TL;DR

tech>truth, defense is not sticky

good w substance and theory, explain other prog well (tricks are ok)

I will end the round immediately if you are remotely offensive and give you L20s.

SUBSTANCE

If you don't send docs for case with cards, speaks are capped at 28.

How to win:

Win the weighing debate and win the argument that outweighs. Whatever argument is weighed best, I look there first. Without any weighing, I will vote on path of least resistance.

FL in 2nd rebuttal, New DAs/OVs in 2nd rebuttal are fine but will have a lower threshold for response in summary. +.5 speaks for sending doc.

Defense is not sticky. The more weighing, the merrier. Collapsing is usually good but you do you.

I enjoy very fast-paced debates. Unlike some judges, I don't at all believe PF has to be "accessible and slow." If you are in varsity/open and you have me as a judge, go super fast and I will probably like you as long as you send docs.

I presume the team that lost flip unless told otherwise,

PROGRESSIVE

Good with theory, default competing interps and no RVIs.

I have no bias when it comes to theory (I will not say "they read disclosure so auto up").

If you make me evaluate under reasonability, I will probably be sad, but it is what it is.

Any other arguments like K's, tricks, etc. are fair game but require more explanation. I'm familiar with basic K structure but don't really have much knowledge of the lit. Slow down on tags for K debate.

Hiding a trick in your speech is actually ok as long as it's in the speech doc.

Hi!

In your debate, please keep in mind the handy acronym IMNFSTEPWR.

If you spread, please send a speech doc.

Make sure everything is warranted. I won't evaluate stuff if you just tell me to extend it.

No completely new arguments in summary or final focus. I won't evaluate them.

Frontline in 2nd response.

Signpost! Make sure I know where you are during your speeches to keep my flow clean.

Try to avoid progressive args - I don't have much experience evaluating them. If you really want to run theory or K's, make sure they're reasonable and you give me a realistic way that it should affect my ballot.

Extend. I won't evaluate anything in final focus that isn't extended in summary.

Please keep your own time and keep me updated on prep.

Weighing should be comparative, don't just give me your numbers, give me theirs. Metaweigh and tell me why your weighing mechanisms should be preferred.

Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. will lose you the round.

When you read your first turn, if you do a spin jump and read "This is a massive 180!" I'll give you +0.5 speaker points.

Hey, I'm Riya!

I consider myself a regular flow/tech judge.

Here are some of the key factors that will influence my decision in a debate:

Contention: I prefer clear arguments with strong warranting and evidence. Try to emphasize your most important points and have realistic impact scenarios.

Rebuttal: Try to respond to all of your opponent's main arguments and go into specifics if you have time. Make sure you read concise responses with good warranting, and avoid repetition. Try to avoid extra time in this speech because it’s essential to have good offense that you can extend throughout the round. Please signpost to make it easier to understand your speech and so I know where you are on the flow. Going in order will prevent unnecessary confusion and will make your responses more understandable.

*I strongly encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.

Summary: I consider summary the most important speech of the debate. Here are some of things I’m looking for:

Case: Make sure to briefly extend your case, but try not to make it too long to save time for the rest of your speech. Frontline your case, especially against turns. Collapsing on your best arguments is encouraged but definitely not required.

Responses: Extend your most important responses; everything you want me to evaluate in the round needs to be in summary. Try not to drop arguments.

Weighing: Weighing is crucial. Try to specify which weighing mechanisms you are using and give warranting as to why it outweighs your opponent’s impacts (comparative weighing.) Please do not just state weighing mechanisms, but explain them thoroughly.

Final Focus: Explain to me why you should win the debate, extend and weigh.

Other

Time: I will be keeping time but please try to keep time as well. :)

Speaking: I’m fine with fast speaking as long as it's understandable.

Please be respectful to everyone in the round, and have fun!

Feel free to ask any questions!

hi im ananya (she/her)!

add me to the email chain: ananya.rajagopalan@wheelermagnet.com

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

i compete on the nat circuit for a small school, and i've been debating for about 4 years now; i’ve qualled to the toc

for novices, +.3 speaks if you tell me before round that you read my paradigm

standard tech, bolded = most important

you lose and get horrible speaks if you're

1. racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

2. not using someone's preferred pronouns

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

tech>truth, "tabula rasa"

i dont rlly care abt cross unless its brought up again in a speech

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

on just general stuff

no new info in 2nd summary (unless new warrants are made in 1st) or final focus

frontlining in second rebuttal is a must

metaweighing is also a must

pre reqs/short circuits >>> probability >> scope/timeframe > mag

warrants >>> ev, just extending a card tag isnt extending a warrant

defense isnt sticky so make sure to extend your case properly

i presume neg

implicate turns, tell me how that piece of offense wins you the round if its dropped

collapsing on 1-2 arguments makes me happy!

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

on speaking

clarity > speed, but tbh go as fast as you want to as long as you send a speech doc beforehand if you're going to spread

if you can't find a piece of ev in 2 minutes, it's getting scratched off of my flow + speaks are getting docked (and by ev i mean cards not telling me to "ctrl f" an article)

i like giving out high speaks, as long as you're trying your best + not being abusive, that isnt something to worry abt

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

on prog

i can evaluate theory

i default to no RVIs, competing interps and theory > substance

my personal opinions abt pf norms wont interfere with my decision

pls dont run theory against novices

i <3 trix + friv theory (no)

i'm familiar w kritiks but im not too experienced w them so run at your own risk

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

on disclosing

i will disclose, just give me a few min to write down my thoughts/evaluate

feel free to postround! your feedback makes me a better judge

that's all, good luck! the most important part of debate is having fun, make your round enjoyable for you and for me

Hey, I'm Rajat (he/him).

put me on the email chain: rajat.ravihnr@gmail.com

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events

Justin Black is based took sm stuff from his paradigm

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

General

tech>truth

flow judge

spreading bad

low tolerance for friv theory

default to competing interps and yes RVIs

disclosing is a good norm +0.5 speaks

paraphrase bad cut cards good

defense isnt sticky and make sure to frontline

extend the warrant not the card name and implicate turns

collapse on 1-2 args

28+ speaks unless in round violation

personally never ran a K but willing to vote on it

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I couldn't catch.

Ev

I strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence and using clearly trash/biased authors.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Also no debater math :/

Case: Clear links and impacts preferred. 4 minutes 10 is fine idrc. Don’t need to say the resolution I probably already know it. Don’t change your case for me or anyone before the round. Just chillax when pairings come out, I understand you can’t conform to every judges preferences.

Rebuttal: First rebuttal, spend all four minutes responding and weighing. You don’t have to extend your case. If you predict your opponents responses to your case with remaining time you’re a baller and I’ll give you +0.5 speaks. Turns and offensive overviews are okay - new contentions are not. I prefer a line by line rebuttal

Second rebuttal should be both front lining (defending) your own case and responding to their case. Weigh early on and often. No new front lining in summary. Turns and offensive overviews are okay - new contentions are not.

Summary: Collapse on a few points. Extend links and impact on your own offense and extend defense on their case. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh.

Final: Guide me to my ballot. Write it for me. Explain why I’m voting for you. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh.

The best way to win my ballot:

- Comparative weighing (not just scope, magnitude, etc. I'm fine with metaweighing but i'd prefer you interact with your opponents arguments and not just say "we outweigh on magnitude")

- Strength of Link over probability

- Guide me to my ballot

- Collapse on a few important points

- Have a clear narrative

Ks

I’ll try my best to evaluate them. Send me a speech doc if it’s big brain stuff, I’m not that well read on philosophy but I can probably catch on pretty quick. I’d prefer it if your identity wasn’t the sole link to your argument because I feel like in some cases it commodifies oppression but as long as you have a good enough alt and run it for what appears to be good reasons idrc. A few things to keep in mind: I’ve never ran a K. I’ve only watched one a couple times. Take this as you will. I will buy priori offense almost 99% of the time unless your opponents can link into the real world with why we should debate substance.

If your opponent doesn’t understand your K and that’s why their responses are bad then my threshold for voting on it will be much higher. It is your job to convey understanding to everyone in the room and if you don’t you are being exclusionary. I also don’t believe that your opponents should have to concede to have a conversation. If you want to have a conversation, you concede. Granted, if your opponents do this on their own free will, fine. But don’t pressure them.

Speaks

30 You're destined for great things.

29 Excellent

28 Okay

If you want to question my decision post-round, do it. It won't change but I want you feel like you fully understand why I voted like I did.

Above all else, have fun!! Relax. I’m not a mean judge and I will make sure everyone is comfortable above all else. Debate should be fun and exciting, not stressful and traumatic.

I look for a team that has speakers that are quick to think on their feet, and they have great communication. I want to see confident speakers that are able to create thoroughly constructed responses to there opponent.

I am currently the Vice President of Walton's Speech and Debate team.

FOR NOVICES:

hi everyone! to win my ballot, you need to do a few things:

1. be thorough with extensions. this means in summary and final focus, you should be reexplaining your own case and defending it, reexplaining key responses to your opponent's case, and weighing. explain all your reasoning.
2. implicate! explain why your points matter and why they are important. if you have an important response, tell me what impact it has on the round and why it is so detrimental to your opponent's case.
3. no new cases or responses in summary or final focus.
4. 2nd rebuttal should frontline (defend against responses).
5. have good organization in your speeches and tell me what order you are going in and what you are about to do.
6. WEIGH!! in a scenario where both cases are true, why do your impacts matter more?

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

hi! i am a high school varsity debater with almost three years of experience in pf. overall: i consider myself somewhere between tech and flay in that i consider the flow but also don't evaluate tricks & have a low threshold for responses to weird arguments. but here are some more specifics:

general:

1. i prefer slower/clearer reading, but any speed is fine as long as you can send a doc
2. even though tech>truth overall, you still need to have good warranting in both case/response and extensions in the back half (i.e. making a one sentence response and extending it by saying "extend _ card" isn't a proper extension)
3. try to stay away from theory, k's, and other prog. because i won't be able to judge it well - especially tricks or frivolous theory because i have a bias against it
4. signpost and have clear organization of speeches or i will be super confused
5. keep your own time/prep time - i don't time your speeches but usually i time prep
6. i will call for any evidence i think is critical to the round
7. anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. loses you the round plus low speaks

front half:

1. frontline in 2nd response or it's dropped - even against weighing in 1st response
2. weigh your responses, especially turns & make them well warranted

back half:

1. extend everything you want me to consider in both summary and final focus (including case & impacts)
2. i love prereq, link-in, amplifier, & short circuit weighing but any is fine. if you're creative with your weighing i'm probably more likely to like it
3. no completely new arguments in summary or final focus or it won't be considered (besides frontlining in 1st summary & backlining)
4. metaweigh
5. make your weighing comparative - saying "we outweigh on magnitude because we save 100 million lives is not comparative
6. PLEASE collapse - it makes the round so much easier to judge

good luck y'all!

Hi! I've been debating public forum for 4 years now. Here are some of my preferences:

General:

1. As long as you're clear, I don't mind if you speak fast.

2. Warranting/explaining your arguments is really important and telling me how they impact the round will help you win.

3. Weighing also makes it easy for me to vote for you

4. I don't like super wacky arguments, but if you do run one, just make sure you explain it thoroughly so that a) it's harder for your opponents to respond and b) it makes it easier for me to follow along and buy your argument. However, you will win the argument if your opponent does not respond to it well (but this is unlikely).

5. Please tell me what you are responding to or talking about in your speeches.

6. Be respectful to your opponents; no racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc.

7. I would not like it if you read an argument about a group that is not part of your identity.

8. Ask for my email if you want to share ev.

9. Ask me if you have any questions before the round.

Rebuttal:

1. Weigh your turns (and other offense); even better if you implicate them

2. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal; otherwise, bringing up something completely new in 2nd summary is abusive

3. Please tell me exactly what you're responding to. Make sure you also talk about how your response is applicable to their case/this debate (implicate it); don't just read ev without warranting.

Summary/FF:

1. Extend all parts of your case and rebuttal that you want me to consider in the round.

2. Don't bring up any completely new arguments in 2nd summary besides weighing. 1st summary also shouldn't be bringing up completely new responses to the opponent's case, but frontlines are fine of course.

3. Frontlines shouldn't just be extensions of your case.

4. Anything said in final focus should have been in summary. Make sure you're extending the arguments/weighing/analysis you want me to evaluate on the flow.

5. Weighing is really important; make sure it's actually comparing you and your opponents' arguments. Don't just tell me the mechanism, actually explain how you're a pre-req or why you have greater probability, etc.