j three things -

Competition formality is kind of silly to me, I don't care what you wear in round or how you speak to me.

I did Nat circuit LD/PF for five-ish years in HS ; read whatever you want (pomo/Ks/policy/phil/theory/tricks)

I think we need to talk more about the political and economic state of the world

Email: maryabikaram@gmail.com

^^^for bad spreading, contacting me before round, and post-round feedback

flow judge

Cathedral, Emory | sarang.arun17@gmail.com

—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty, bear w. me please

—TLDR: Debate however you like, and I'll attempt to adapt to you - you can do everything/anything you want to do in front of me as long as it's clear. Fair warning though, I'm not really experienced with evaluating Ks or theory or really any progressive arguments but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate them: it just means you'll need to explain the nuances of your argument to me more. I did circuit PF in high school, and I think that's still pretty flay/tame compared to other events.

PF

—Defense is not sticky (explicitly call out drops), 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything that the 2nd speaking team wants to go for in the back half, offensive overviews are fine in 2nd rebuttal, good defense extensions > bad weighing <=> good weighing > bad defense extensions, weigh link-ins (link turns) when first read or I won't evaluate them, you don't need to extend author names when extending an argument, extend all levels of the link chain, I'll default to competing interps, yes RVIs but you must respond to no RVIs adequately if read, collapse or I'll be annoyed, speak slower because I really dislike speed (I have a hard time flowing speed because of auditory issues, where words get jumbled), everything must have a warrant, be kind to everybody in the round, if both teams win offense at the end of the round and don't weigh I'll intervene arbitrarily, disclosure is a good norm (+1 speaks), reading cut cards are a good norm (+1 speaks), I'll rarely presume neg/first (what I end up doing in a given round is subjective)—if I have to everyone's speaks are capped at 27, the median speaks I give out are 28s (so, if you disclose and read cut cards, you start out with a 30), & I'll disclose barring any specific requests.

—Add me to the email chain - no google docs for evidence please, people unshare them after rounds and that's a) unfair to the other team that actually debated in the round b) gross because all you did was cut/find said evidence - it's not your intellectual property so don't be stingy; if you make a google doc despite my request, I'll cap your speaks at 28.

—Content warnings are good and you should read them (within reason, use your better judgement) & barring a legitimate reason (like Wifi problems if we're online), I won't flow off a doc so adjust your speed accordingly. I will clear you twice before I stop flowing; take that as you will.

—have fun & breathe; you got this. Let me know how I can make the debate round more enjoyable for you.

debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld

few must-know notes:

1. add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

1. I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
2. extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
3. I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
4. default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
5. uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
6. im fluent in progressive argumentation. update: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.

things that get you really good speaks

1. analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
2. keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
3. judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
4. keeping the round running on time.

if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.

Sta 23'

I am a tech judge who has no debate experience whatsoever. 

I am strict on time. If you go even a millisecond over the designated speech time I will interject TIME! Also you will get 20 speaks.

If you mention Jasper Datta, Vikas Nanduri, or Davis Abrams in your speech you will get 30 speaks.

I don't flow cause i believe it wastes paper and hurts the environment, and I cant type very well so no more than 80 wpm. (sometimes my fingers hurt so I will let you know if i cant flow)

weigh but dont weigh. I hate comparison args that have nothing to do with another. If you weigh extinction comparatively with POC I will deadass drop you for clown behavior.

on prog args:

I honestly dont care so if you run this and the other team goes along with it than take your 50-50 chances cus ill be flipping a coin to determine the winner at the end of the round.

I only presume aff because I hate the current world we live in so any change is solvency in my lens.

do not ask me questions about my paradigm or i'll drop you. I hate questions

I hate cross

I hate overviews. They are just loser strats that give the team running them an advantage cus they cant debate other contentions. Dropped for framing as well. Observation are dumb also.

I hate off-time roadmaps. I like surprises.

If you ask me for an rfd at the end of the round I wont give you one. Go cry if you lost

LD:

no clue.

Policy:

pretend im lay please

Now onto the fun part: Allusions

Reference playboi carti- 30 speaks

Reference MLK- 30 speaks

Reference Donald trump or even cite ev from him-20 speaks

Reference Biden- dropped

Novices:

If you suck. Ill flip a coin or presume aff. (if im feeling generous ill do the latter)

I believe all novices need framing because they will just go all over the flow and never collapse.

30 speaks for novice framing.

Have fun!! not too much fun or ill drop you tho

Please dont report me to Jeffrey Miller . This is my only job

**After judging a good amount of rounds, I've noticed while "I am a flow judge," I almost always find that slightly slower, cleanly spoken, and big picture debating is more persuasive. The big picture almost always will win my flow** Take that how you will when you evaluate how flow or flay I am.

I debated six years for Boston Latin School, primarily during the whole expansion of online debate and on the national circuit. I've also taught at several camps and coached a couple debaters. You can read anything you want.

Paradigm

I used to have a really long paradigm but I realized it doesn't have to be so complex. The most basic idea of debate in my mind is breaking clash and warranting arguments. That's it. Every strategy whether that is a K, a theory shell, 20 turns off rebuttal, and 5 contentions should all strategize to answer 3 fundamental questions at the end of the round: 1. Why is this argument the most important argument in the round? 2. Does the argument have strong warranting and evidence? 3. Is this argument frontlined well enough to vote on?

*The only thing that I think will be helpful to you is how do I actually evaluate debate rounds?*

1. I'm looking at the deeper question or clash in the round and who is winning this debate. What I mean by this is that you should identify the implicit central issue that both sides are getting at. If one team says that, "US diplomacy will fail because it is overstretched" and another team says that "US diplomacy is important because we need to stop threats." This debate should focus slightly on whether the US should fiat diplomacy or not. However, it definitely should contextualize how strong the United States is and answer who are our adversaries and can we over come them. The United States' strength is an implicit question to the entire resolution and clash at hand. This is why I say I vote on the big picture.

2. On a more technical level, I look at who controls the best weighed link into the best weighed impact. I'll think to myself, "What are the main couple of arguments by the end of this round." Once I have these arguments, I'll either look to see if there's weighing or framework for an argument and look there, or if an argument simply has too much defense to be voted for. This usually narrows the flow into one to two arguments that are the most important ones. From there, it's typically a question of who has the stronger link story, better weighed impact and link, or cleaner link to vote for response wise.

Recognizing that the world, and also debate, is far more complex than two sides is how you start to win my ballot. Understanding nuance and why those nuances matter makes a good debater a great one. Finally, leveraging ballot directive language is key to being a persuasive speaker. Yes, I'm flow but debate is fundamentally a persuasion based activity - Don't forget that.

Email chain/Questions: andrewcheung168@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Andy (he/him)

Background:

I’m a senior debating for Summit (NJ) in PF for 4 years.

2x gold TOC qual (soph & jr yr) with 6 bids and a couple top-10 speaker awards (bronx & milo). I champed a bid tourney, semifinaled a couple others, and have broke at every bid tournament my junior and senior year.

My sophomore year I pretty much only read theory (when possible) and my junior year I pretty much only read policy. Do what you will with that information.

General:

Tech>Truth. I'll vote on anything as long as it has a warrant and is inclusive/safe.

Flex prep, open cross, and skipping grand are all cool with me.

Keep track of your own time, I won’t flow anything 5+ sec over.

Content:

I'm alright with speed, but not the best. Send a speech doc if going fast.

Second rebuttal must frontline all offense (turns) AND defense (on arguments you’re going for).

An argument is dropped if there are no responsive arguments in the subsequent speech.

Sticky defense isn’t real, extend through every backhalf speech.

I won't call ev unless I’m told to look at it. I may call ev out of curiosity (I want to steal it), but it won’t factor into my decision.

I’ll try to be as non-interventionist as possible, unless a lack of weighing, complete extensions, or clash resolution forces me to be.

I default neg on policy and first speaking team for on-balance topics. I won’t do the work for you and definitely won’t if presumption warrants have been read. For novices and non-varsity divisions I’d rather intervene and vote on marginal offense somewhere, but I’ll presume if told to do so

Comparative weighing is so important. Prereqs and short circuits are my favorite, and make sure to weigh link-ins and metaweigh competing mechanisms. Probability weighing is fine if it’s historical analysis, sketchy if it is clarity of link/impact. Good warrant comparison makes me very happy and will probably win you the ballot.

How I will evaluate weighing in an absence of metaweighing: Argument Interaction (short circuits, prereqs, link-ins) > Impact Comparison (magnitude, scope, severity, probability) > Clarity of link/impact > Non-Comparative Buzz Words

Often overlooked, but please resolve the risk of offense or terminal defense debate

Theory:

Like I said above, I've read a good amount of theory and I'm very comfortable evaluating these debates. I am a believer in open-source disclosure good and paraphrasing bad. I won't hack, but I'm inclined to give leeway to these shells.

I default to drop the debater, no reverse voting issues, and drop the debater

Kritiks:

I have debated both sides of the K and understand how they function in a round, but I'm less versed in K lit compared to theory.

I'm still working on this part of my paradigm, but if you're reading basic K's (fem, cap, securitization, militarization) assume I'm fine evaluating. You can ask me before the round as well.

Other Stuff:

Any actions/arguments that make this space unsafe will result in an auto L with lowest possible speaks.

I usually give really good speaks if you’re nice, funny, and the round is chill. Speaks start at 29.

TKOs are dumb, debate the round and if your opponent really has no path to the ballot, you should be able to take a creative backhalf strategy and win to get better speaks

Minimum 29.5 speaks if you open-source and don't paraphrase (lmk after round).

If you have any questions don’t be afraid to ask before/after the round, postrounding is fine if time allows

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

Hi, I'm Ben, and I'm a senior debating for Durham Academy. I've done debate for three years on both the local and national circuits.

He/Him Pronouns

add me to the email chain - benjaminshodges@gmail.com

TLDR - Flow judge, tech > truth, a little tired of the blippy state of flow, WARRANT PLEASE I BEG YOU

Be nice and respectful. Being rude and condescending will not make up for you not knowing how to make winning analysis and I will drop speaks. I understand debate can be stressful but try your best to make it fun. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

I evaluate rounds by first seeing what argument or impact the weighing being won is pointing me to and I see who has links into that weighing. I will not vote for an argument that has 100% conceded weighing if you aren't winning the link into the weighing. If both teams are winning links into the same weighing, I need link comparison, uniqueness comparison, etc. to break the clash

With that being said, I think weighing is overrated and prioritized way too much by judges. That's not to say it's not important. If both teams win substantial offense, I need weighing to evaluate the round, but if you are not winning a substantial link into your weighing, you can't just win off of weighing.

Everything has to be warranted and implicated in every speech and extended in the back half for me to vote on it. I will not vote for something that does not have a warrant regardless of whether it is pointed out. I'll only do this if its egregious, so I'll still vote for something a little under warranted provided the other team doesn't point it out.

Basically, read any argument you want. If you win the argument and weigh it well, I will vote for you.

Technical Stuff and Preferences:

No new arguments after 1st summary and you cannot add parts of an argument that were missing when you first read them. If an argument didn't have an internal link in case or rebuttal, it can't suddenly appear in summary. I'm quite picky about having parts of arguments when it comes to case. If you do not have a warrant in case, I'm not letting you materialize it out of thin air in rebuttal (assuming your opponents point it out).

I'm okay with speed. If you're going over 1050 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll need a doc to flow off of. Go faster than that at your own risk but I should do fine provided I have a doc.

The state of evidence in PF is really really bad. I won't vote off of evidence that is bad or unwarranted over a good, thought out analytic

Progressive Debate:

Not a big fan of theory but you are more than welcome to run it. I'll objectively evaluate most procedural theory like para and disclo and have experience debating it. I have a high threshold for theory and likely will not vote off of friv like shoes so don't be mad if I drop you for running that.

You can read Ks. I have a good bit of experience debating against them but not running them so please explain your literature and WARRANT it. So many K rounds I see have negative warranting and just devolve to the K team out spreading under warranted claims and attaching the word epistemological or pedagogical to different arguments without ever explaining to me the judge how I should be voting. Please give the issues Ks discuss the quality discussion they deserve, because when done right these can be some of the best debates.

Speaks:

I will try to make my speaks determinations based on your technical decision-making, organization, sign-posting etc ---- essentially how easy you make it for me to follow you and know how to vote. I will not make my determinations off fluency. As someone who struggled with stuttering a lot, I understand how speaks can punish people with different abilities and will try to stay away from that.

That's it. Have fun!

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

Did PF debate from 2020-2024

TLDR: I vote off of the least mitigated link into the most weighed impact.

Weigh comparatively. 9/10 times the team that wins the weighing wins the round. This doesn't mean repeating your impact and saying it's bad. This is showing me why your impact or your link is comparatively better than your opponent's. Framework must have warranting. Explain why your framework precludes all other weighing. Probability weighing isn't an excuse to read new defense. If nobody wins weighing, I vote on the strength of link of each of the cases and that never goes well.

Send speech docs if you want. If you don't send a speech doc and you spread, it's on you if I miss anything. I prefer slower rounds anyways.

Read theory as soon as the violation happens. No RVIs is dumb. I have no idea what reasonability means. I flow theory a lot slower than substance so send a doc if you are going anything faster than conversational.

Second rebuttal must frontline all offense and all defense on the argument you are going for. I have not seen a single round where this has not been possible. Also, don't be afraid to concede things, even offense. You can always weigh against it in summary.

Defense is not sticky. First summary must extend defense for me to evaluate it. However, if the defense has been dropped, I have a much lower threshold for the amount of work you need to do to extend it.

Debate in good faith, and your speaks will be fine. Don't blip spam, DA spam, miscut cards, or run friv theory with opponents that aren't your friends.

If both teams agree, I can evaluate the round on a different metric or change any part of my paradigm for that specific round.

I debated Public Forum for 4 years.

Most important: Please collapse and comparatively weigh your argument as early as possible! The more arguments I have to evaluate, the less likely you get the decision you want

Some specifics:

- Frontline ALL offense you plan to go for in 2nd rebuttal (and don't go for too much!!!). You can expand on frontlines in 2nd summary, but they should all be in rebuttal.

- Extending = explaining/summarizing your argument, not just reading the tagline

- I will evaluate K's and theory arguments but don't assume I know common jargon

- Content warnings are mandatory for potentially triggering content

- Misconstrued evidence will significantly lower your speaks even if it isn't important for my decision

- Skip grand cross for 1 minute of prep if both teams agree

- Be nice to each other and have fun!! I don't flow crossfire and the nicer you are the happier your speaks will be :)

Ask any questions you have about the decision if you want - it helps me improve as a judge. As long as you aren't rude :)

newton south’s subpar wifi deleted my paradigm ???? i echo emma chen & alicia gu, so read both ‼️

tldr: i've debated for acton-boxborough, on the local & nat. circuit, for 3 years (and hv debated at big lex every yr!!!)

if you are mean, you will leave w/ a 20

for the love of god, collapse; implicate; and weigh, but do NOT call me judge

NO card dump; it's atrocious

probability weighing is fake !!!!

+0.5 for every taylor swift or tiktok reference

30 if you hv candy for me AND follow @sammy_liu526 on instagram before round

feel free to fb message or email me (sivapriyamp@gmail.com) w/ any questions/concerns!

happy debating ????

He/Him

I debated PF for Bronx Science for four years. Treat me like your average flow judge.

Tech > Truth

Couple of things:

I'm fine with normal PF flow speed, just don't spread.

I like warranting. If you assert something and don't give me a reason for it, then it essentially means nothing. This applies to literally everything in the round. Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards.

Please weigh big bro ????????????

You must frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky, in summary you must extend even conceded defense & do the same in final.

I pay very little attention to crossfire and probably will be on my phone during it, so if something important is said/conceded just bring it up in a later speech.

No new info in final. New implications off of stuff already read is chill.

Please read content warnings. If you have even a shadow of a doubt as to whether you should or not, always air on the side of caution, we want debate to be a safe space.

Please be respectful in cross!

Progressive Stuff:

Theory: Only read if there is a genuine violation. Friv theory is stupid theory and you know it.

K's are very cool! Run them however you want about whatever you want, but I hate the 'academiazation' of critical arguments into a very rigid and complex structure. In the words of Noam Chomsky who, although is talking about philosophy, exclaims in a way I think K's today can often be described as which is “a way of insulating sectors of a kind of radical intelligentsia from popular movements and actual activism..." I find it ironic when a K calls for an upheaval of some preexisting flawed structure, and then literally is spread in the format of some jargon-y preexisting flawed structure.

If you genuinely do care about this argumentation you would want the average person to be able to engage and in a meaningful way. Don't get lost in the sauce.

And FINALLY:

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc I will stop the round, probably call you a terrible human being, immediately drop you, and make sure to slaughter your speaks.

Have fun! Bonus speaks if you say "I'm sorry thats just cap" in a SPEECH, or if you make a strong effort to cite non-western authors (I am sick of your Reuters and Carnegie Endowment evidence) especially on foreign policy resolutions.

Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy as part of Durham HP. Now I'm a freshman at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu AND taipeidocz@gmail.com

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.

General

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.

Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.

I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible. If you're going to go fast, slow down for the tags.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.

How I Evaluate

I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Prog

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments OR are in the varsity division of a TOC-bidding tournament. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

I default to competing interps and yes RVIs, you have to read No RVIs and reasonability with warrants if I'm going to vote on it.

Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE JUDGES WHEN I DEBATED: Gabe Rusk, Brian Gao, Bryce Pitrowski

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)

Senior and PF captain @ Bronx Science.

smirnovad@bxscience.edu (put me on the email chain)

I will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check-in time and if you do not show up preflowed.

If you don't cut your cards, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).

I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

General

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.

Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Metaweighing is great, do it.

I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.

Framing/Ks

I'm most familiar with SV framing, identity Ks (fem, asian, afropess, queer), cap and sec. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.

Theory

I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. That being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me".

If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (to quote Roy Tiefer, don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments).

Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)

Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev

Other things

Dont be rude lol

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.

Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene

How to get high speaks:

1. Use Taylor Swift lyrics in your speeches
2. Say "bffr" during probability weighing
3. Bring me skittles
4. Every time you say a turn in rebuttal you have to physically turn

Hi! I am a first year out and did debate for 6 years but I wouldn’t treat me as a flow judge.

I will flow the round

I will time your speeches and stop flowing around 10 seconds after your time is up

Don’t expect me to know anything about the topic

Logic > evidence

Let me know if you want feedback in person or on the ballot

If you want more information, my old paradigm is below.

——————————

First things first, please be respectful to your opponents, partner, and in general. If you are intentionally racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc. you will be dropped with low speaks. I know it can be unintentional, so if someone points it out, just apologize and don’t keep doing or saying it.

As for judging, I will try to adapt to your style the best I can. However, going fast and card dumping does not impress me because most of the time, they aren't implicated and there's no educational value. That being said, here are some general parameters.

- tech > truth to a degree, my willingness to vote for you will go away faster than typical tech judges if your argument is just blatantly not true. I feel like debate is more about education than just being a game

- I will flow the round and I can handle speed fairly well (but know that the faster you go, the less happy my 3 brain cells will be)

- Please collapse and WEIGH your arguments, I will like you even more if you do comparative weighing. So explain why your weighing is better than their weighing.

- I’m a huge fan of analytical responses and logic, if you can tell me why you’re right and your opponents are wrong with just logic, I think it is 100xs better than reading a card or block that doesn’t have any explanation

Progressive Arguments

- Please ensure your opponents are okay with running progressive arguments before round, as it can be incredibly exclusionary in public forum. If there is a serious violation during round, you may run theory in paragraph form.

- I have had some experience debating progressive args (mostly theory and krtiks) and will flow/try to understand them, but I will be less receptive than say policy or LD judges.

Show me that you care, but you don’t have to be incredibly serious and aggressive to win! If you have any other questions, you can ask me before round or email me (selinatang@college.harvard.edu)

hi! i'm currently a rising senior at flintridge prep in california. i've done pf since 7th grade and been on the national circuit since 9th. if you want to see how I did -> https://www.tabroom.com/index/results/team_results.mhtml?id1=707607&id2=707610. overall, I feel comfortable with most of everything in pf, but if you have one takeaway from my paradigm, it should be the following quote from my partner daniel zhao... "If you don't agree with anything in my paradigm its fine because if you win your justification for why your arguments are true in round I will pick you up" (tech>>>truth)

progressive args - I'm comfortable with judging theory. i read disclosure theory as a debater and know all the parts of a shell. with that being said, I'm better at debating it than judging it, so as long as you're clear and speaking around or below 200 wpm for theory, I should be good. with all this being said, i think disclosure and paraphrasing rounds are boring, and i'd rather not judge them. be more creative than that! for Kritiks, I've lost to identity K's 5/6 times i've hit them which should show you how much i understand the intricacies of them. i will evaluate your args as best as possible, and i likely know the args you are making, but just be slow and clear. tricks eek idek if that's how you spell them. i'll do my best fs

evidence - i do believe having good evidence is really important, so please don't just send your opponents a link or a non-cut card. with that being said, i never liked judges who cared so much about every little piece of evidence that they ignored everything else in the round. I'm not looking at your evidence unless it heavily influences my decision, but i might drop your speaks a little if we have to wait for you to cut a card because it wasn't cut before. in my opinion, good ev is important, but how both sides debate/use the ev is more important!

speed - send a doc if you're going fast. if you don't know if you're going fast, send a doc. with that being said, I'm still not the best in the world at flowing. I'm probably a 7/10. slower = safer. i consider 250 wpm pretty fast. docs and clarity are your best friends.

warrants - the MOST important thing in debate. explain explain explain. always explain. break the clash with warrants. have warrants for your responses, your internal links, your impacts, all of it! i care a lot about warrants. birds are fake. sure. why!

response stuff - defense is not sticky. i need everything extended in summary and final focus. a dropped turn is conceded offense. no new responses unless they are weighing or implicated from something else on the flow. a turn is not a turn unless it has an impact. even if that impact is just there impact, you have to say that.

weighing - SUPER important. weighing is what makes good debaters great. i love creative weighing. BUT...be clear with it. number your weighing if you're going to do a lot of it. if you want me to vote properly, do all the weighing for each argument under that argument not everywhere in every single place like "oh yeah this o/w too"

signpost please! off time roadmaps don't need to be 10 years long. just tell me where to start or the general direction

I'm most likely timing your speeches just because it helps me flow. i'll probably stop flowing when you finish your last idea that was still started in time. call out your opponents tho if they are going over!

attitudes - be funny. be lighthearted. be nice. don't be condescending. don't speak over your opponents. i want to LIKE you as a debater. make me like you.

if i'm on an elim panel with lay judges, please adapt to them, not me! i can watch any round and love a good lay round. fast debate will exclude the lay. slow debate will still include me.

i think the best debaters can go into the fastest round with TONS of arguments on the flow and give the slowest speeches. THAT is good debate. efficiency. strategic decisions. winning 10 pieces of offense is cool, but if you were unclear, you are jeopardizing the round because you might not have done enough work on a single one for me to feel comfy voting for you.

have fun!

he/him

PF:

add me to your email chain: Johnsondebateemail@gmail.com

I prefer all debaters to send speech docs with cards before each speech, case and rebuttal

TL;DR

Tabula rasa judge. I really like roadmaps and clear signpostings. For theories or K's to be evaluated, it must be explained very well. If you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. make sure to always extend and weigh. clean warranting is very important. Defense is sticky. Have cut cards ready to send.

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic.

Things I like:

Roadmaps and clear signpostings

Comparative weighing

Starting weighing in rebuttal

Parallelism in backhalf

Non-stock arguments (I like smart arguments, not frivolous arguments)

Things I don't like:

New responses or wEiGhiNg in grand cross because you undercovered the argument

New offensive overviews or DA dumps in second rebuttal

New responses to turns in second summary

Extending through ink or incomplete extensions

Being rude

Voting:

I default con for policy resolutions and first-speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm fine with TKOs but if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you lose with 25s

Progressive debate:

I evaluate theory, kritiks, LARP, performance, tricks, non-T kritiks, high theory, and basically anything.

You do not need to ask your opponents if they are comfortable with theory: "I don't know how to respond!" is not an actual response.

I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell.

General:

tech > truth. but my threshold for responses also decreases with the quality of the arguments made.

Second rebuttal must frontline, defense is sticky. if you want me to evaluate turns make sure to extend, implicate, and weigh throughout.

Extend offense and defense through summary and FF to be weighed. saying the word "extend" is not extending, you must explain your extensions. also make sure to weigh

Weighing is super important. If both sides have some risk of offence (which they usually do) I'll look to weighing. saying "we outweigh on magnitude isn't weighing because our impact is big" isn't weighing. Weighing must be interactive and try to start weighing early on.

I will not evaluate new material brought up in the backhalf except in first summary.

don't spam evidence, please explain why your evidence is preferable, don't just repeat your cards.

Worlds/Parli:

I make my decisions based on the flow, meaning I'll be more heavily convinced by good content than good style. However, I do evaluate truth>tech so please have good mechanization as well.

You should treat me as a person who is interested and generally knowledgeable in politics, philosophy, economics, etc

The burden of proofs and rejoinder always apply

I carry a slight bias towards liberal principles, ie free speech, democracy, believing that we have an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc

Please be realistic with your impacts, this is not pf.

Weighing is still very important. Debaters tend to be smart people and motions tend to be controversial. This means that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If you don't explain why your argument is more important than your opponents' points and they do, you will likely lose. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intuition. This is unpredictable. I am moody. You'll likely dislike my call. Don't do this.

Framing and characterization can help greatly with weighing and is just generally a good thing to do.

Overall:

Warrants/mechanisms are the most important in all formats of debate

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic

Feel free to ask me any specifics before the round

Most importantly, enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Follow @johnsonnwuu on Instagram for +0.5 speaks !

Flow judge

4 years PF at Leland

he/him

PF:

-Put me on the email chain: dxie18@gmail.com

-Frontline in second rebuttal

-Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh comparatively -- don't just say your impact is important, show why it's more important than your opponent's

-Give warrants. Don't just read statistics with no reasoning or warranting.

-Terminal defense > Weighing. make sure you at least access your impact in some way before weighing it

-Metaweigh, otherwise I'll probably just default to prereq/short circuit > link-in > everything else or evaluate based on mitigatory defense/whatever feels intuitive

-I don't like DAs that don't interact with the case at all but I'll evaluate them reluctantly

-Misconstrued evidence won't be evaluated and you'll probably lose speaks

-I really really prefer that you don't spread. I don't like flowing off a doc. I will evaluate spreading if you give me a doc but I'd rather not have to.

-Please time yourself.

-Tech > Truth. I'll vote on anything but keep in mind that crazy arguments that don't make a lot of sense are a lot easier for your opponents to respond to

-Don't be problematic

-I don't flow cross and won't vote on it. If something important happens in cross, it must be mentioned in speech for it to be on my flow.

-I don't like calling for cards. I will try to avoid calling for cards. MAKE MY JOB EASY, do the indicting and the evidence comparison in your speech. I will always try to evaluate evidence clashes solely based on what is said in the round, me calling for evidence should be the last last resort if I can't break a clash.

-If you want to concede defense to kick out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read, you should also explain why the defense takes out the turn

Progressive Arguments

-Theory and Ks: I'm not too familiar with them, especially Ks, but you can run them (sorry if I make the wrong decision though). I don't like friv theory but I won't hack against it

-No CPs/Tricks

Not PF:

-frontline in the speech after responses are made

-warrants please

PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY), freshman at Cornell, coach for Bergen County CM and Awty ZZ

TLDR: pls warrant and if nobody does GOOD comparative weighing I'll prefer the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact. At least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh.

For TOC: I’m gonna have a much higher threshold for extensions, warranting, and comparative weighing than I normally would throughout the season, teams have gotten WAY too lazy. also genuinely don’t care what you read, j send all docs.

add me to the email chain - vy.debate@gmail.com - send speech docs and I'll boost speaks

spec notes on how to adapt to me:

• "Fast PF speed" is fine - faster then 210wpm is when I start to have issues. Spread at your own risk bc tbh I suck at flowing off speech docs and will probably make a worse decision and be annoyed if you make me do so
• I hate blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on timeframe" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow. Bad weighing makes me sad
• Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense
• Extend warrants, not card names. chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what John said and I won't flow it
• Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, and terminal defense if you want to go for the arg later
• If you want me to vote on an Impact turn or rebuttal disad/adv it also need to have an impact and be weighed
• I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then ill tune in
• not having actual cut cards on hand = .5 drop in speaks

my rant about "probability" weighing
If you read new defense in summary or final and label it probability weighing I am docking ur speaks and will be saddened. A lot of probability weighing just isn't real weighing its just defense in disguise- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any "probability weighing" is just some sort of mitigatory or terminal defense so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal.

non-subs debate
Im good to eval any theory or K debate as long as speeches aren't spread (seriously don't trust me to eval a K round if I have to read everything off docs), yes trix are fun but like pls don't in front of me

most importantly, have fun! let me know how I can accommodate you in round in any way

Tech. Truth doesn’t exist.

For chain: 24zhaod@flintridgeprep.org

Read anything, debate is a game and games are fun when the players make the rules. Phil, Tricks, and Ks are welcome. LARP is great as well! Do you. Just do it well.

I enjoy fast rounds but any card read in round should be sent before the speech is given. If you don't agree with this, however, or anything in my paradigm, justify it in round and I'll vote for it if your opponents don't attack it well. Again, norms are set by the people debating. My role is merely to adjudicate.

However, I have to admit, I have two big biases.

1: I’m inclined to protect the first final focus but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate creative second final focuses, just that I should still be able to draw a line across my flow.

2: Evidence ethics is a voting issue that I believe uplayers most other offense. HOWEVER, I am very baised against evidence challenges. If you evidence challenge your opponent, I will have a very high bar for dropping them. The evidence needs to be TERRIBLE, made up, or DIRECTLY and VERY CLEARLY violate the NSDA rules description of challengable evidence. INSTEAD, just read an IVI and weigh it.

Also:

I need to understand your argument to vote for it and extending does just that. If your explanation of the argument was perfect in summary, then I don’t need it to be super long in final. But, a good extension shouldn’t just be a re-explanation of your argument but could also be used to win parts of the flow.

hi, i'm irene!! i did pf at sidwell for a few years. if you need help after the round or really anything, my email is irenezhao29@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain)

i am begging you to fully extend your offense (uniqueness, link, impact), then comparatively weigh it against your opponents' arguments. also, collapse: you only need 1 piece of good offense to win a round.

the current trend on the circuit of reading 6 billion contentions and dumping seven million incomprehensible responses in the front half and then pretending to "clarify it all" in the backhalf is really upsetting to me. i would much rather you have a narrative from the getgo and flesh it out throughout the round. i will not vote on blippy turns. turns, like all offense, need warranting and FULL EXTENSIONS (uniqueness, link, impact + weighing).

other stuff

a) nothing is sticky, 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

b) read trigger warnings/be tactful - please be nice!!!

c) not the best judge for prog stuff -- of course, willing to vote on any well-warranted, well-explained argument -- i just have very little jargon/bg knowledge. i tend to really dislike jargon-heavy theory debates + k debates where people are clearly just reading off backfiles.

d) there's nothing wrong with slow debate! i despise flowing off docs. LIKE ACTUALLY FLOWING OFF DOCS MAKES ME SAD

Senior @ Bronx Science

I flow and am tech > truth

Add me to email chain: zhouz@bxscience.edu

CHRISTMAS CHLASSIC: I know nothing about this topic so explain your arguments like how you would to a lay judge.

Most important things are to weigh, warrant, and signpost---make the round easy for me to evaluate. Cut your cards and time yourself. You can skip grand cross for 1 min prep. I also don't listen to cross so whatever you want me to evaluate must be in a speech. Don't go too fast pls, I'll prob miss stuff.

Anything related to prog, check Marina Gallo/Sinan Roumie’s paradigm I pretty much agree with everything

Speaker point boosts:

- Spin around every time you say "turn" +1

- Email sena@bxscience.edu "you're a rat" and provide proof +1

- If you guess my zodiac sign correctly before the round +1 (stolen from Tui Katoanga)

- In-person tournaments: bring me food or a drink! auto 30

Important:

Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/any type of -ist. This also means do not read impact turns or any arguments that are problematic in any way (i.e. gentrification good). If you do any of the above, I will give you L25.

Be nice to your opponents (and your partner, which I think is often understated). Don't be condescending pls.

Have fun! Debate is never that deep.