Don't be mean to your opponents. I will DQ you if you show bad sportsmanship. Please keep cross pleasant and talk clearly. Have fun.

please don't read a kritik, theory, or spread. i'm tired

Howdy

My name is Aakash.

If you do these three things I will probably vote for you

1) Explain your argument well

2) Weigh it clearly against the other arguments that pertinent in the round

3) Defend your argument well and win it relatively clearly

If you do these three things I will not vote for you

1) Read theory

2) Spread

3) Be racist/homophobic/ honestly anything that ends in an ic if you do it I probably won't vote for you

I will give you +0.25 speaker points if you tell me a fun fact about uganda. (this can be anything from a fact about its terrain to a fact about its political landscape)

Try your best and be kind!

About Me:

I'm Manank. Lynbrook '24. Some University '28. Did LD for 4 years, trad for 1, circuit for 3 but comfortable evaluating any type of debate except CX.

Email chain: manank.awesome@gmail.com

I do have biases and that's basically don't read phil and tricks and disclosure theory and don't assume I understand kritiks.

Trad LD/PF

I've got experience, tech > truth. do your thing, don't spread there's a reason why pf is different than policy and trad ld is different than circuit ld. ngl most of these rounds come down to who does better weighing so weigh!!!

Progressive/Circuit LD

Quick pref sheet:

Theory/T - 1

LARP/Policy - 2

Wacky/Different but understandable arguments: (friv theory, wipeout, soft left affs) - 2

Kritiks - 3

Phil - 5

Tricks (like eval, tt, that stuff) - Strike

General Debate Thoughts: Genuinely don't know why 2nr needs to collapse cuz its job is to make the 2ar impossible. However, I believe that collapsing can be strategic so you do you. Be nice. Don't be offensive. I'm not the best flower but if you're clear and not incredibly fast you'll be fine. Clipping is an L only if your opponent stakes the round on it and there is evidence. Weigh + good evidence comparison is a must. Have fun!

LARP/Policy: I can evaluate larp just fine. CP competition needs to be explained very well. Comparative weighing is highly appreciated. There is a thing called 0% risk, soft left affs and Ks should use this more vs extinction

Theory/T: What's friv theory? if theory is so bad answer it and use reasonability. Reasonability is legit underused. Most of my theory knowledge comes from Michael Harris

Default to DTD, CI, no RVI's, except dta on cp theory except condo.

I'm cool with RVI's (i still don't understand why people hate rvi's so much)

Went for this a ton in every year so pretty comfortable

Do standard weighing and voter weighing

Probably not gonna vote on disclosure/wiki theory

Kritiks/K Affs: Lol not great for these but if you can explain why extinction doesn't o/w and hijack the aff, then should be fine. I need a ton of explanation though because most K's just sound like a bunch of jargon ngl. Probably bad for identity K's, probably fine for cap, security, ir k's. I'm pretty bad for K affs because I believe there is a resolution for a reason. If you're able to answer T-FW well, then go for it but I am persuaded by T-fw a lot.

Phil: Most phil debates tend to just be blippy analytics, don't do that if you want to read phil in front of me. I'm still probably bad for substantive phil debates.

Tricks: No pls. Blippy args with terrible warrants are bad.

How to get good speaks:

make science puns

make debate ez to eval pls

be funny! I primarily did debate just to have fun and learned a ton along the way.

be smart + strategic

good impact calc + evidence comparison

No docbotted 2nr/2ar pls

From Soohyuk Yoon's paradigm: Give 2nr or 2ar off paper = +1 speak boost, Handshake after round = +0.3

I'm currently the G in Saratoga GJ and I've been doing PF for the past 6 years, but I only started debating on the national circuit 3 years ago. I've been to TOC and I love rounds that are highly technical and fast with good clash and in depth analysis.

For evidence exchange: add ashish.keebab@gmail.com to the chain. If you plan on reading any new evidence in a speech I expect it to be sent in a doc before the speech on the email chain.

Debate is a game and you should play to win, but remember it's just a game.

TL;DR

tech>truth. Run whatever you want, if you're racist, sexist (any type of -ist) I won't hesitate to drop you with the lowest speaks possible. I'll look to the weighing first when voting. I need warrants for everything, and the better the warrant, the better the argument. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions i.e. I need uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact extensions in the backhalf. No, I don't care about author names, but I do care about what your author says.

If anything in my paradigm is confusing: feel free to ask me before round, email me, or reach out to me on Facebook messenger. If you are still confused after reading this paradigm, I view the round pretty similarly to: Leonardo Jia, Aarush Kaboo, Ananth Menon, & Sully Mrkva.

Pls pls look at this it'll be the easiest round of ur life if you can follow the steps below(yes, this is straight from Ananth's paradigm)

How I evaluate:

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

-If team x is winning the weighing I look to their case first

-if team x winning their case, the round is over

-if team x is losing case, I look at team y case

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I presume neg

Speeches:

Signpost to let me know where you on the flow, otherwise you risk me not being able to understand your speech. Speed is totally fine as long as it's coherent, but remember I'm flowing off your speech, not the doc. I'll only look at evidence if you explicitly tell me to or if it seems that the entirety of the round is staked on a single card.

Cross:

Don't be rude please. I'm totally fine with flex prep and open cross, but tbh I don't really listen to cross. My favorite crosses are the ones which lighten up the mood and I'll def give you a speaks boost if that's the case. If both teams are ok with this, I'm willing to skip grand cross for a minute of prep time for both teams.

Rebuttal:

I like rebuttals that generate offense, but that said, every turn you read needs to be weighed (even better if the turn has uq too) otherwise I am more likely to treat the turn as terminal defense than offense. I think weighing yourself out of turns is a pretty neat strategy too. Second Rebuttal should frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined. I have no personal preference as to whether you should collapse or go for all of case in rebuttal, but whatever you do make sure you do it well.

Summary + Final Focus:

Your frontlines need to actually interact with the response, you can't just hand wave and tell me that their response isn't true, tell me why. Everything in final needs to be in summary.

Weighing:

I absolutely love good weighing. To read good weighing, make sure it's comparative(so you need to read actual warrants as to why I should prefer your mechanism). If you read a link-in I expect it to be weighed against their link too. If there are competing mechanisms in the round PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE metaweigh otherwise I am forced to intervene and here's how I will intervene if no one does any metaweighing: Magnitude>Probability>Timeframe>Any Other Mechanism. I'm not sure I even comprehend how strength of link functions, but if there is a conceded piece of offense I do think strength of link weighing is fair game (strength of link metaweighing would be even cooler).

Theory:

I typically never read theory, but I do know how to evaluate, so if that's your strat feel free to go for it. I default to no RVIs and competing interps, and I generally prefer that your shell isn't frivolous. The more frivolous the shell, the lower my threshold for responses and the more sympathetic I'll be to reasonability claims.

Kritiks:

I honestly would not trust myself to evaluate these debates especially if it's a performance kritik, so if you do read one please dumb it down for me. I'll do my best to evaluate, and if you explain it well enough we should be fine.

**Notes for Cal 2024

Please set up + include me on the email chain pre-round! allisonhsu@berkeley.edu

I haven't touched the circuit in a while and I'm not familiar with the Jan/Feb '24 topics, so please be light on topic-specific jargon and err on the side of over-explaining. Spreading is fine, but please slow down for analytics + if you see me stop flowing there's a good chance you're going too fast.

Judge instruction and weighing are very much appreciated and will be rewarded! Ideally, your last speech should be my RFD.

--

Hi, I'm Allison! I'm a former HSLD debater and current student at Cal.

When I was competing I mostly split my time between standard LARP cases and K's/Phil (mostly some variation of the Cap K). I haven't touched the circuit since ~2021, so my understanding of debate terminology will be from around that time.

I'd recommend you pref me if Cal is one of your first circuit tournaments, and you want to experiment with basic K's/Theory/Phil! I'd also love to judge a well-performed lay debate, if that's your jam.

+2 speaks for pictures of your pet in the constructive with a small bio about them

I am a junior in high school and a flow Judge who has done public forum debate for 6 years. DO NOT make any racist, sexist, purposefully misgendering, etc. comments though, otherwise, I'll drop you for it. If you're unsure if your case violates this part of my paradigm, don't run it.

• Squirrelly Arguments are fine just make sure to have a good link with proper warrants
• tech > truth
• not super well versed in Ks, FW, or tricks debate; run at your own risk
• speed is fine (but I'll have a little trouble with spreading), send speech docs pls

Speed: A little speed is okay but best you send a speech doc for everything (but especially so if you're spreading). Keep in mind that I don't have that much experience in fast rounds, so if you plan on spreading maybe reconsider. I'll flow anything you say as long as I can understand it. I'll say "clear" if I can't catch up or can't tell what you're saying. If you're not comfortable speaking super fast, don't be pressured to! Roadmaps and signposting are nice, so please do them to make it a lot easier for me to flow. I also recommend slowing down if you're debating online.

Timing: Please time yourself and keep track of your own and the other team's time/prep. I won't punish you if you're like 5-10 seconds over time but please don't abuse this. If your opponents do go overtime just raise your timer and I'll stop flowing.

Cross: I think that cross is an important part of the debate to test the validity of your opponent's args so please make this time worthwhile. That being said though, I won't flow cross, so if you find something critical in cross make sure to bring it up and substantiate it in one of your speeches.

Weighing/Impact Calculus: Start weighing/impact calc early in the round and extend it throughout the entire debate. Makes it easier to collapse and also get an idea of how to evaluate the round early on. Please weigh in the round and do comparative weighing don't just state your impacts so I know where to vote for. Weighing is a very easy way to win my ballot.

Extensions: Please Extend the Claim, Warrant, and Impact of your arguments and extend evidence by author/publication and date. If you bring up something in ff that wasn't extended in summary I will not evaluate it. Nothing new in ff please, extend what you need in summary.

Collapsing: Please collapse on the main arguments you are going for so the round doesn't become a bunch of offense and there is an actual clash of arguments. Collapse latest by summary.

Evidence: I will not call for evidence unless there is a lot of talk about it, a team wants me to look at their opponent's evidence, or I think it's really sketchy.

Speaks: I generally give high speaks as long as you are respectful during the round.

Have fun in the round!

Don't be bad. In the event that both teams are bad, I will vote for the debater(s) that are less bad. Ask any clarification questions in round.

Be persuasive without becoming emotional - maintain your composure throughout the debate. During cross-examination, ask meaningful questions that meaningfully contribute to the overall debate. Never personally attack your opponent or use any language not appropriate for this setting. Make sure to speak clearly and confidently - do not talk too fast and include a lot of undefined jargon.

Lynbrook 23

Most importantly, be nice and have fun.

FOR LSD CAMP:

Make smart arguments, keep track of your opponent's arguments, and compare the two. Let's keep calm and have some fun y'all! Oh and if you're in a higher lab don't try pulling any shenanigans to overwhelm a younger student.

FOR EVERYONE ELSE:

I'm a tech over truth judge committed to nonintervention but my experience debating has taught me that tech rounds more often than not devolve into antieducational contests gauging which teams can read the most amount of underdeveloped arguments. Although I am capable of sorting through a highly technical flow, I'd like to judge debates where teams engage on the warrant level with arguments and do smart analysis, contextualizing the round and the ballot in the back half. For reference, I think 2018 Nats Finals and 2022 TOC Finals are the pinnacles of Public Forum Debate. I prefer a nuanced, understandable, and productive round about the topic above all else.

My process of evaluating rounds:

1. Who's winning the weighing debate? Weighing determines which argument/s are to be evaluated first.

2. Evaluate the most important argument (as determined by the weighing). If you are winning this argument to be true, the round ends. Any WEIGHED turns on the most important issue also end the round.

3. Evaluate other miscellaneous pieces of offense.

4. Presume. I presume for the first speaking team; given the structural advantage going second gives teams, if you debated into a tie while speaking first, you did the better debating.

Specific Preferences

1. I am not a good flower so do not go too fast and BE CLEAR. I do not flow off docs since I intrinsically believe, along with many other debaters who have shaped my opinions, that debate is fundamentally a communication activity.

2. Do not read arguments that are nontopical. While I don't believe all nontopical arguments are antieducational writ large, I am unable to evaluate such rounds and believe I'd be doing you a disservice attempting to do so.

3. I won't call for evidence -- I believe that calling for evidence is the easiest way for a judge to intervene and it's functionally impossible to read evidence as a judge without introducing your own biases. As such, it is integral for debaters to do evidence comparison "Prefer our evidence/warrant because ____." Absent such comparison, that clash on the flow will simply be unresolved and I'll look elsewhere.

4. Warrants are infinitely more important than evidence. It is more important to understand your argument, even if you don't have an author explicitly spelling your argument out for you. Debate is not a game of internet rabbit-holes, but rather of logical persuasion. This also means I could care less whether you paraphrase or disclose.

5. Persuasive does not mean you can say "judge, we outweigh on probability because you know our argument is true in the real world" and call it a day.

Lynbrook'23

First ever Lynbrook NPDL TOC qualifier (2022)/ Captain my senior year

--------

FOR LYNBROOK SPEECH/DEBATE CAMP (Debate Week) PURPOSES:

I don't want to hear any spreading, theory, kritiks, phil, or techy jargon of the sort. (unless we have a top lab VS top lab round)

Run relatively lay/flay cases; stick to a basic CWI format, emphasize weighing, and highlight impacts/turns. 

Offering me a financial bribe prior to the round may OR may not influence victory.

Background: Have debated PF (and only PF) for multiple years on national circuit. In other words, I know PF well, and also judge based on PF conventions.

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

PF: 

Spreading: No

Kritiks: No

Theory: No

I really do not like theory (partially because of PTSD of losing to paraphrase theory) but also because I think it fundamentally goes against what PF is about. If you are going to read theory because your opponents are genuinely racist/homophobic and/or actually doing something that hurts debate, then I will keep an open mind. If you say you should win because paraphrasing will lead to the end of civilized discussion or because your opponents didn't respond in the exact 5 step process that is required, I really don't want to hear it.

Frontlining in Second Rebuttal: Yes

Summary to Final Focus Cohesion: Yes

Anything in final should be closely related to what was said in summary. If you bring up a new argument in summary or final, I will not consider it. Alternatively, if you expand on weighing you started in summary, that is alright. (FYI: I will generally give more leeway to first final)

Weighing: Required.

Extensions: Claim & Warrant (& impact if it is offense)

I need to know what your turn/defense/contention claims and the logical warranting/card behind it. If it is a contention, the impact should be extended as well for weighing purposes. 

I do not need you to extend specific evidence unless that is what you are arguing about. Even then, if you are referring to a piece of evidence I actually prefer you saying "the Baltic Sea card" instead of "Jefferson15", because it is likely i will not remember what Jefferson15 so crucially said (unless you repeat it enough). Rest assured however: If I do not know what card you were talking about at the end of the round then I will ask for it. 

Speaker Points: 25-30

If you get lower than a 25, you messed up big time

Email Chain: Don't add me.

If I need evidence, I will let you know at the end of the round. If there is an issue with evidence credibility/misuse, I will read the card myself. Tell me to call the card.

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

Any event that isn't PF: I'm sorry. This is going to be a tough round. Debate as if it is a lay round.

Use the stuff you learned from the camp

Dont use K's and Theory cuz like nah

Lynbrook '21 qualled to TOC, captain my senior year.

run crazy stuffffffff i like squirrely arguments (theory, Ks, nuke war good) - debates boring

note: if im judging u in the morning im probably extremely tired. pls adjust accordingly :))

namansinghal101@gmail.com

im not that well versed in the topic yet for palm classic: have not heard a single round on the topic

Conflicts: Potomac, Lynbrook

tech > truth

prog

go for it

ask questions in round if ur unsure

speaks

make smart, strategic choices and youll get good speaks

if u buy me coffee auto 30

note: try not to be aggro (i don't care about cross anyways)

skip gcx if u please, but im only willing to make it 1 min of prep (not 3)

Lynbrook 2023, LD & Policy, 4 bids senior year. Email: lynbrooklddisclosure@gmail.com

The type of debate I've researched and thought most about were Ks. I think I am best at evaling these debates. However, that being said I do not care what arguments you read, I've read policy and theory all throughout my career, despite the K side of me and enjoy all positions greatly.

Things you should do to win a debate:

- Michael Harris's paradigm is basically how I will judge the round. He was my coach

-A complete arg has a claim, warrant, and impact/implication

-Good impact calculus and evidence comparison

Like and don't like:

-Giving 2nr 2ar off paper is auto 1.0+ in speaks

-Shaking each other's hands after the round! It's a sign of respect and everyone should do it, no one does it anymore ;....0. If you shake hands afterward both get +0.3!!!

-Don't stall time to start a speech & spread clearly!

I've debated LD for a couple of years but mainly focus on extemp. I'm a flow judge so I like signposting and being organized with the flow. If I can't follow your flow, I'll stop flowing. Please do not go far overtime and I'll stop flowing after 5 seconds of grace period.

Please do not run theory, Ks, or topicality. Please do not spread.

I will vote on framework so make sure your impacts connect back to your framework. Please also extend your case and impact weigh heavily. Try your best not to drop cases, but I won't vote on drops if your opponent don't call it out. Lastly, be kind and respectful.