Hey! I'm Nabil, a junior at Bronx Science. Here are some things that I'm looking for in rounds:

1)Warranting: Your arguments must be clearly explained. I will have a hard time voting on something that isn't explained well.

2)Signposting:I'm not super experienced with judging PF, so just let me know where you are in your speech.

3)Collapsing:Collapsing would make the round much easier, so please do it when necessary.

4)Weighing

5)BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER!

Please speak at a reasonable pace.

If you choose to collapse, I will not consider the dropped argument.

Try to abstract the round into its fundamentals. Don't argue over numbers, argue over ideas.

Weighing is not a necessity, but you will be at a significant disadvantage if the other team weighs and you do not. Thus, I strongly encourage you weigh. By weighing, I mean that you should give a comparative look at the round as it has transpired and explain why your side has won.

If the debate becomes centered around a card or multiple cards, I will call for the card at the end of the round, if it has not been called for already. If the card fails to align with the claims of the team that raised it, the points will be dropped from consideration.

Generally, I will vote for the most persuasive team. Very rarely will my ballot be decided off of technical details.

Happy debating!

I'd strongly prefer it if you treated me in rounds as a generally informed person off the street whom you're trying to persuade.

"Slow down, I have to be able to understand you to flow. If I can't understand you, that is bad"

I'm a lay judge I value speaking as well as content. Do not speak too fast but with an appropriate tone to convey what you are saying.

Hi! My name is Claire and I've been debating at Scarsdale High School for 4 years.

I'm a tech over truth judge. Be respectful, don't be rude, racist, or otherwise offensive, if you are you will be dropped.

Add me to your email chain: cchou23@scarsdaleschools.org

A few things about how I judge:

1) Do not run theory or kritiks in novice (if you don't know what these are that's fine and you don't need to worry about it).

2) Although I listen to cross, I don't flow cross, if you want me to evaluate something said in cross, restate it in your next speech.

3) Extend your arguments throughout all necessary speeches.

4) I won't evaluate new arguments brought up in final focus.

5) Remember to weigh, the earlier you weigh, the better.

6) Signpost throughout your speeches.

7) Be sure to speak at a hearable speed. I am okay with speaking at a faster speed but if I can't make out what you are saying I'll stop you within the first 15 seconds and ask you to redo it at a slower pace.

8) After about 10 seconds over time I will stop flowing what you are saying.

9) I don't flow names of cards (i.e. Smith '21) so during your speeches please refer to the information, not just the card name.

Feel free to ask any questions! :)

Hi, I'm David!

About me: I am a junior and have debated PF at Scarsdale High School for 3 years. I've found moderate success on the nat circuit. Please add me to any email chains: ddiao23@scarsdaleschools.org

TLDR: I will evaluate any argument if you can explain it to me, defend it adequately, give me a reason to vote for it over other arguments, and specifically bring it up in the summary and final focus. In summary and final focus, you should try to only go for one argument on your side of the flow (1 contention) and that argument should be in both summary and ff.e

I agree a lot with what my partner, Sameer, has outlined in his paradigm. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fDwc241myDm0sP3AKefJZBHsFTGak52yO6dsXs5Fwio/edit?usp=sharing

IT IS LONG. If you don't have the time, just ask me questions about how I judge before round.

Feel free to comment on the doc, I will find it funny. Please note any comments are not from me or Sameer.

----NOTABLE PLACES WHERE I DISAGREE WITH SAMEER----

1. I don't really care how you label the evidence exchange.

2. Do not read from a speech doc. I must be able to understand the arguments you make through your speech alone and any clarifications afterward. I believe spreading a 1500 word case is incredibly unproductive and dilutes the educational value of the round.

Other General Info

1. Don't be rude- I won't vote you down for it but your speaks will suffer

2. Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc- If it becomes a major issue this is one of the only conditions where I'll intervene in the round and your speaks will definitely suffer.

3. Remember to have fun. Y'all are here to learn and get better. While winning is always a nice feeling, it should not be the end all be all of why you're here

4. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with my decision. Judges should be able to defend any decision they make as a way to demonstrate the fairness of the round and to provide constructive criticism for both teams.

5. If you have any questions about ways you could've improved in the round, please ask me. I will give an oral RFD (reason for decision) but it is always good to ask for more feedback.

Good luck to both teams and have fun!

Hi! I'm a first year out, did PF for 4 yrs at Bronx Science. Here are a few things I'm looking for in a round:

1. WEIGHING!

2. Please collapse, it makes the round much simpler for everyone

3. Clear warranting; I won't vote on something that's not thoroughly explained

4. Signposting (tell me where you are on the flow)

Let me know if you have any questions before round :)

Hello! I'm Liet/Juliet (she her hers) and I'm the captain of Speech at Bronx Science.

I'm a new PF judge (sorry in advance). In general I won't be good with technical terms, and I won't be able to follow spreading. I debated in a shortened PF structure in middle school, so I have a couple of basic things that will inform my ballot:

1. For speaker points, my standards will be high. I also have a particular pet peeve for when "like" is used too often as a filler word, and I often mentally count the "likes" instead of being able to pay attention to your arguments.
2. Please use lay-person terms when possible.
3. New evidence should not be introduced late in the debate.
4. I am fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents. I think this is an important way to minimize ableism in rounds.
5. I firmly believe that cross fire should remain respectful. My definition of disrespect includes sarcasm.
6. I am happy to disclose, but please bear with me :). I promise I will try my best to make a fair decision, and I promise that I will pay attention throughout the round. I ask only for kindness in return.

If anything is said that is racist, homophobic, or sexist, I will call you out on it and your points will be adjusted accordingly. Please respect your competitor's pronouns in round, and the use of slurs is very much not tolerated, even if citing a source.

Let me know if there is anything I can do in round to make this experience as safe and comfortable as possible. I am excited to judge you and relive my debate days. See you soon!

(He/Him)

noah.horn@tufts.edu

Speech:

I’m a longtime speech competitor (my main category is HI, but I dipped my toes in the Dec pool in my earlier years), so I appreciate ingenuity and a willingness to take risks. If you’re competing with a pretty common dec or poetry, chances are I’ll have seen some version of it already. Now don’t think, “CRAP. I DON’T HAVE AN ORIGINAL BONE IN MY BODY. PANIC. SWITCH THE ENTIRE PIECE RIGHT BEFORE ROUND BECAUSE THIS ONE JUDGE WON’T LIKE IT.” The piece is common because it works. If you know what you’re doing, then you’ve absolutely got this. Taking the piece in a new, unexpected direction helps you stand out in my book, though!

There’s no use giving specific comments on every single category because changing your cutting/performance round to round to fit a very arbitrary judge’s standards is stressful. The only things I’ll comment on are the following:

• For OI (prose/poetry), I appreciate smart uses of the binder to help enhance the story. Don’t be afraid to go for crazy cool binder tech. I absolutely love that stuff.
• For extemp, I NEED sources with appropriate dating. Being a good speaker gets you really far, but I need a reason to believe what you’re saying.

As is always the case, speech is a safe space and I’d like you to maintain that. If your piece deals with especially heavy content, provide a content warning at the beginning. If I see you being rude to anyone else during round I WILL mark you down. This includes talking during other people’s pieces, being on your phone while someone else is speaking, or doing anything less than what you’d expect from an audience during your own piece.

I can’t wait to see you in round! Speech is a second family to me and I love supporting fellow speechies. If there’s anything I can do in round to make you feel more comfortable, let me know!

PF:

I'm a graduate from Bronx Science, and am normally a speech competitor. I've been on the circuit since my conception, but am pretty new to PF, so I'm a very lay judge. Be clear and confident with your points and you've got my vote! I'm looking for good evidence and reasoning- please no random alt-right articles about the economy.

Be respectful! No racism, homophobia, bigotry, or any of that awful stuff. Speech and debate is a community and I'd like for you to uphold that. Show that you're the better debater with your arguments and rebuttals.

Take a deep breath and have fun! You've got this!

PS, any references to Bo Burnham might win you some extra speaker points :)

Email: kahna23@byramhills.net

Byram Hills '23

Competed in LD for 3 years so far, received 2 bids and qualled to TOC junior yr

I'm assuming you're in novice LD or PF - signpost, weigh, and tell me why you win.

In novice, do not spread/read theory/kritiks/tricks, etc. If you wanna do that, compete in varsity!!

If u have any questions, email me before the round

To quote Eva Herrick: I like to think I’m a flow judge but honestly, I might have a mid-round identity crisis and just become a lay judge. (proceed with caution)

More importantly, to quote Anaya Joshi: Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socioeconomic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate allows you to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals to their individuality when presenting arguments, I'll drop anyone who reads arguments that may be sexist, racist, or discriminatory in any way. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament, and most importantly, respect yourselves.

⋆˖⁺‧₊☽◯☾₊‧⁺˖⋆

Hello! I'm Tui, a senior at Regis High School. I use he/him pronouns. I've done debate since middle school.

I've never been an extremely technical debater (my views reflect that). That said, I'll try to flow pretty much anything except tricks (check my longer paradigm for my thoughts on prog).

I flow and I always try not to intervene – yet I'm always inclined to vote for the team whose arguments don't require me to take several leaps up the staircase of logic. I'm probably most aptly described as a lazy tech judge.

Do these things and we will have a very smooth round:

1. Extend. If you're going for an argument (contention, turn, advantage, disad), ALL of it (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact) needs to be extended otherwise I will not vote on it.
2. Collapse. A two-minute final focus shouldn't have 5 reasons to vote for you.
3. Weigh. I love good probability and prerequisite weighing. Link-ins need to be weighed otherwise I don't know what to do with them (we link in because _____ AND we're the best link into their case because ____ >>> we link in)
4. Cut your evidence. It's not difficult. Not having cut cards is an independent reason to drop you. Please cut your evidence.

This is a gross oversimplification, but, unless I'm told otherwise,here's how I evaluate round:

1. Theory/K (if there are both, give me a reason to prefer one or the other)

2. Framework

3. Weighing

4. Cleanest piece of offense

I default to the first speaking team, but if I'm defaulting, your default speaks are probably 27s.

Otherwise, have fun! (make Taylor references). If you want, I have a longer paradigm which you can read here. There's some (unimportant) jargon, so feel free to clarify anything with me. I recommend you check out this website and this website if anything is confusing. If you want more resources, check this out as well!

If you want good speaks, be kind, be funny, and be strategic :p

hi y'all! i'm a varsity pf debater at bronx science and i use she/her pronouns

email chain (add me please): kimk9@bxscience.edu

tldr: tech > truth, line-by-line, signpost, write my ballot, prog good. i always vote off the flow. read any arguments, weighing, framework, etc., but always give warrants.

speaks: i'm generally generous with speaks and go based on the strategy you present. i usually start at 27 and i go up or down from there.

speed: i "spread" often so go at any speed you would like. just not too fast when not necessary..if i miss something, that's on you.

general/novices:

- always warrant everything.

- please frontline all offense in second rebuttal, otherwise it will go conceded on my flow. offense you're going for in the back half should also be frontlined.

- responses must be extended through each speech if you want me to consider it.

- i don't flow cross, but i'll always be listening. if there is a point that you would like me to pay attention to or vote off of, make sure you bring it up in your next speech.

- collapse and weigh. at the end of the round, if only one team extends weighing, i'll most likely give my ballot to them. so, make sure to weigh even if you forget to collapse.

- please make your weighing comparative and explicitly tell me why I should vote for your impacts even if they win their entire case. do not just say you save __ amount of lives or dump different statistics of lives and expect a ballot.

- do not bring up new evidence in final focus or second summary. i will not flow it or use it to make my ballot.

- cut your cards please. i'll never personally call for a card or explicitly look over one, unless you tell me to do so.

- please give an off-time roadmap before each speech and signpost in your speech, so i know where i am on my flow.

- time yourselves. i'll never cut you off if you have a few words left, but i'll cut u off once you exceed 7-10 seconds.

prog/tech (novices do not have to read):

content warnings: if you plan to read any argument, with potentially triggering content, please read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. if anyone chooses to opt out, respect their decision and have an alternate case/argument ready to read please.

fw: if the fw is conceded or agreed upon, ill only consider arguments implicated under that framework. if both teams drop the framework, it wont be a factor to my ballot.

theory/t:

- definite no: i don't understand plans, cps, trix, TKOs, so please dont run them with me.

- disclosure: i believe that disclosure is a good norm. however, i'll never default my ballot to disclosure good. it is very much possible to win why it is better for teams not to disclose. like any argument, if you are winning on the flow, the ballot will go to you.

- paraphrasing: i have no preference in whether you paraphrase or not. however, i ask that you disclose and have cut cards available if you do plan to paraphrase.

- friv: personally, i find friv theory to be very fun and i'm more than open to hearing and evaluating it. however, i ask that you don't run friv theory if you happen to hit a team in their bubble round.

kritiks:

- engaging with critical literature is good. it exposes debaters to non-hegemonic discourses, which are more sparse in PF. if a team reads a k, i would rather have you debate the round than concede or ignore it (even if it is your first k round ever).

- send speech doc and cards for case. if you know that you will be excessively spreading in any other speech, i ask that you send a speech doc so that i can follow along better.

- topical/non-topical ks: i'm best at evaluating fem killjoy, identity, cap, and general known ones. however, i'm open to hearing and evaluating new types of nonT ks. please make the ROTB/ROTJ as explicit as possible though. i don't run T ks as often, but i have ran a T k before, and i would be open to it.

- links/alt: links are super important. if you are spreading your k, i ask that you at least slow down and contextualize your links. if you want me to give you the ballot based off the alt, you have to explain to me what exactly that means for the round/world.

- cross should check. if your opponents ask you questions about how they can better engage, answer in the best way possible please.

- dont read ks on novices.

note: racism, sexism, and discriminatory behavior is not tolerated. i'll simply drop you with the lowest speaks possible and report you. respect you opponents and their pronouns. general rudeness isn't appreciated either.

~ finally, have fun.

I am a varsity PF debater at Regis High School in my 3rd year of PF debate. I would consider myself a flow judge, and you can expect that I will understand the topic and terms associated with it, but I would still recommend fully explaining your argument to make sure I understand all the nuances of your point, especially if it is uses more obscure concepts.

I know people tend to skim through lengthy paradigms, so I will keep my round expectations brief.

-Remember to speak clearly throughout the round, if I don't understand you, I can't flow your arguments

-Please use all of your time, even if you don't have anything prepared to say, try to clarify a point or re explain something confusing. I am not super strict with time and understand if you go over a few seconds to finish a sentence.

-Rebuttal should respond fully to the other team's case, and second rebuttal should frontline any arguments you want to keep. Any contentions/subpoints not responded to will automatically be flowed through (just mention that it was not responded to), but rebuttals that are not responded to must be extended.

-Collapse during 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary

-Please give off time roadmaps for every speech after second rebuttal and stick to them during your speech.

-Do not bring up new information after 1st summary

-Weigh during summary and final focus, weighing is ultimately what will determine who I choose to vote for

-Crossfire should be used to clarify confusing points or attempt to expose a contradiction. Crossfire is not flowed through: bring up any points you want me to flow in the next speech.

-In terms of tech or truth, I would generally say that I treat them as equal, but it is case by case. I try to exclude my own intuitions and assumptions when listening to the arguments, but there is a point where I have to use common sense in my judgement of the round.

-Please stick to the topic. Do not run theory or kritiks. For several reasons, I feel that theory and kritiks make the debate environment unfair, go against the spirit of debate, and fail to solve for the problems they claim they are fixing.

-Please have general politeness and remain civil. Do not make prejudiced remarks against the other team on any basis (race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.). Do not try to "take over" the crossfire. One of the things I most dislike in debate is when a team asks a question and then cuts off the other team before they can give a proper answer, or when they spend over a minute asking a question that could be asked in 20 seconds. Refrain from laughing at or trying to make the other team look ridiculous during your rebuttal: making the other team look foolish is not a valid way to counteract an argument.  Remember the arguments and responses given during rounds are not reflective of the intelligence of the other debaters, and that the ideas they put forward do not reflect their ideologies. 

-I try to be generous with speaks because no one likes placing lower at a debate tournament because one judge gave them super low speaks. Stick to what I said above: If you are polite, use all of your time for your speeches, and speak clearly, you will definitely get good speaks.

hi! i am an inexperienced judge i will try my best to evaluate the round!

please go slow and make good arguments. presentation is important!

thank you!!!!

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

lol u scrolled down - honestly though i prefer you read 170 wpm and make smart simple arguments and i will love it and give 30 speaks. also even if i obviously wont evaluate presentation on my flow good presentation will a. give you high speaks b. make sure i dont miss anything c. subconsciously make me believe you

email: janghee3000@gmail.com , add me to chain

current junior debater on nat circuit with moderate success - scarsdale ly

send me ur case for +1 speaks (pdf format by email) - send me speech docs for +1 speaks (only if u can do it without any delay)

anything over 200 wpm send doc and anything over 250 for elims or bubble when im locked in

ask me any specific questions before round

i typed the stuff below quickly so it might be confusing and doesn't cover everything

tldr:

im not a bot you can do your style of debating but please explain important stuff for more than 5 seconds ????

ill just be looking for the path of least resistance to the ballot

warrant everything

do the comparative with your warrant and their warrant, please develop the only portable skill in debate (typing a sentence into google and just picking the part you want to read isn't developing much researching imo) - this is what makes you a better at the activity as well (i should listen to my own advice ngl)

weigh or i will throw the decision and no one will be happy

i will find it entertaining and give you high speaks if you read a funny shell but I probably wont evaluate it correctly so not a good idea

• same goes for substance, if you want high speaks please dont do the classic "tech" debating of reading 500 responses and then clarifying and yelling at me they "conceded" this in final focus even though i will unfortunately have to give it to you if it is
• some valid strats/ backhalf moments : going for a turn, both teams collapsing on the same argument, implicating a conceded idea
• in general more clash = more fun

specifics:

i presume neg (neg/con is objectively the better side of the debate ????)

most prog u should go is theory (but don't)

- only read theory if you believe it matters

• my personal opinions ( i will still vote on it if you win it):
• disclosure is mid - i don't really want to judge a disclosure round
• paraphrasing theory is 100% valid - a lot of evidence is really powertagged/miscut/misconstrued
• dont be scared to do an ev challenge if you think so -

the rest is taken from my partner rick's paradigm which he also probably took from someone else (with a couple edits)

im too lazy to type up more and ug prob dont want to read aswell

Speech by speech prefs:

Constructive:

dont scream at me

Rebuttal:

Offensive/defensive/etc. Overviews are fine. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything read in first rebuttal (collapsing is smart if it is necessary and will boost your speaks). Conceded args are true. Saying that a response has no warrant is a sufficient frontline but if the response did have a warrant you can’t go up in summary and explain why the warrant doesn't make sense, that's analysis that should have been done in rebuttal and I won’t evaluate it.

Summary:

Every argument that you want to be a voting issue needs to be fully extended, whether it be a case arg, defense, or a turn. Defense is not sticky! If you don’t extend properly and the other team points it out I will drop you. Please frontline whatever you’re going for. Please weigh. If you aren’t winning the argument then the weighing is kinda irrelevant (so your link gotta be pretty well defended). Weigh with whatever mechanisms you want. I like prereqs and link-ins but if both teams read prereqs and don’t weigh the prereqs I will be sad.

Final Focus:

Mirror the summary, condense the round. If you notice an arg is new, then saying it’s new is a perfectly sufficient response and you can feel free to move on (don’t lie or I will tank your speaks). NO new arguments please (especially in second final I will tank your speaks). Tell me why you win.

Speaks:

I give speaks based on in-round strategy - i will give people high speaks based on how easy you make it for me but that wont affect my decision

If you want higher speaks, try the following:

1. Bringing me food or drinks

2. Skipping grand cross

3. Only analytical responses in your rebuttal

4. Not using any prep time

5. Being funny

General things to do before the round:

1. Please preflow, I will drop speaks if you waste my time when the round is supposed to have started

During the Round:

1. I am willing to read off speech documents but don’t abuse this. I don’t want to flow a 1500-word doc with 50 pieces of paraphrased evidence.

2. Stay unmuted when calling for evidence (for virtual). Verbally clarify when your prep time is starting and stopping.

3. After a certain point (around 1 minute or so), the longer you take to send evidence, the lower your speaker points will be. If we are in outrounds, then I will keep this in mind as a tiebreaker if nothing can settle the clash.

4. I may listen to crossfire, but I will not flow it. Crossfires are the only speech times in which you are directly speaking against your opponent, so it is an important time to showcase your hard work while also standing your ground. Anything important from crossfire should be in your next speech if you want me to make note of it.

After the round:

1. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with my decision. Judges should be able to defend any decision they make as a way to demonstrate the fairness of the round and to provide constructive criticism for both teams.

2. If you have any questions about ways you could've improved in the round, please ask me. I will give an oral RFD (reason for decision) but it is always good to ask for more feedback. Email me after the round if you want.

Other General Info

1. Don't be rude - I won't vote you down for it but your speaks will suffer

2. Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/anything __ist - I will down you immediately and tank your speaks.

3. Remember to have fun - Y'all are here to learn and get better. While winning is always a nice feeling, it should not be the end all be all of why you're here

Good luck to both teams and have fun!

Hi!

My name is Emily Levine. I'm a senior at Scarsdale High School, and this is my fourth year debating Public Forum.

I will be flowing, but treat me like a lay judge. Here are my preferences for the round:

1. Signpost (aka tell me what you are responding to)
2. Off the time road maps are fine but don't abuse them
3. NO Ks or theory (if you don't know what those don't worry about it)
4. Weigh your arguments comparatively against the other sides - address any clash in the round
5. If you collapse an argument you can't bring it back up later in the round - I will not start flowing it again
6. Argue over ideas not numbers - cards are great but they don't replace proper warranting
7. Be polite during cross - don't interrupt the other team or your speaks will be lower
8. I won't flow cross, so bring up anything important in the next speech
9. Don't spread - it's a waste of my time and yours and it isn't the point of PF
10. Anything new brought up in final focus will not be flowed

Timing: I expect you to time yourself. I will be timing you and I expect speeches to be the correct length. I will stop flowing at about over 10 seconds, but if you go over it will negatively impact your speaks.

Being racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ect will make you automatically lose the round and I will tank your speaks. Be respectful to the other team, your partners, and me.

Most importantly, have fun. This is just debate! A win or a loss does not reflect who you are as a person. Try your best and you will do great!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts :)

I debated public forum for 4 years in high school, so I am familiar with the format.

Please do not spread.

Don't misconstrue or exaggerate evidence.

Don't straw man your opponents arguments or misrepresent what they said.

I prefer good arguments grounded in the truth as opposed to technicalities.

Make sure to explain why your arguments are more impactful than your opponents instead of just explaining why yours are true and theirs are false.

Though I am familiar with some jargon, I'd rather you explain your arguments without using them.

Debate the resolution and not theories or k's.

General

I believe that debate should be about discovering and communicating the truth rather than following the technicalities associated with high school debate. Thus, your top priority should be to offer true, well-warranted, and clear arguments. Although I will flow the entire round and appreciate you following the technicalities of debate, technicalities are a secondary concern in my mind. In other words, I would much rather you go over time or miss an argument in a speech than spread, manipulate evidence, or deliver a false argument. Finally, while it goes without saying, rude or disrespectful behavior of any kind particularly towards your opponents is not acceptable and will likely result in an immediate loss.

Argumentation

As I said earlier, I place a high value on good arguments. I am pretty familiar with the PF topic and should be able to understand technical and complex arguments as long as they are clear, well warranted, and founded in facts. I also tend to prefer tangible arguments with a clear link to the resolution than ones with long link chains or loose connections to the resolution.

Please also avoid progressive argumentation such as theories or Ks. I don't really know how they work and will almost definitely not vote on them.

Timing

1. Please don't spread. I will try my best to understand you, but if your speaking over 250 words per minute, the chances are I probably won't.

2. I am generous with time. You can go a few seconds over as long as you are not spreading.

Speeches

1. Case:

- Don't rush and make sure it's not too long (over 850 words)

- Make sure you cite the source and the date of any statistics or quotes you cite (author last name and year is fine).

2. Crossfire:

-Be polite in crossfire. Do not interrupt your opponent and try to share the time as evenly as possible.

3. Rebuttal:

-Quality over quantity of responses. One or two good counterarguments is often enough.

- Please frontline in second rebuttal so you don't leave that for second summary.

4. Summary:

- I won't evaluate new arguments by second summary. Also, you don't need to waste responding to new arguments in final focus. Just point out any new arguments and I'll judge whether they have been said or not.

- Don't just repeat your case and rebuttal. Compare your contentions to your opponent's arguments and explain why yours are better.

- You should "extend" anything that you want me to evaluate, but that means re-explaining the argument not simply namedropping the tag-line

5. Final Focus

- You don't need to re-explain every argument unless it wasn't clear in summary. Just take what has been said and explain why your arguments and overall narrative is better than your opponents.

- Please weigh your impacts so I can keep my decision as objective as possible

Evidence

Please don't manipulate evidence. I will mostly likely tell if a card is embellished and will call for it at the end of round. If I find your evidence to be embellished in any way, I will disregard it completely.

Miscellaneous

- Please don't lie about what your opponent said or did not say. If you're not sure about what your opponents said, they don't make assumptions.

- Try to avoid using jargon like internal link, prereq, magnitude, scope, or reversibility, especially as a replacement for good logic. They make debate inaccessible, and I don't know what many of them mean.

Congress Paradigm:

Congress debater for 4 years. 1-year out from circuit. Knew what I was doing. Please do read the whole paradigm. Will try to include all info I feel pertinent to both completely new congress debaters and experienced ones. Feel free to ask questions about my expectations at the beginning of round.

Congress is a singularly unique event in its ability to combine content and interaction with the flow with an element of presentation. It makes sense to consider and prioritize both, and that comes with really owning the congress-member role.

My 1 goes to the best overall legislator in the round, and although solid content (strong logic, concrete evidence analysis, fleshed out impacts, thought out refutation and weighing, etc.) is the foundation for a good speech, presentation is super important to me and will often be the difference maker between multiple competitors in good content standing come the end of round. This means I am cognizant of speed, pacing, rhetorical prowess, confidence, body language, inflection, and gravitas. Please do not look down at your pad and read it like a manuscript, though I know this is often the most difficult part for newer debaters.

Claims are ideally short and succinct, given substance not by making the claim itself unnecessarily long, but in a well thought out and digestible warrant that introduces some nuance to the central points of contention for the round. Speeches should ideally have some followable and identifiable structure to provide organization to the speech, though Congress does provide a ton of flexibility in structure depending on when you speak in round. Every speech after the first constructive should have some form of refutation, increasing in proportion in your speech as the round progresses, alongside weighing at the impact level.

This is crucial. It's not enough to say what is happening in the status quo or what change will happen to SQuo as a result of the legislation, you have to logically and expressively articulate how and why we should care. Terminalizing impacts helps with this.

(EX: This bill cripples our economy... --> Terminalize --> That means less food in people's pantries, less fuel in their cars, and less clothes on their backs as a stable economy is a prerequisite to financial stability for X people due to Y...). Gross generalization but just to get the point across. Good rule of thumb is right after reading a bill to just askwho, and not justwhat.

Evidence is important. Argumentation without evidence is difficult to personally buy, worse yet to credit on the flow. So use it. When you do, make sure to analyze it. Congress isn't about throwing around numbers or statistics, it's about telling the stories behind them to ultimately work towards some greater truth or realization in the back and forth. I know that sounds dramatic but you would be surprised at the ingenuity and progress that can come from truth-backed, respectful, and multi-layer argumentative conversation for topics and issues that we can universally agree are super important.

In that vein, I have zero tolerance for xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, and classism. I know... a lot of ism's but debate is only as productive as it is inclusive.

I typically rank PO's well. If I don't notice you are there then you did a great job. Mistakes happen. It's not that deep. 1 or 2 won't kill you. Repeated mistakes in calling speakers and questioners dissolves speaking equity in round so I will have to dock points for that. I don't shadow preside so competitors, if you know you deserved a speech or a block, you should always point of order. Good PO's always rank well. Don't be afraid to take control of the round if speakers are not abiding by grace periods and question timings.

Questioning is important. I pay attention. Remain active in round. No questions are better than bad questions however. Questions should ideally advance debate and there are dozens of ways to ask interesting ones. Gotcha moments are always fun.

Overall, take risks, have fun, and step out of your comfort zone. Don't obsess over ranks or speaks coming from someone who did. It's a gutter game not worth feeding into. Speaking in front of crowds sucked for me but I promise it gets better. If you're an experienced competitor reading this, you'll find that my expectations are mostly in line with what should ultimately come out of a productive session.

Oh and lastly, don't be afraid of making mistakes, you can't possibly be worse than our real congress.

Good luck, see you in round!

Hi!

My name is Claire Matula-Osterman. I'm a senior at Scarsdale High School, and this is my fourth year debating Public Forum.

Tell me a joke before the round and if I laugh I'll consider +.1 speaks.

If you are racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc I will drop you! Be respectful to the other team, your partners, and me.

I will be flowing your args, but treat me like a lay judge. Here are my preferences for the round:

1. Signpost (aka tell me what you are responding to)

2. I won't evaluate Ks or theory, so please don't use them (if you don't know what those are don't worry about it)

3. Contact on ideas not numbers - cards are great but they don't replace proper warranting

4. Please be polite during cross - don't interrupt the other team or your speaks will be lower

5. I won't flow cross, so bring up anything important in the next speech (this includes concessions!)

6. I'm fine with speed, just keep it reasonable.

7. Anything new brought up in final focus will not be flowed

8. Most importantly, please please please weigh!!

And remember, a win is just a win and a loss is just a loss - it doesn't mean anything about you as a person or a debater - it just determines who won a particular round, so relax and have fun!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts :)

He/Him

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

Tech > Truth

Couple of things:

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

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

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

You must frontline in second rebuttal

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

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

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

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

Please be respectful in cross!

Progressive Stuff:

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

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

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

And FINALLY:

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

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

Hi debaters! My name is Amanda, and I am a fourth-year PFer at Scarsdale High School. Here are a few of my preferences:

1. Don’t run theory or kritiks

2. I will not flow crossfire, so if you want me to evaluate a point made in cross please mention it in your next speech

3. I will evaluate arguments extended through BOTH summary and final focus

4. No new arguments in final focus!!

5. Please signpost so that I can follow along with your speech

6. WEIGH — explain why you should win the round and interact with the arguments that your opponents make

7. Keep crossfire civil — don't interrupt your opponents, don't be rude, etc.

8. I can handle speed but please be reasonable

9. Have fun!! I will most likely give you high speaks as long as you are respectful

Good luck! Feel free to ask me any questions :)

Add me to the email chain: anudelman23@scarsdaleschools.org

TL;DR

- I debated PF in high school

- Flow ish judge

- Signpost (tell me what argument you're talking about before you start talking about it)

- Weigh (tell me why your impacts matter than the other ones in the round), and don't just say the buzzwords. Weighing should be in summary at the latest. If one team weighs and the other one doesn't, it makes my vote substantially easier

- Uncarded analysis is fine as long as it makes sense

- Don't lie about evidence when you use it

- I don't care if your evidence is paraphrased as long as it's not misconstrued

- Don't do any of the bad -isms or -phobias

- I'm not a fan of theory, Ks, etc. in PF

- Lefty/critical args are good

- If you have any questions about my paradigm please ask in round, especially if you're a novice. It will not hurt you at all

- Good luck!

-I debate varsity PF at Byram Hills High School.

-i like unique args. hearing the same thing all day gets boring

-tech > truthbut do not misconstrue evidence.

-non interventionist, i will only call for evidence if the debate hinges on it.

-Do not run Theory, Tricks, K. They are abusive in PF, esp with novices. I have no experience judging them and will have a hard time voting for you

-signpost when speaking e.g. "to respond to their first contention..." Responding to their case line by line makes for good rebuttal

-you must extend. saying "we extend C1" is not enough but explain. Additionally, you must frontline and respond to turns

-WEIGH!!! starting in summary and definitely in FF, Make it comparative. Don't say "magnitude" or "scope" without explaining what that means. Otherwise, I have a hard time evaluating your impacts

-collapse strategically in summary

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend defense to 1st summary

-I do not evaluate cross fire. While it is good to make your opponent look bad, everything said in cross must be n inthe next speech for it to be on the flow

-Do not abuse time. if i see you consistently abusing prep time or going way overtime in your speeches, your speaks will be low

-Do not be homophobic, sexist, racist, etc or auto 26 speaks

I'm Teddy, I'm a current senior at Regis High School and have been competing in PF for four years. I'm flowing, but I am not 100% tech over truth. My email is tpoulos24@regis.org if you would like to add me to an email exchange.

1. I vote tech so long as you extend both warranting and impacts, and the argument is not based on anything verifiably false.

2. Do not spread. Flowing will be fuzzy past 250wpm.

3. Just because I am voting off the flow does not mean you do not need to warrant evidence, please explain why.

4. Do not run theory, K's, or any other similar arguments. I will drop you.*

*This does not include calling out your opponent's evidence ethics. Unless it's intentionally misleading, I likely will not vote on it entirely and will instead drop the evidence from my flow.

I’m a pf debater at Regis High School

I am a flow judge but I won't vote on arguments that are completely illogical.

A few things:

Extend, please please extend. Bring your best offensive and defense through all speeches or I cannot evaluate it in my decision.

Collapse: Focus on your best argument and use that to show me why you won. In essence, play to your strengths and don’t feel the need to bring everything through the round.

WEIGH: This is so so important. Tell me why you won and why your argument is better than your opponents. Make my job easier, because without weighing the round is very muddled and difficult for me to evaluate.

Signpost: Tell me where you are in the round, it helps both me and you with organization.

Evidence: Please do not just make claims, if you are using evidence cite that evidence because otherwise it looks like you are just making random claims without anything to back it up.

Please Have fun!

Hi all! I debate varsity pf at Byram Hills :)

- Tech > truth but do not misconstrue evidence

- Please comparative weigh, interact with opponents impact and de link instead of simply stating buzz words like magnitude without explanation.

- Signpost when speaking ex) "to respond to their c2" this makes my ballot organized, hence its easier to vote for you

- turns - I'll only vote on them if they're extended with links, impacts, and weighing.

- You must extend. Saying "we extend C1" is not enough but explain. Additionally, you must frontline and respond to turns

- Quality of evidence > quantity. I won't call for evidence unless debate depends on it.

- Unique args are fun

- Collapse strategically in summary and ff

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend defense to 1st summary

- CX:if you make a good point in cross, anything you want me to evaluate must be extended in summary and FF.

• Everything else is negotiable, these aren't. I will give auto 26 speaks:

Cheating in all forms

Stealing/ Abusing Prep ("evidence calling" for more time.)

Offensive arguments (homophobic, sexist, racist, etc.)

Tricks

Theory/K's- Debate the resolution. Running progressive argumentation style cases to confuse your opponents isn't fair. Debate should be accessible to everyone. Trust me, I've heard it all and I could live peacefully never hearing it again.

Most importantly- Have fun! Debate is great for establishing persuasive communication skills and overall organization. Good luck!

If you have questions about anything else, feel free to email me @leezareichenbaum.edu@gmail.com :)

Hi! My name is Roni and I’m a 4th-year PFer at Scarsdale High School. Here are a couple of my preferences:

1. Don't run theory or k’s (if your opponent is seriously offensive I will just drop them)

2. Speaking of being offensive, don't. I will drop you.

3. Keep cross civil or I will lower your speaks. This means don’t be rude, don’t yell over each other, don’t repeatedly

interrupt, don’t hog time, don’t use cross time to debate (just ask questions and respond).

4. I don’t flow cross. If you want me to flow something you said in cross, mention it in the following speech.

5. I vote based on the flow, so:

a. I won’t flow new arguments brought up in final focus or new cards presented in second summary.

b. Make sure you are extending your arguments through summary and final focus.

6. Weigh!!! But don’t just state the mechanisms, explain to me why you win the round and not your opponents.

Make sure you have fun!!!! If you have questions about this, I am happy to answer them before the round :)))

p.s. if you want extra speaker points be happy and make friends <3

Hi! My name is Meritxell (she/her) and I’m a fourth year PF debater at Scarsdale High School.

Some things you should know..

1) Must be respectful and respect each other’s pronouns. Especially during Cross-X let people speak but do not let them walk all over you. I will pay attention to cross but I will not flow it so make sure to bring up any important points in your speeches.

2) WEIGH and interact with each other’s arguments. The earlier the better.

3) Don’t cite “basic economics” (please have a card).

4) DO NOT run theory or a K or anything similar!! Basically, don’t run anything abusive.

5) Speed: I can handle a bit of a faster speed but do not spread.

6) Recommended: don’t just cite cards - relate it back to your case/why this card is important

7) Timing: I will stop flowing around 15 seconds overtime. I will most likely keep time for myself but I encourage you to keep your own time as well.

8) I won’t evaluate new arguments in final focus + make sure to extend arguments throughout your speeches

9) Signpost

Speaker Points:

You should get good speaks from me unless you’re just offensive/disrespectful.

If you have any questions feel free to ask! :)

Hello there! I’m Tallulah (she/her), and I’m a current senior who does speech at the Bronx High School of Science. I primarily compete in Humorous Interpretation, but I have also competed in Declamation and JV Oral Interpretation in the past. I have judged Speech, Extemp, PF, and LD before.

PF:

Lay all the way. I've judged PF before (and I happen to have a younger brother who does PF and tells me all about it), but I'm very much not an expert. So don't throw any TOO fancy jargon at me, or I might spontaneously combust. (Though I promise I know the basics, probably moreso than a lot of speechies.)

Please speak clearly, as it helps out a lot in fully understanding your case. Also because I'm a speech kid,,,like, I care about actual solid public speaking.

Okay! That's all she wrote! Good luck, y'all!

P.S: My paradigm is written in Comic Sans purely because I thought it was funny. The fact that Wingdings AND Webdings are font options is even funnier.

(Questions? Comments? Concerns? sarigt@bxscience.edu is the place to go!)

I'm a senior at Regis, and this is my 4th year debating pf. That means I've probably prepped the topic and have a good understanding of the stock args, especially later in the topic.

I'll definitely flow the round and will use my flow to decide the round. I prefer arguments that are at least somewhat true, but I won't use my personal knowledge/opinions to discredit an argument you're winning in round. I will notice if your breaking debate rules and this will disadvantage you, but it's not enough to automatically lose the round. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal, no new responses in 2nd summary or later, and don't tell me in ff that your opponent dropped an argument that they did deal with.

I care about evidence, but don't spend the whole round debating a single card. If there's evidence clash, I prefer the side that better logically warrants their argument, not the side that just evidence dumps. I will also consider uncarded logical arguments, but they're weak against similarly strong logic + evidence. If I feel a card has become critical to the round (or if I'm just curious) I may call for cards at the end of the round, so don't lie about evidence.

Speed is relatively fine — I'm definitely okay with a 900 word case, but don't go above 1000 and don't excessively spread. Especially if you are going to speak fast, signpost or else I won't be able to flow what you're saying.

Try to be respectful, but I get that cross can become heated and that's fine. I'll pay attention in cross but won't flow, so bring up any important points in later speeches.

Don't run progressive arguments, especially at lower levels — you will almost certainly lose the round, and I will drop you if you run them at a team that obviously doesn't know how to deal with them. Debate the substance of the resolution.

I'm a Senior at Regis High School, this is my fourth year debating PF.

• I am a flow judge but I appreciate when debaters speak like normal people
• Extend through all of your speeches if you want me to vote for an argument
• Weigh - ideally use numbers (quantify)
• Try to collapse
• Debate the resolution please
• Have fun!

have fun!!!

I'm a freshman in college, and I debated in public forum in high school. I judge a lot, so I'm happy to give advice and answer questions at the end of the round.

Add me to the email chain: rv2529@barnard.edu.

• I'm open to theory and progressive arguments when ran well.
• I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

• In both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

• For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns.
• PS: I like link-ins from case and preq. arguments a lot. I don't like when teams use their case arguments as their only responses ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate (interact with the individual warrants and links!)
• In summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another.
• I like meta-weighing -- tell me which mechanism is better.
• Not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
• The final focus speech is a good time to slow down and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. Please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.
• I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. Still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.
• Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

• I like framework when it is well warranted and unique... I don't like "cost-benefit analysis" framework

pronouns: he/him
I am a varsity PF debater. There are 4 things I look for when evaluating a round:

1. Case: Having a well-warranted case is essential to winning a round. Your link chain should be extremely clear
2. Responses/Frontlines: Explain your responses well and implicate them. Dumping a lot of very poorly warranted one-sentence responses isn’t helpful. Frontlines for the 1st speaking team should be in 1st summary, frontlines for the 2nd speaking team should be in 2nd rebuttal. Don’t bring up new responses in summary/final focus.
3. Extensions: PLEASE extend in summary and final focus. It not only helps me know what you’re going for, but it helps you highlight your most important pieces of warranting or evidence. I won’t necessarily drop you for not extending, but it’s going to be an extremely uphill battle for you if you don’t. Having good and efficient extensions will help your speaker points.
4. Weighing:Make sure your weighing is comparative and explained extremely well. Weighing should be the same in summary and final focus.

Other things:

- don’t be mean in cross.

- don’t be mean in general.
- good turns are very fun, bad turns are insufferable
- collapsing is generally beneficial
- I don’t flow cross, but if your opponent says something important in cross, bring it up in your next speech.

- don't spread

Hi! My name's Maddy and I'm a senior at Byram Hills, I competed in LD for three years and PF for one too --

my fb is maddy whelley and my email is whelleym23@byramhills.net if you have any questions feel free to ask

assuming ur a novice -- please give me some sort of signposting/overview so I know where you are on the flow and please just don't be a bad person in round and speak clearly bc online makes it a little harder to hear sometimes but besides that do what u want

update: haven't changed this paradigm since junior year, here's a bear

ʕ•́ᴥ•̀ʔ
enjoy :D

I am a former pf debater, I value weighing and clarity above most other things. Make the debate easy for me, do some interesting thinking and reasoning, and keep things light and fun!

Hi, I'm Rick!

About me: I am a junior and have debated PF at Scarsdale High School for 3 years. Please add me to any email chains: rickyang11109@gmail.com

TL;DR

100% Tech > truth. I’ll vote for anything as long as it's properly extended and weighed. Speak as fast as you want. Defense isn’t sticky. Everything must be responded to in the next speech (besides 1st constructive), or else it’s conceded. Conceded arguments are true. Extend + weigh warrants, links, impacts in the back half (whatever you’re going for). Be respectful, and have fun!

Long version

Speech by speech prefs:

Constructive:

Go as fast as you want and read whatever you want. Send a doc (rhetoric is required, cards are optional) for anything above 260 WPM ( a rule that applies for every speech).

Rebuttal:

Offensive/defensive/etc. Overviews are fine. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything read in first rebuttal (collapsing is smart if it is necessary and will boost your speaks). Conceded args are true. Saying that a response has no warrant is a sufficient frontline but if the response did have a warrant you can’t go up in summary and explain why the warrant doesn't make sense, that's analysis that should have been done in rebuttal and I won’t evaluate it.

Summary:

Every argument that you want to be a voting issue needs to be fully extended, whether it be a case arg, defense, or a turn. Defense is not sticky! If you don’t extend properly and the other team points it out I will drop you. Please frontline whatever you’re going for. Please weigh. If you aren’t winning the argument then the weighing is kinda irrelevant (so your link gotta be pretty well defended). Weigh with whatever mechanisms you want. I like prereqs and link-ins but if both teams read prereqs and don’t weigh the prereqs I will be sad.

Final Focus:

Mirror the summary, condense the round. If you notice an arg is new, then saying it’s new is a perfectly sufficient response and you can feel free to move on (don’t lie or I will tank your speaks). NO new arguments please (especially in second final I will tank your speaks). Tell me why you win.

Speaks:

I give speaks based on in-round strategy and am usually generous

If you want higher speaks, try the following:

1. Bringing me food or drinks

2. Skipping grand cross

3. Only analytical responses in your rebuttal

4. Not using any prep time

5. Being funny

6. Sending me your cases so I can flow card names (especially if you're going fast)

General things to do before the round:

1. Please preflow, I will drop speaks if you waste my time when the round is supposed to have started

2. Add me to the email chain: rickyang11109@gmail.com

During the Round:

1. I am willing to read off speech documents but don’t abuse this. I don’t want to flow a 1500-word doc with 50 pieces of paraphrased evidence.

2. Stay unmuted when calling for evidence (for virtual). Verbally clarify when your prep time is starting and stopping.

3. After a certain point (around 1 minute or so), the longer you take to send evidence, the lower your speaker points will be. If we are in outrounds, then I will keep this in mind as a tiebreaker if nothing can settle the clash.

4. I may listen to crossfire, but I will not flow it. Crossfires are the only speech times in which you are directly speaking against your opponent, so it is an important time to showcase your hard work while also standing your ground. Anything important from crossfire should be in your next speech if you want me to make note of it.

After the round:

1. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with my decision. Judges should be able to defend any decision they make as a way to demonstrate the fairness of the round and to provide constructive criticism for both teams.

2. If you have any questions about ways you could've improved in the round, please ask me. I will give an oral RFD (reason for decision) but it is always good to ask for more feedback. Email me after the round if you want.

Other General Info

1. Don't be rude - I won't vote you down for it but your speaks will suffer

2. Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/anything __ist - I will down you immediately and tank your speaks.

3. Remember to have fun - Y'all are here to learn and get better. While winning is always a nice feeling, it should not be the end all be all of why you're here

Good luck to both teams and have fun!

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

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

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

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

spec notes on how to adapt to me:

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

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

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

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