I competed in extemp, congress, and pf at Shrewsbury High School for four years.

I go for argumentation over style, and I primarily vote by resolving the weighing debate and vote for who best links into the weighing.

Preferences:

- Please start weighing early

- No kritiks, plans, or theories

- Please frontline in the rebuttal as the second speaking team

- I am okay with faster speeds but I will likely be unable to keep up with spreading

- I do not flow cross, unless there is a significant concession.

- No new weighing in second final focus

Most importantly, expect a L0 for any ___ist arguments, and please do not be demeaning towards anyone in the round.

Feel free to reach out to me at steve.asthana@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Shannon Babu, and I'm a parent judge from Concord, MA. This school year (2023-24), I am primarily judging speech events, but I also judge public forum. I am a math and science teacher, so I love to see your clear thesis, your logical process, and a nice tight summary in your speech. My primary concerns in public forum are your logical process: linkages, evidence, weighing, etc.

For speech:

Extemp
Here's some ways to get a high ranking from me:
-Answer the question
-Content > delivery, but doing both is always better. Maintain a slower pace so I can actually flow
-Clever/unique substructure and diversified arguments.
-Answering NO (or whatever is not the obvious answer)
-I’ll generally reward creativity.

In general forpublic forum:

I expect you to keep your own time, but I'm happy to keep time for you - just ask.

It's ok to be nervous, and it's ok if your voice shakes - that means you care about what you're doing! We're all here to learn and help each other, even through a competitive environment.

You may sit or stand, whatever makes you the most comfortable.

You may speak relatively quickly with me, but please don't spread. My ears are only human.

I will allow a few extra seconds for a debater to finish a sentence, finish a question, or finish an answer.

If you have any questions for me during the debate, please ask! It's ok to ask questions between process steps, and asking is ALWAYS better than not asking.

I have the following non-negotiable expectation:

*treat your teammate and opponents with respect and dignity (polite body language, mindful utterances/whispering, professional language, etc).

I'm excited to hear your arguments - I know how much work goes into your preparation, and I'm here to support your process!

I am a parents of a debater in my first year of judging. Please speak clearly and not too quickly so I can write down what you say. Please be courteous to your opponents.

Hey! My name is Zey and I am a freshman in college. I have debated at Newton South for three years, so I’m a flow judge. Don’t say anything problematic and be nice and we should be fine. Failure to do so = report to tab and instant L. I don't know much about this topic so please signpost it makes it easier to flow. Weighing earlier is always good, however, one good weighing > 3 different weighing mechs that you had 5 seconds to explain.

MORE INFO: Case: Tech > Truth, I'll vote for anything if its warranted well Cross: I don't care abt cross, won’t vote on it, if u wanna bring up anything do it in a speech Ev: Paraphrasing is meh, do it if you have too. I'll call an important evidence at the end of the round if its a big deal Rebuttal: Please warrant out every response and signpost clearly, 2nd Rebuttal should frontline completely Summary: Extend everything you want the round to revolve around, if you read a turn, weigh it or it's not going to be offense, please don't extend ur entire case + 4 turns with 0 weighings, makes the round messy. Final: Should mirror summary, don't include new things in your final speech, don't bring up new weighing or responses. Please don't run Theory or K.

Hi guys, I'm currently a PF debater at Newton South. Add me to any email chains: advikc.07@gmail.com

For the Scrim:

Lowk this whole scrimmage is for y'all to have fun debating and try new things, so imma try some new things too by changing up the way I judge each round otherwise it would get boring :P

I'll be flipping a coin each round to see if I'm going to judge your round as a tech or as a lay (heads is tech, tails is lay).

If I'm a lay:

I'm dad of debater (Zain Kapoor), he tells me a lot, speak clearly and not too fast.

If I'm a tech (credit goes to Ishan Dubey, the goat):
I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so: General I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand. Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips. I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of. Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear. Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech. By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo. Evidence practices Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep. Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules. Avoid paraphrasing. PF Defense is not sticky. Second rebuttal should frontline. Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash. Cards should have descriptive taglines. I like to reward creativity. My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most. 1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better. I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend. Theory These debates may have more intervention than you'd like. I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack. Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

GENERAL PARADIGM:

1.) Tech over truth

2.) Speed isn't a big problem for me but make sure you speak clearly

3.) Signposting is a must, I won't flow things down if I have no clue where it is on the flow

4.) Make sure to weigh and warrant your weighing (or any other part of your speech)always (just saying "solvency" or "magnitude" isn't enough, it has to be comparative and well-explained). Winning the weighing (aka giving good weighing) is almost guaranteed to win you the round.

5.) For back-half especially, make sure to collapse on 1, maybe 2 arguments max. Quality > Quantity. Also don't bring up completely new warranting in the back-half (unless you are front-lining in FIRST summary which is the ONLY exception). Also please please please weigh cause it's literally the most important part of the back-half.

6.) Be respectful and kind to everyone, pretty self-explanatory.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!

Flow Judge.

Worlds Is My Fav Event. (This should tell u a lot ab my debate phil)

Ask me anything else before the round starts.

U can post round me, but I pay attention so you probably won't change my mind lol.

Hi! I debate PF at Newton South High School!

If u have any questions feel free to msg me on facebook messenger or email me @drormia@gmail.com

creds to janani ganesh <33

general stuff

a. i think weighing is like THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a round pls weigh and give a strong narrative

b. tech ----------------x-------------------------------------- truth

speed/speech:

- u can speak fast but not like extremely fast, try to go like conversational speed

- if u have a speaking disability (ex. stuttering) lemme know before round or msg me but if you dont feel comfortable telling me im not gonna tank anyone speaks for stuttering [the same applies for any other like disablity, i want to make debate as inclusive as possible]

- if ur opponents tell u to slow down, pls slow down there are many factors why ur opponents may ask u that

however if u r spreading send me and ur opponents a speech doc

content

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. DO VOTERS (ex. "there are 3 places ur voting for us in this round") i want to spend as little time after the round deciding who won (unless if theres clash ofc which is rly good) and i rly dont want to intervene

- weighing is so crucial. if there is not weighing i will default whoever's narrative is stronger.

- i hate theory so pls try not to run it. try to treat me like a lay with theory. if ur rly pressed about running theory/k's ask ur opponents first if they are comfortable cus not everyone has the resources to learn about these kinds of things

- make sure to point out which arguments are conceded/dropped but don't lie or i will be sad

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

- make sure ur not just asking clarifying questions but attacking their stance as well

- if both of yall run out of things to say just ask ur opponents how their day was

- dont be rude but be assertive pls i wanna see confidence!!

Debate should be a safe and inclusive environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before or during round pls feel free to reach out to me at my email: drormia@gmail.com

I'm excited to judge all of you! Let’s make every round a fun round!

Hi everyone! I'm Bella, a public forum debater at Newton South.

Some general things to know before round.

*Please be respectful.

*Comparative weighing and analysis is really important for voting.

*I can do speed, but I prefer a general pace.

*Make it clear where I should be voting in the round and when something is conceded.

*I'm not gonna vote off what you say in cross, so if its important please bring it up in speech.

*I do not like Theory.

If you have any questions, just ask me.

I debated 4 years (2019-2023) for BergenTech and got 10+ gold bids to the TOC

Email Chain: samgrindebate@gmail.com and sam.grinberg@emory.edu

TLDR

Tech > Truth

Debate is a game

I am comfortable w/ <250 wpm. Faster is fine but if I miss a warrant its on you

I expect docs for case and rebuttal, but I only flow what I hear

Big fan of post-rounding (ask in-round or email me)

Specific Stuff:

1AC/1NC:

This is your place to show off! I usually read 3-4 contentions +/- a couple subpoints in hs

If you have a wacky case you want to read in a tournament and are waiting for the right time to read it, do it! Creativity goes a long way in an event where 95% of teams read a grand total of 2 unique args per topic

If you plan to go for framing in the back half, it should be introduced the front half of the round. Stop reading "framing" in second summary. That being said, frameworks debates have started to grow on me and (if executed well) will make me happy

I refuse to flow off a doc, so if I don't hear it it's not on my flow. That being said, I would still like if you sent a doc (with all evidence) so we can speed up the round and not waste time calling every card

2AC/2NC:

Best speech in pf!

Tell me if you are starting on the aff or neg off-time

2nd rebuttal must answer all offense (or it's conceded) + any defense on an argument you plan to go for

"Sandbagging DAs" in second rebuttal is fine. The whole point of first rebuttal is to time crunch second rebuttal, so if you have time to read DAs then do it

1AR/1NR:

i am judging you

link missed in summary

now you lost the round

COLLAPSE! 1 min of weighing will get you a lot further than 1 min of extensions

My RFD sounds like this in 90% of rounds: Team 1 wins the weighing debate with X piece of weighing. I look to their case first. Despite some link muddling and mitigation read by Team 2, I vote for Team 1 on any chance of their case triggering.

2AR/2NR:

Final should mirror summary

Slow down! If you extended and weighed properly in summary you shouldnt have to go super fast

Evidence

Email Chain!!!!!!!

Bad evidence ethics = bad speaks and prob a loss

ZERO TOLERANCE if you are from a big school / are a top 50 team and are still doing this! FOR IVY RR; if I think you are miscutting/clipping cards you are getting an L and 20s. You are the teams that are responsible for shaping community norms.

You can paraphrase evidence if you want (I did all of freshman and sophmore year) but checking back abuse is really hard and I tend to agree with the idea of paraphrased evidence being analyzed as analytics so be warned

"DEBATER MATH" is my biggest fear. I wake up sweating in the middle of the night simply because it exists. If I call your impact evidence and I see a bunch of multiplication instead, I am multiplying your speaks by 0.5

Prog

Please feel free to reach out to me (email me, pass me a note, ask in round) about my understanding of a specific strategy you want to go for in round. I tried to make this section as specific as possible, but its impossible for you to understand my exact views without asking me. I will never punish you for trying something creative out, and I love hearing new things in round (as long as you do your best to explain it)

That being said, I really enjoy prog debate and messed around with it a bunch during my junior/senior year. In my career, I have read (and am pretty experinced with): T, Disclo, Para, TW, IVIs (usually evidence related), Academy, Cap, Set Col, and some metaphysics literature.

I would rank my understanding like this:

Theory > Reps Ks > Friv Theory > Identity Ks > Tricks

what is theory [----------------------------o-------] average college policy debater

what is a kritik [-----------------o------------------] average college policy debater

what are tricks [-------o----------------------------] average college policy debater

Theory Specifics:

Default RVIs, reasonability, and drop the argument. Dont kick a shell w/o winning no RVIs

K Specifics:

Discourse is a really bad alt (its not 2020 PF has evolved)

Perms dont really make sense in PF (since counterplans are banned) but if your opponents alt is a plan (which they usually are) (wait isnt that also not allowed?!?!?!) then I guess its fine? Everyone is just reading policy lit anyway so I am open to hearing perms and plan-ish alts as long as no one is giving me a reason I shouldnt.

Trick Specifics:

I wont vote for "the roto is lose" but if you drop in a silly warrant why I can only evaluate the aff or the first speaking team or something, thats fine.

If you win my ballot on tricks its a LPW

Speaks:

+ if you bring me crunch, sour patch (watermelon), twix, or peach snapple (is this legal?)

+ if you sneak in the phrase "no debate" in a speech

- if your name is Akil Kasubhai

Have Fun!

https://findtheinvisiblecow.com/

lambert '25

Add me to email chain jeffreyguan0710@gmail.com

tldr stuff is bolded

tech > truth, debate is a game. If someone tells me the moon is made of cheese, I will believe it until told otherwise. That being said, there needs to be warrants and responses to obviously untrue arguments don't need a good warrant. If the opponents say that grass is purple and you respond to it by saying that grass is green, I'll probably believe you.

i can handle decent speed, but anything past 275wpm i will lose clarity. I won't read docs

i can evaluate theory, default to reasonability and rvi's

i don't like k's but am willing to judge them. That being said, my knowledge on k's isn't the best, i'm most familiar with cap and fem but anything thats non stock is gonna need hella warranting. Run at your own risk, high chance I will screw you

if you're a novice, just debate normally

Middle School Paradigm:

• Choose a few arguments and make it very clear why they’re the most important

• Weigh your impacts!

• Explain everything (and remember to re-explain your argument from the resolution to the impact in Summary and FF)

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

• Use they/them pronouns unless your opponents tell you otherwise

• If you are racist, LGBTQ+-phobic, ableist, rude, sexist, or are discriminatory in any other way, you will lose the round and may be reported

My longer paradigm - https://docs.google.com/document/d/17teFyL5H25AsRRIW5DLGVcL5NeqJjk4UPxy8e-RUKeE/edit?usp=sharing

Hi I'm Kaveri (she/her) and I debate PF at Newton South High School :)

Email: krishnam01772@gmail.com

TLDR: framing --> weighing--> offense --> default neg

• You need to win your offense to win the weighing

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, basically write my RFD

Basics:

• I’m a flow judge

• Tech>Truth

• I hate judge intervention so please don't make me do my own analysis

• Point out things that are conceded or dropped

• Postrounding is fine but it’s not going to make me change my decision

• Be respectful or your speaks get tanked

• Any explicit bigotry will result in an L20 and a report to Tabroom.

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread but if you are spreading:

1) send me and your opponents a speech doc

2) check with your opponents if it's okay with them

Evidence:

• Don’t misconstrue evidence-- paraphrasing is fine but make sure you have good evidence ethics

• I’ll only call cards if a team tells me to or if it is important towards my decision

[when you extend evidence, please extend the substance and not just the author name -- i value the content over just flowing the card name and date]

Cross:

• If something important happens, bring it up in later speeches (otherwise I won't evaluate it)

• Please don't be mean-- be respectful of your opponents

Rebuttal:

• Signpost/tell me where you are on the flow, off-time roadmaps are ok but pls keep them concise

• Well warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants

• Everything in first rebuttal needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal

Summary/FF:

• Summary + FF should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL, everything you extend in final should have been in summary)

• Everything 2nd rebuttal needs to be frontlined in first summary

• Collapse on one argument PLEASE (quality over quantity)

• WEIGHING is key, please don't forget

• Don’t forget to weigh turns please, I can’t really evaluate them otherwise

• Remember to meta-weigh (weigh the clashing weighing mechanisms)

• Respond to your opponents weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded

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

If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to ask me before round!

And if you have questions about my decision, please ask me as well.

I did PF for 3 years at Newton South and am currently a freshman in college.

General:

I will be flowing the round, but I prefer a flay debate over a super tech debate. If you're spreading, I probably won't be able to understand you. I will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and has evidence extended throughout the round.

Please don't be rude to your opponents, I will tank speaks and it'll be more difficult to win my ballot.

Progressive:

I don't have much experience with progressive arguments, so run at your own risk.I think paraphrasing and non-disclosure are fine, just don't misconstrue evidence.

Frontlining:

Frontlines should be made for any offense you want to go for later in the round. Otherwise, I will consider the argument dropped.

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Indiana University.

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I am not that familiar with progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.) so I might have a bit more trouble understanding them. If there is an abuse in round, you can just call it out in speech; it doesn't have to be formatted as a shell.

• I default to the first speaking team.

• A lot of times (I did it too) debaters will see that their judge is a past debater and just spread random cards without warrants. Understand that I still know the topic a lot less than you do. You still have to read warrants and explicate them for me to understand what your argument is.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate in my opinion.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

• Disads/offensive overviews are yucky, especially in second rebuttal. It gives insecure energy, like "I don't know how to respond to an argument so you're just reading another piece of offense to crowd it out on the flow". My threshold for responses to these are low.

• I do not like new responses in final focus that are disguised as “JuSt WeiGhiNg.” I will notice and it will not be on my flow.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

I am pretty lenient with speaks but there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

• I was pretty aggressive in crossfire so I am fine with that as well but just be conscious of your opponents. This means letting them respond to your questions, ask their own questions, and overall just have an equal opportunity to talk.

• Talking over someone never won a debate and I can assure you that winning perceptually doesn't really win my ballot.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue (honestly quit debate, too <3)

This paradigm doesn't cover everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Have fun!

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Andy (he/him) - email etc: tzurkang@gmail.com

If you have any questions or if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible and fun for you.

I like debate and I think debating about things is good. If you do anything to make me dislike debating (being any sort of -ist) I will not be happy and your speaks will reflect that

For novices, feel free to ask me any questions you have about debate rounds/what I want to see. I want to make the round as educational as possible, and if that means a quick reminder on a specific part of debate I'd be happy to help.

On that note post-round as much as you want – I never want the reason for my decision to be unclear.

Speaks start at 28 and depending on how good the strategic decisions you make are or if you make people happy I will go higher or lower. IVE or SVT references might also boost your speaks.

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX in 2 years at Richardson HS, and 2 years at the Richland College HS program.

Ive graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas in 2021

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

Hi, I'm Anahitha! I'm a junior at Newton South and I have three years of experience with PF debate.

Just some general stuff:

I'm generally tech>truth but narrative is really good and your warranting has to make some amount of sense. I will vote for a turn if it's warranted and weighed well though.

I'm okay with speed, but be ready to send a speech doc if you spread.

Don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. in round. It makes us all uncomfortable and I will drop you for it.

If you make an email chain, please include me:

Email: anahitha.menon13@gmail.com

Speeches:

Frontline in second rebuttal

WEIGH! Above all else, please weigh. There's no easier way to win my ballot.

Dear Debaters,

Although I have used English professionally for decades, English is not my first language.

Because of this, I respectfully ask you to:

• Slow down your speaking speed and please do your best to enunciate each word clearly
• Mark clearly your arguments and rebuttals by:

1). Pausing before you make your argument

2). Stating clearly and slowly that you are making an argument

I will be taking notes on my computer.

Good luck to all, and let's have fun.

Thank you for your attention,

Rafael Mier

I wrote this whole paradigm pretty quickly so if there is any information you feel that I have missed in this paradigm, please ask me before the round or send me an email and I will be more than happy to answer any questions!

my email address is: benmp614@gmail.com

tl;dr: I have debated before, however, it is probably best if you treat me like a flay judge instead of a heavy tech judge. The best way to get me to vote for you is to make your weighing very strong and clear. Weighing is where I will look first

Basics:

tech > truth for the most part

if you do not constantly bring up points you want me to remember, good chance I will forget them so EMPHASIZE ANYTHING IMPORTANT

as for speed, I am alright with most speeds, but keep in mind the faster you read, the less I will be able to write down and remember

if you plan on reading fast, please let me and your opponents know ahead of time and send a speech doc

as for progressive arguments (theory, k, etc.) I am not the judge you want to run them on. I will try my darndest to evaluate them, but I have no idea how they work and will probably mess something up there.

DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT RUN A PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENT WITHOUT ASKING YOUR OPPONENTS FIRST IF THEY ARE OK WITH IT

unless you want me to time you, I trust you enough to time your own speeches and prep time

the single most important thing for me in any debate round is being nice to your opponents. I will not like you if you are mean to your opponents, and if you are hateful in any way whatsoever, you will lose the round with the lowest speaks I can give

on the other hand, if you are friendly and nice to your opponents I will like you much more

Cross:

I won't be writing stuff down in cross, so if you want me to remember anything, mention it in another speech

if both teams want, I am also fine with teams just talking about their day or interests or whatever

choose kindness please

Rebuttal:

tell me what part of your opponents case you are responding to when you are giving your rebuttal

don't just say the card name and read a quote, try to explain to me WHY that is important

if you don't respond to something in second rebuttal that is said in first rebuttal, I will assume it is conceded

Summary:

first summary should respond to what's been said in second rebuttal

signpost please or I will get lost

choose one argument to focus on (that will make my job way easier)

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

good weighing could win you the round so please make sure you are doing it

Final Focus:

for me honestly, use final focus as a chance to sum up your argument into a nice pretty little package so that I can understand the overall point you are trying to prove

this will help to make sure I am on the same page you are with you arguments and could help you out quite a bit, especially in messier rounds

Speaks:

speaks for me are based off of two main things, how well you maintain the narrative you hopefully set up in case, and how comfortable you made the round for me and for your opponents

if I see you and the other team getting along well (talking with each other before and after round, being nice during cross, etc.) I will be more likely to give higher speaks

make me laugh and I will increase speaks by some amount

I will try to be somewhat generous with the speaks I give

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

I can clarify anything I wrote in my paradigm for you if you want, just ask me before the round.

I will try to make the round as enjoyable as possible, just please let me know any accommodations I can make to help you out and I will try my hardest to make sure you can get them.

I don't want to be a judge people dread getting, so please let me know if there is anything you would like to see me do differently in the future and I will be very open to feedback.

Have fun during your round!

Updated Jan 18 2022.

Hello! I'm Jessica. I am always extremely happy to be judging:)

I am a former LD debater from Wyoming! I qualified for Nationals in Big Questions, World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. I did CX PF and Parli in college briefly as well.

I am not looking for anything wild in terms of the way you choose to debate. I trust debaters to do what's best for them and persuade me to vote your direction. If you tell me what I should vote on, I will listen, but if you don't I will just weigh the arguments made in round considering the impacts of all arguments, logic of the arguments, and overall coverage of major arguments. Logical arguments will always outweigh cards if you do not provide your own explanation of how the evidence applies to the round. Please provide voting issues for me.

- Please be as polite as possible:)

- Off clock road maps are dandy. Online - I'd also be happy if you said your name and side before you started speaking so that if I happen to not be looking directly at the video I can still tell who's who.

- You can talk fast if you need to, I do understand speed but it will make me sad in anything that is not CX.

- I will not read the evidence in the docs (except in CX), especially if you are not reading them at a speed that I can understand probably, but you sure are welcome to send it to me, and if you specifically tell me to "look at ___ because," then I will.

- I will listen to arguments made in CX, and please be sure to bring them up again in another speech.

- If you are debating LD, please debate LD, not policy. This is not to say I won't vote for you if you are running a counter plan, or talk fast, it just means your debate needs to be centered around ethics.

Email - jessicapetri@gmail.com

hiya i'm abby (she/her) and i'm a debater on Newton South's PF team!

email -- abbyshin06@gmail.com

super excited to judge you all, let's make the round as fun as possible

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

TLDR:

essentially make me do as little work as possible, basically write my rfd

• flow judge

• tech>truth

• no postrounding

• be respectful or your speaks get tanked

• any explicit bigotry will result in an L25 and a report to tab

SPEED:

not really any preference, but if you spread:

1. send me and your opponents a speech doc

2. check with your opponents if it’s ok with them

EVIDENCE:

1. don’t misconstrue evidence -- paraphrasing is fine, but make sure you have good evidence ethics

2. i’ll only call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision

CROSS:

1. bring up cross content in later speeches if you want me to evaluate it

2. please be respectful

REBUTTAL:

1. signpost -- tell me where you are on the flow

2. if u do off-time roadmaps keep them concise please

3. well-warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants

4. second rebuttal should frontline completely

BACK HALF:

1. NO STICKY DEFENSE final stuff better have been extended in summary or ill cry

2. the weighing debate is crucial, please don't forget

3. weigh turns or they’re just fun facts

4. interact with your opponents weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it's conceded

5. meta-weigh (weigh the clashing weighing mechanisms)

PROGRESSIVE:

u probably shouldn’t run it because idfk how to evaluate this stuff – only know theory basics

please ask your opponents pre-round if they’re comfortable with you running progressive arguments, given that it’s not accessible to all

Hello Debaters. The only paradigm I can have is just remember to quantify your impacts, this means provide numbers to impacts also remember to signpost so I know where in the flow you are. Its okay to speak fast, critical thinking is appreciated. Remember to weigh impacts.

Thank you

Hi everyone! My name is Wolfgang Wuerker. Pronouns he/him/his.

As some brief background, I competed in traditional LD, Congress, British Parliamentary, and CX at various times, though I also have some level of experience with most events. I'm currently studying psychology & physiology on a premedical track at the University of Wyoming. If you have time, read the general that's the important one.

I have some general notes right below this and some more extensive ones below that.

- I will not tolerate any hatred. This means any sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If you choose to be hateful, you will be given 0 speaker points, the loss or last place, and probably be reported to whoever is necessary. Just be a good person.

- I am happy to answer any questions you have before, during, or after. Do not hesitate to ask. I won't put my email here, but I am happy to give it in the round if you'd prefer.

- Just to keep things consistent, I'll give all events and all speeches a 10 second grace period and I will verbally cut you off after that.

- Have fun and good luck!

Speech & IE Paradigm

My philosophy on speech events is pretty simple: I'll rank the speeches holistically and to the best of my ability. The only thing that's an absolute no-no for me is being rude to anyone including competitors, myself, people in round or out of round. Otherwise, just have fun.

Debate Paradigms Traditional LD (and PF where applicable)

- Starting at the top: I enjoy a good value clash. LD is a debate within a moral framework so go in-depth. I haven't read everything (and at this point I may be a little rusty) but I know my basics and a framework based on philosophical theory has a much better chance of winning than a Merriam-Webster definition.

- When it comes to contentions: Signposting is a must. I will be flowing and if I don't know where you are at in the 2R I will probably lose it and forget about it.

Progressive LD/ CX

- Keep in mind I have some experience with both but not extensive and it was a while ago, so act accordingly.

- On speed, I can understand it but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can barely understand you I will not understand your arguments either.

- Signposting is a must. I'm a flow judge and without signposting, I will probably put your arguments in the wrong spot.

- My CX philosophy is fairly straightforward. I'm open to most things Ks, Theory, etc. but keep in mind that I wasn't too deep into CX and might need a walking through if it's too complex an argument.

- I think that analytics and CX are the best ways to judge how you are as a speaker so don't let these be the areas you don't give any thought to.

Congress

- I will rank the PO in the top 5 somewhere unless they give me a reason to do otherwise so don't be afraid to chair. I will give a PO 1st if they earn it.

I'm a college sophomore at McGill University.

I did LD in high school for 3 years.

Don't spread, stick to substance for the most accurate decision but I can handle pretty much anything.

Be nice :)