly after it was read

u usually need a brightline for reasonability otherwise it can get tricky to evaluate but those args def have their place

I do not require trigger warnings. i will obv vote on a shell that says they’re good or bad but i do not think they improve debate in any way and are just used to exclude certain types of arguments. also it’s the real world triggering stuff happens j don’t be excessively graphic

K: fine just don't expect me to know your lit.

debate on the LBL, don't read 2 minute OVs and expect me to apply them everywhere on the flow.

don't spam jargon you don't understand because i likely won't either. if i can't explain smth back to you i won't vote on it.

this should be pretty obvious but don't paraphrase your k, u should also def be open sourcing these after they’re read bc they can get super unpredictable and shifty in pf

don’t spread random theory blocks off policy backfiles (u know who u are). idc if neg fiat is bad if they don’t fiat anything

i really like topic-specific k's like cap or sec with big stick impacts but anything is fine as long as u warrant it out. after judging enough shallow pf k rounds i’d like to say i’m a pretty good judge for them so do with that what u will.

Performance + Non-T Affs

prob don’t read these with me. most of u don’t know how to debate these in pf and will lose to t-fw bc you’re used to aff hacks and i am not one of them.

i also really don’t like to hear these bc a lot of pf teams kinda ignore the flow and get upset easily during these rounds when teams actually debate their arguments instead of conceding making them super painful to judge.

if u read a callout or smth at the beginning i will pretend to ignore it unless u try to garner offense off of it in which case i prob won't give it to u and you'll get 25 speaks. this is one of the few things i’m not completely tab on and i feel no shame about it.

if you want to read a k aff and think u can win, go ahead you can still obv pick up my ballot. if i enjoy the round i will be especially impressed.

to everybody: just have fun. i get it stressful rounds happen just try not to take it too seriously. after judging recently i realized i actually care a lot about how u guys do so i always put time into my decisions and love when teams ask me more questions after round. if you want any advice feel free to contact me whenever and i’ll be happy to help :)

pf debater at anderson

tech > truth

extend offense in summary and final

collapse in 2nd Rebuttal or first summary, don't go for too much

speed is fine, just make it coherent

share speech docs with me, email is samantha.saleen41@gmail.com

weigh weigh weigh, give as many reasons as you can to tell me why your impact matters more, just saying "timeframe" or "we outweigh on mag and scope" is not weighing.

feel free to ask any questions before the round

Speaks

Wont give below a 28 unless your being disrespectful or sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist in that case L 24's if the other team points it out

Progressive Argumentation

I know this is novice so you shouldn't be running this but if you are curious...

I will evaluate theory, but generally you should be able to prove to me why it makes the debate space better.

Inesh Nambiar (he/him) GWU '27

inesh1715@gmail.com add me on linkedin

Bold = tldr, Comic Sans = contextual info

speed is fine send doc or speak clear

don't get canceled anywhere near my round I hate paperwork and exclusion

tabula rasa!! (i.e. "nuke war good" uncontested = truth)

troll args get 30s lmfao, offensive args = L obvi

flexprep & give me a good ff

tagteam cross idc u hv choice in strat

chill w offcase don't spread I’ll throw my pen and scream. actually convince me if u rly wanna lol

On Ks: never evaluated non-t Ks. Explain it like the stupid beta cuck little pf debater I am (go slow, RoB, framing, etc) pls & tysm

gl hv fun

!!! CALL ME OUT IF I HARM/DISCOMFORT YOU!! I WILL NVR BE MAD. I IMPLORE U TO CRITIQUE ME bc I'm learning too !!!

Not as strict as Jouya but agree w a good amount of his philo (i.e. you prob won't lose the round bc you say "delink" but pls cut cards/disclose)

Hello! Put me on the email chain - kate.x.ren@gmail.com

I'm in my third year of PF debate at Westwood HS

-

Tech > Truth 

I believe in good evidence ethics - I will call for cards that are disputed, if it is misconstrued I will a) drop the ev and argument off of it and b) lower speaks.

Speed is ok only if you are clear - I most likely will be flowing on the computer. If you're going to go really fast and you know it, please tell me before the round starts so I can flow on paper at a pace that can catch all your arguments. I expect better analysis rather than just more substance with speed, and you should not be spreading for no reason. If I cannot hear it I will not evaluate it.

Speech docs please :)

WARRANTING IS IMPORTANT - having evidence does not mean you can get out of an actual link chain

I don't care what you wear, formal clothing doesn't matter to me

-

SPEECHES

Second rebuttal should frontline (and in best case scenario collapse, but at least collapse in summary)

PLEASE COLLAPSE - it allows for a better depth of an argument and more clash - frontline turns to kick out of case but if the other team drops it I will too

No new evidence or arguments after 1st summary

If you want me to evaluate it extend in both summary and final focus

Extend turns on their side of the flow

I don't flow/evaluate cross, if anything is conceded in cross, tell me in the following speech

Don't be mean - being sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. can lose you the round

-

THEORY

*Generally speaking, I believe paraphrasing is bad, cut cards good*

Small schools should learn how to debate theory; please read counter-interps.

-

Ks

Cannot guarantee I can evaluate it the way you'd like - that being said, I will (try to) evaluate K's.

i'm Nick, currently debating at Anderson

Add me to the chain: nicksharma114@gmail.com

tldr: normal pf tech judge

im good with speed, but you should be clear in all speeches, i should be able to flow and understand everything you say.

i love a round with a lot of clash on the flow, make a ton of arguments!

tell me where you are on the flow, lets keep it structured

frontline in second rebuttal

as many judges say, final focus should mirror summary, dont go new in the 2

weighing is very important! good link ins and pre reqs can win a losing round, need to win risk of offense though

theory is fine, but only actual abuses (ie disclo, paraphrasing, round reports, etc) nothing very friv pls

i dont know very much k lit but feel free to educate me in a round (although pf ks kinda suck most of the time)

Hi y'all! My name is Kaavya (she/her) and I graduated in 2024. I did PF for Anderson High School all 4 years of my highschool debate career.

Yes, I would love to be included in the email chain! My email is kaavyayal@gmail.com. This is also the best email to reach me if you have any questions after the round.

Tldr: Read the bold & underlined stuff

General:

1) +0.5 speaks if you bring me food

2) I don't care what you wear to round, I'm most likely showing up in sweats or a t-shirt and yoga pants

3)Speak slowly AND/OR send a speech doc to EVERYONE. I'm horrible with speed, so if you speak fast, send a doc and send it to EVERYONE so we can ALL follow along. There have been instances in my rounds where my opponents tried to send a doc to just the judge and not me or my partner. Don't be like that please. If your opponents aren't on the chain, then leave me out of it too.

4) I don't flow cross, I'm just getting my thoughts organized on my flow. If you brought something up in cross you want me to evaluate, then say it during a speech. But, I am still listening to cross, so please be respectful. I especially hate it when debaters are rude during cross and I will dock speaks accordingly.

5) Tech > truth I'll vote for pretty much anything y'all run, so read what you want EXCEPT for stuff any sort of discrimination good args (i.e. saying racism, sexism, homophobia, etc is good) or the patriarchy doesn't exist args.If the argument you're running might be triggering, I expect a trigger warning or it's an automatic L25.Speaking of, assume I don’t have topic knowledge, so please spell out any acronyms the first time you mention it so I know what you’re talking about.

6)Prog Args:

Novice PF: NO prog args in novice,or it's an L25. If you want to run prog args in novice, then LD or Policy might be your kind of vibe, but PF is not the right event to do that in.

Varsity PF:

FW: I'm fine with it.

Theory:Fine with theory. I'll evaluate pretty much whatever shell you read, but please make sure to have all the key parts of a shell and extend it like you would a regular arg. I don't expect you to extend the shell in rebuttal, but it MUST be in summary AND final focus for me to evaluate it.

Theory shells I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing, any sort of accessibility-related shells. BUT, PLEASE DON'T RUN THEORY IF IT'S OBVIOUS YOUR OPPONENTS ARE FRESH OUT OF NOVICE AND DON'T KNOW WHAT THEORY IS

Any other Prog args:My knowledge of prog args beyond FW and Theory is pretty limited, so run them at your own risk. I will evaluate literally anything as long as it's not harmful, so I'll believe anything you say if y'all do choose to run anything fancy.

7)Be nice!! I will dock speaks if you're rude, and yes this includes cross

8) Please please please give me an off-time road map before your speech starts and signpost as you go. In other words, tell me what order you're going to go in your speech (i.e. Aff, neg, weighing), and tell me in your speech when you are switching to a different argument. It doesn't have to be anything too fancy, but it helps me keep track of which arguments are responding to what.

9) Time your own speeches please. Speaking of which, please don't be that person that's really obnoxious about your opponents being overtime. I'd say that if they're 10 seconds overtime, then just hold of your stopwatch or something and if they keep going for more than 15 seconds, then just be like "Y'all, that's time" or something.

Speaks: Usually 29-30 unless you're rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. I'll try to leave detailed feedback in my balotts and give detailed oral RFD's as well

Speech by speech:

Constructive (no need for a roadmap here)- If you run stock arguments, you can go slightly fast, but make sure the contention names accurately reflect your argument so I know what the argument is. (i.e please don't call your arguments things like "smoking mirrors") If it's not a stock argument, plz go slow so I can understand it or at least send a doc.

Rebuttal: Please give me a roadmap (even if it's just "I'm going down their case"), but more importantly, signpost!! I can't emphasize enough how important signposting is!!

1st rebuttal: I don't care what you read here except for if it's novice, no prog arguments

2nd rebuttal: Make sure you frontline. I get it if you need to speak a little faster here, so send a speech doc and it should be fine

Summary:

General:

a) DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY!!! In other words, please extend your arguments, even if they weren't responded to, or else it will be considered dropped. On that note, if the argument you extend isn't responded to, PLEASE make sure you mention it

b) Weighing is super important, especially if both teams have similar impacts. I need to know why your argument is more important and why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents impact. Also, please give me some meta-weighing (explaining why one type of weighing is more important than the other) cause otherwise, idk which type of weighing to prioritize, which means I have to intervene, and there will definitely be some unhappy debaters

c)Please give me a road map and sign post , or I won’t be able to follow along. For the roadmap, please don’t say “my case, their case” just tell me which side your starting on (I.e aff, neg weighing)

1st Summary: This is arguably the hardest speech in the round cause there's a lot to cover, so I get it if you need to go fast. Just make sure you send a speech doc and please speak clearly.

2nd Summary: No new arguments or evidence here because that's unfair and abusive. If a team does this, please call them out in final focus cause I might miss it.

Final Focus:

1st Final: you don't have to extend everything from summary, but all the things that you do extend should have been in mentioned in summary. At this point in the round, absolutely no new arguments

2nd Final: Same thing as first final, and again don't bring up new stuff in second final focus, that's just cruel

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns! I would love to help! My email is at the top, but I'll include it here as well: kaavyayal@gmail.com