don't have to ask if I'm ready for your speech

Did Nat circuit LD/PF for five years read whatever you want (pomo/Ks/policy/phil/theory/tricks)

Email: maryabikaram@gmail.com

^^^for bad spreading and post-round feedback

flow judge

Cathedral/St.Albans | Emory

—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty.

— I don’t really have a judging “philosophy” butdebate 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, relatively slow (I won’t’ flow off a speech doc ever lol), and coherent. Feel free to ask me questions before round if you’re wondering my opinion & preflow ahead of time so we can get started. Thanks, and have fun.

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 08/17/2024: 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

I debated for Boston Latin for 6 years, qualifying to the NSDAs, NCFLs, and TOCs a couple times. I broke at those tournaments in PF, Congress, Worlds, and Policy. Now, I'm a current student at Harvard.

Paradigm: My paradigm is pretty simple. I'm a standard tech judge, and will evaluate 99.5% of all arguments you read which includes theory, Ks, and tricks. I place heavy emphasis on warranting, clash-breaking, and issue recognition i.e. being able to understand the underlying clash in the round or between arguments. Fundamentally, you need to win the strongest link into the strongest impact and how I should view the round.

Some things to avoid: Avoid being mean or overly aggressive. I'll probably be somewhat biased against a team that runs tricks, and vote on educational/fairness arguments against them. I won't really use a speech doc in PF. Speed can be fast but it should be understandable.

Final thing to note: I very often will vote for the team that wins the single most important perspective, world view, or argument in the round. Most judges don't say it, but typically they can explain their decision in one sentence. That one sentence and line of reasoning is critical to how I vote. Debaters get too caught up in the line by line or small arguments like indicts to see the bigger picture - If you win that larger view of the round, you will almost certainly win my ballot.

I started a couple initiatives or led them through out my career as well. Check them out, all of them contain helpful resources for Public Forum debaters.

Outreach Debate: https://www.outreachdebate.com/

Libertas Debate: https://www.libertasdebate.com/

Public Forum Discord:https://discord.gg/CNVj2KG9f8

Email chain/Questions: andrewcheung168@gmail.com

Hi I'm Andy (he/him). I debated for Summit in New Jersey in PF for 4 years. Next year, I'll be a freshman at Claremont McKenna studying government and economics.

Background:

3x TOC qual with 6 bids and a multiple top-10 speaker awards. I champed a bid tourney, semifinaled a couple others, and broke at every bid tournament my junior and senior year.

My sophomore year I pretty much only read theory (when possible), my junior year I pretty much only read policy, and my senior year I burned out so I didn't really compete. Do what you will with that information.

General:

TLDR: Tech>Truth. I'll vote on anything as long as it has a warrant and is inclusive/safe. I am purposefully lazy on the flow and will not do any work for you.

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.

I probably won't be listening to cross so any concessions should be explained in the next speech.

Content:

I'm alright with speed, but not the best. Send a speech doc if going fast (250 wpm+).

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 (aka I want to steal it), but it won’t factor into my decision.

I’ll try to be as non-interventionist as possible and will not do the work for you, so a lack of weighing, complete extensions, or clash resolution means I am more than willing to presume.

I default neg on policy and first speaking team for on-balance topics. However, I love good presumption warrants and think that they can be a creative tech strat. 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 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

Theory:

Like I said above, I've read a good amount of theory and I'm very comfortable evaluating these debates. I read and believe in open-source disclosure good and paraphrasing bad.

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

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. When I debated, I was comfortable evaluating, but keep in mind that I am extremely washed and have not been keeping up with how the K has been changing in PF.

I'm still working on this part of my paradigm, but if you're reading basic K's (fem rage/killjoy, 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).

Auto 30s if you bring me iced coffee(black). I'm not kidding.

If you have any questions don’t be afraid to ask before/after the round

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, debated nat circ pf for 3 years, coaching + judging since. now junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club. if i'm judging in person you can assume i've done topic prep.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.comto the chain.

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid/bad judge for theory. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way.

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
k aff (non-t k): 4
theory: 4
IVI: 5
tricks: strike

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1. pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

3. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

4. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

5. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at.

6. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

7. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

8. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. if you want me to read a piece of evidence and cross it off my flow, tell me and i will. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.

** theory:

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs are not 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. which means that to me, i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do a little more.

6. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. happy to vote for k aff if T is beat (have many times).

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

Hi, I'm Ben (He/Him). I debated for Durham Academy on the local and national circuit for 3 years.

• add me to the email chain - hodgesdebate@gmail.com

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

• Evidence misconstruction and power tagging when egregious IS A VOTING ISSUE. If you call out your opponents for egregious evidence I am likely to drop them for it.

• Keep track of speech, prep, and cross time.

If I look tired and sad in-round, I'm not mad at you I just have a naturally frowny face. Ignore it :)

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.

I have a rant about this at the bottom of my paradigm if you want to read it.

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

Technical Stuff and Preferences (please read):

Arguments must be fully extended in summary and final for me to vote on them. I will drop arguments if they have awful extensions or just say "this causes prolif which causes war" without extending any of the warrants of your argument. If your opponents give incomplete extensions, call it out and I'll be very likely to consider it terminal defense if bad.

I am not good with speed, especially online. If you're going over 1000 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll have trouble. You need to be very careful and slow down for signposting and tags. I WILL NOT FLOW OFF A DOC. If you are very clear, I can handle decent PF speed but I am warning you now that if you go above 250, there's a good chance I may miss arguments you make, particularly if you are unclear.

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 not letting you materialize it out of thin air.

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.

Rant about weighing and the state of probability in PF (don't need to read):

As I started talking about above, I think the state of the value placed on weighing in PF is really bad and is taking away from the activity. Very broadly, I believe that defense is under-valued by teams and judges and weighing over-valued. More and more judges have stopped believing terminal defense exists or valuing near-terminal defense, awarding ballots for teams who win weighing (most often a timeframe short circuit into extinction) but have wildly improbable arguments and/or an incredibly mitigated argument. I don't believe proving your argument is theoretically more important should be an excuse to write poor arguments or win off of arguments that have been extensively responded to.

HOWEVER, you need to make this analysis yourself and do reasoning for why probability should come first or why an argument having incredibly low probability should trump it having a short timeframe into extinction --- I will not make this analysis for you or intervene against a team with a heavily mitigated argument just because I want to.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying you should do "probability weighing" and make new responses in second summary but rather that you should emphasize the strength of your defense on your opponents case and make the argument that heavily mitigated or terminally mitigated arguments should not be voted on simply because of weighing. Just saying an argument is low probability does not make it so.

Yes, probability is subjective, but debate is about persuasion and refutation, not just comparison, and I think teams spending more time explaining why their responses are strong enough to warrant me evaluating them irrespective of certain weighing mechanisms at hand is educational. If you make the analysis in-round and win that analysis, I'll vote for you. On the flip side, if you can compellingly argue magnitude > probability or 1% risk arguments > higher prob arguments, go ahead.

That's it. Have fun!

Charles Oliveira da Silva^[1](born 17 October 1989) is a Brazilian professionalmixed martial artist^[5]and fourth degree black beltBrazilian jiu-jitsu practitioner.^[a]

Oliveira started training Brazilian jiu-jitsu in his youth, achieving multiple championship titles before transitioning to MMA in 2007.^[5][8]Oliveira currently competes in theLightweight division of theUltimate Fighting Championship (UFC), where he is the formerUFC Lightweight Champion. Oliveira holds multiple UFC records, notably themost submission wins in the organization's history at 16,most finishes at 20 andmost bonuses at 19.^[9][10]

"We upped its fine - util>kant" - my debate partner (2024)

Did PF debate from 2020-2024, idk anything about the topic

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 strength of link 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 carsonmichel69@gmail.com

4 Yrs PF Debate @ Bronx Science, TOC 2021, 2022, 2023.

PF Debate Coach @ Stuyvesant High School

APDA Debater @ Columbia

Tech > Truth

Couple of things:

I'm fine with pretty fast speeds, if it's too fast then I will ask for a speech doc. Spreading not so much.

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/norm you care about. Friv theory is stupid theory and you know it.

K's are very cool! Run them however you want about whatever you want. Respond however you want T, KvK, idc, etc.

I will say however that 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.

Tricks are not debate. They never will be. Don't read that sht in front of me.

What this means is that I don't think K's have to be structured like: Theory of Power, Impact, Alt, FW, etc. I think they can read in whatever structure they want to be, that if anything makes the K stronger.

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.

I did PF for four years at Durham Academy. I'm a sophomore at NYU Stern, and I coach for Charlotte Latin.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu and charlottelatindebate@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. I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing.

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, 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 AND IMPLICATE. please. Nothing new past summary.

Cross is binding, but bring it up in speech if something important happens.

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.

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.

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. 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 in the speech immediately following the violation.

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.

Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Good Ks are really good, and bad Ks are REALLY bad. 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.

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com & evanburkeen@yale.edu - 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
• Flay Judge

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and 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 (all evidence included) 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. Update: I will have a higher threshold for explanations - I am not going to reread ur K link card - if your explanation and implication of your literature isn't sufficient you will not get my ballot.
• 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.
• More efficient the round the better the speaks for both teams (GCX is skippable).
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.
• 30 Speaks Theory = 27

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

FOR NYCFL BRONX: I have no policy experience. Plz debate accordingly

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

Freshman @ Columbia, previous PF captain @ Bronx Science.

dmsmirnova1@gmail.com (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.

I like SV and I ran it a lot when I was a debater.

Ks

I'm most familiar with non-T identity Ks (fem, asian, queer), cap and sec. I read non-T fem on the circuit. 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 (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

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

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 college freshman and coach for the National Debate Club. https://www.nationaldebate.club/ i started pf in 7th grade and went to over 40 national circuit tournaments (qualified to gold toc and nats 4 times) my email is sienna@nationaldebate.club

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 alllll the time, so as long as you're being clear, 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. if you explain things like why your weighing matters or why the thing you're going for wins you the round, i'll be good, but i need you to hold my hand through it. 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 and/or you ask me to, 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. i consider 250 wpm pretty fast, so send docs for anything above that. clarity is your best friend.

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 sticky. i need everything else 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

Natcir PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY). Sophomore at Cornell studying Global Development, Public Policy and Economics (ask me about it if ur interested!). I have been coaching a few teams since graduating.

add me to chains -- email is vy.debate@gmail

TLDR: tech; warrant everything. Without solid comparative weighing, my ballot normally goes to the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact--at least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh

general:

"Fast PF speed" is totally fine - faster then 215wpm is when I start to have issues. Spread faster 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

Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense

You need full extensions, no questions asked. Dont forget internal links

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

If you want me to vote on an impact turn or rebuttal disad it also need to have a terminal impact extended and be weighed against other offense

more teams should be reading analytics in rebuttal, warranted analytic > unwarrated ev ANYDAY

I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then I'll tune in

I obviously won't eval new args, but It is equally YOUR burden to call out when technical 'abuses' happens

not having actual cut cards on hand = .5 drop in speaks

rant about "probability" weighing
probability weighing just isn't real weighing- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any of your probability weighing is just some sort of defense, so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal. If you read "probability weighing" but its acgtually just new defense in summary or final I am docking ur speaks and will be rly sad. The caveat to this is: I'll consider evaluating probability analysis as weighing ONLY if it's comparative--- ie if you compare the extent of your actor's capacity or incentive to carry out a certain argument as a way to prefer one over another. pls feel free to ask me to explain this better irl or if u j wanna chat about it, i like talking about it!

non-subs debate - Ks, Theory, etc..
I'm comfy eval-ing almost anything. Ask me before round if u want to be sure.

Keep non subs under 220wpm, cuz i hate flowing anything non subs off docs. This doesn’t mean i can’t eval prog (i’ve judged rounds with 5+ sheets, performance, cap, futurism etc..) it just means i feel most comfortable doing so when at a certain speed.

zero bias on disclo on para — but if you’re interested I disclosed cut cards while paraphrasing and lowky baited para shells

NO TRIX!!

fun
if u make me genuinely laugh out loud I will be happy and boost ur speaks; if ur joke flops that sucks for u i guess

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

coaching conflicts: Bergen County Academies CM & LS, Awty ZZ, Interlake WZ, Summit GM

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.