pf captain @ bronx science (she/her)

add me to the email chain!! (gallom@bxscience.edu)

tldr: tech > truth, line-by-line, signpost, write my ballot for me, be funny bc i am probably tired

mac miller lyrics in your speech = +1 speaks

if you have any questions about my paradigm/the round, pls ask

novice/general:

• i look to the team that wins the weighing debate first -- if i then see that your case is clean, you get my ballot (if no one does good weighing ill just prefer the least mitigated link)

• collapse and give a clear extension or i will actually burst into tears

• cut your cards or i will burst into tears a second time

• spend most of your backhalf focusing on and clarifying the best pieces of offense!!

• defense isn't sticky; if you want me to consider a response read on their case, it should be extended through each speech since it was first brought up

• give off-time roadmaps given before each speech

• speed is fine as long as it’s not an accessibility issue

• i listen to cross, but don't consider it in my decision -- if you think something that is said is important, bring it up in your next speech

*novice/jv stop reading here*

--

cws: if you're running any argument with graphic content, pls send out an anonymous opt-out form. if anyone chooses to opt out, read an alternate case/response with none of the graphic/triggering topics mentioned.

fw: i like evaling framework rounds!!! if the fw is conceded or agreed upon, i'll only consider arguments implicated under that framework. if both teams drop the framework or no one implicates to it then i'll literally just forget about it. if you drop your framework in backhalf and the opps turn that into a voting issue, i'll vote on it. if no one reads fw, i default to util.

--

my rant on prog: if you're clearly running theory/Ks as a cheap path to the ballot because you think your opponents can't respond & you have a tech judge (ie. you don't know the literature or have 0 clue what's happening on the flow), I WILL DROP YOU. you should be trying to set a norm or spread a message, not exploiting that message for a win. imo, if you really do believe in your arguments, you'd put in the effort to prep & argue them well. don't divert from substance debate for no good reason.

theory/t:

• shell theory > paragraph theory but i'll evaluate both, paragraph theory still needs drop the debater/rvi/etc warrants

• i default to no rvis

• cross should check. if your opp is asking questions so they can better engage, be truthful about your answers. if it's clear that you either a) are deliberately being misleading to gain an advantage or b) have no clue as to what you're saying, i won't evaluate your arg.

• if the violation is blatantly harmful ie. misgendering then i'll likely just end the round

• i think disclosure is a good norm & i'm comfortable voting on it, i'm fine if you paraphrase as long as you 1) disclose and 2) have a cut card available in a reasonable amount of time. that being said i don’t hack against this shell, if you win on the flow i’ll vote for you

• i'll vote off T, no preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "no judge intervention" and moving on

• i won't evaluate plans or cps

• trix/friv theory/TKOs are fun but i personally won't evaluate them (also i do not understand trix!)

• if u read theory on novices i will drop you

k:

• most experienced with nonT Ks, ive read a few (mainly killjoy) on the circuit before

• out of topical Ks i can prob best eval cap, sec, orientalism, & fem IR -- not too knowledgeable ab the literature outside of those but will still 100% eval the best i can (just explain it in a simple way)

• if you want me to vote on the alt, you have to explain to me what exactly that means for the round/world

• links are super important. even independent of the alt, they can be sufficient enough to win the round as a case turn. it's super important that they're contextualized to what you actually do. the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad"

• don't spew some random old cards from a policy backfile that no one in the debate understands and just go for some stupid tech role of the ballot trick pls, actually do research if the k is important to u

• if u read a k on novices i will drop you

lmk if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them before or after round.

I debated for UniversityHS in PF for 3 years a while back.

I have judged mostly PF over the past couple of years and only recently started judging mostly Policy and LD sporadically.

So I'm not really debate term savvy. You may need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you normally would. You may also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so keep I can adjust.

Not a fan of spreading but if you must please be loud and clear, very clear.

I vote up for creativity.

But please make sense of what you're trying to portray.

I vote down for wasted time.

I rarely give feedback depending on how rounds go.

Email chain: Alaiyahharris21@gmail.com

REMEMBER: be passionate and have fun!

I am a current Public Forum debater, and I am a flow judge, which means I am tech over truth. Address all your points cohesively, and you need to weigh. If you have a framework, make sure to carry it through the entire round and not just drop it mid-round. Throughout your speeches, make sure you are giving me valid/important reasons to vote for you.

Rebuttal: If you have a framework, establish it and carry it on towards your speech. Make sure to signpost and indicate which point you are countering/talking about. Make sure to not drop anything and be detailed/provide valid reasoning. If you're the first rebuttal speaker, focus on refuting and wrapping up at the end. If you're the second rebuttal speaker, I prefer you frontline first, and then move on to refuting (but, of course you can switch around depending on your preference). Also, remember to go down the flow effectively. PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP NEW CONTENTIONS DURING REBUTTAL.

Summary: Again, establish your framework. If you're the first summary speaker, make sure to frontline, extend yours and your opponent's cases, and WEIGH! If you're the second summary speaker, make sure to backline instead of front-lining and follow the usual format. DO NOT BRING UP COMPLETELY NEW ARGUMENTS AT THIS TIME OF THE ROUND (it doesn't make sense).

Final Focus: Make sure to mention your framework if you have one (lol saying it again!). The most important thing in this speech is to weigh effectively and address any remaining points. But, weigh! NO NEW INFORMATION DURING FINAL FOCUS.

Cross-Fire: Make sure to be respectful and not talk over each other. I like it when there's a clash, but just remember that I will not be noting anything from crossfire down, so anything valid said during crossfire can be brought up into later speeches. If you're calling a card, just remember that the time you spend reading your opponent's card is going to be subtracted from your prep time.

Speed: It does not matter how fast you speak, just be clear and cohesive (like I have to understand you lol).

Evidence: No anecdotes. Cut cards which contain factual information!

Just remember that you are not allowed to add new information to your speeches starting from second summary and onwards. Also, make sure to collapse on important points during the round.

Also, make sure you are being respectful towards your opponents. If you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, or in any way being discriminatory, you will be dropped from the round.

Lastly, just have fun and good luck!

I am a parent judge. Please limit debate jargon; would seek a reasonable rate of speech and see lots of value in providing a road map. Be concise.

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 second year parent judge who was never an academic debater (although I have been involved in countless corporate debates).

Hence, let's make the debate as much of a real world discussion as possible.

1) Please speak at a normal pace. No one "spreads" when trying to convince any other human being of anything useful.

2) Offline roadmaps and outlining the arguments are very helpful, remind me what you are arguing or refuting, and how that fits into the overall structure. Use the off the clock time to do this before you begin your speech!

3) Generally accepted concepts are welcomed. Logic and reason do not need citations. (i.e. high interest rates lead to lower stock prices)

4) "Truth over tech". Valid, engaging, impactful arguments win for me over tech every time.

5) Convince me why you should win in the Summary and Final Focus - be clear, structured, impactful, it really matters. Many of the debates are very close, and the Summary and Final Focus make all the difference. Wrap up the debate neatly.

Thank you and good luck.

I'm a parent volunteer judge. I did parliamentary debate in Ireland in the late 1980s — in other words, I know little about contemporary American PF jargon. I've been listening, and I've read the paradigms of fellow judges who have deep and recent PF experience and I'm slowly learning from them! Learning on the job, from judging, from talking to coaches and from talking to my daughter who debates.

So what do I understand? I want to understand you! Speak slowly, I want to follow your argument, and I want to feel like you're having a powerfully felt conversation with your opponents and with me. Don't talk at me, talk with me. Use tone intentionally. I'm your kind but slightly cranky uncle at the Thanksgiving table, you want to persuade me. You can use warmth and humor, as well as clarity and ruthlessness. Give me facts, but give me a point of view.

Lastly, and above all. Listen to your opponent. Really truly listen to them. Don’t talk over each other, but also don’t take a minute to ask your “question”—“don’t take up cross.” Try to understand the very heart of their argument. If you "block" the heart of their argument, you are more likely to win than five little nitpicks. (Yes, I'm learning, I know what "block" means, and heart of the argument is another way, perhaps, of "weighing"—the heart weighs more than five nitpicks..)

One last thing—my day job is as an executive and leadership coach. In that capacity I work a lot with leaders of large organizations, often helping with public speaking and executive presence. Show leadership, gravitas, charisma and presence out there!

Truly the last thing: a debater told me I should say, Truth over tech. Though her coach pointed out that’d be pretty obvious from the above.

My Pronouns are She / Her

Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.nwosu8@gmail.com

If there is no road map, why would I flow.

Hi, I am Mmesoma. I was a JV Policy Debater on the Regional and National level but I am now a regular judge for regional tournaments. I would consider myself a traditional judge with small exceptions of how you should debate.

Just a Disclaimer, my face moves a lot without my intention. Please do not think I am bored, not paying attention, confused or upset. Just know that I am very much paying attention. If you see me giggle, you said something funny.

Speed:

Spreading is NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I believe that speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST! You do not need to impress me.

Cross Examination:

I appreciate respectful and peaceful cross examination. I do not flow cross unless it clarifies an argument I am confused about but flowing cross is unusual for me. Yelling and abusive behavior will lead to speaker points deduction (you would probably see it on my face) but rudeness/attitude would not be a major RFD on my ballot.

Tricks

Tricks are NOT appreciated at all. Tricks make me uncomfortable as it is an unfair advantage. Instead of tricking your opponent, I feel as though you are tricking me as the judge.

End of Round

I will most likely give a critique once the round is done as well as the vote, if it is okay with both teams. I determine my vote based solely on what is on my flow and full understanding of both arguments. I am not a super super experienced debater, I may miss things, that it is why its so important to articulate and extent your argument as clearly as possible.

If I deem an argument racist, I am not voting for it.

Thank you so much! See y'all in the round.

Mark Perez (he/him)

Newark Science Debate '25

markdebatesnewark@hotmail.com

yes, email chain.

hey! a few things about me,

I am a current Public Forum Debater at Newark Science. I have experience in some forms of debate which include Policy, Public Forum & Middle School Debate. For novices, I understand this is your first year of Debate and I hope to make this your best year possible, the same way many of my influences did for me. I know I'm not that much older than you all but I truly care about debate and what you can learn from it!

My Top 5 Tips:

• Please, Please, Please time yourself!!
• Any form of bullying, Homophobia, Racism, etc is not allowed in my round. Failure to cooperate with this will be reflected in the RFD.
• When it comes to speed, I ask that you areclear.If you cannot maintain a clear voice throughout the round, it will be reflected in my RFD.
• Start every speech after the 1AC (CX) and Speaker A (PF) with a roadmap. I'm not just going to pull random flows out and know where you are.
• You do not need to call me Judge. Hello, my name is Mark! I'm literally not that much older than a lot of you.

My Top 3 Rules:

• I would like to start the round once everyone is in the room. I like to get my ballots in andon time.
• Be respectful of the debate space, you should not be on your phone watching TikTok.
• If you are in the Open Packet division, make sure your speech docs are sent out via Email Chain or posted on the Debate Wiki

Policy Debate:

Off Case Disads:

• When the Affirmative is responding to this, don't just read your cards that respond such as (no link, no impact, etc) WEIGH!!!!!
• Weigh your impacts after you finish reading your Impact card. (Like literally, why should I vote for your impacts.)
• I really don't care much about what your disad is, unless it's not relevant or it doesn't follow some of the guidelines I've listed throughout my paradigm.

Counter Plans:

• Please do not do a counter plan if you haven't read a Disad. Remember, "solves for all the harms of the affs while avoiding the disad). What are you avoiding without a disad??
• Please explain why the counterplan is more desirable than an AFF ballot.
• I love perms so much in the 2 AC, this doesn't mean you have the ability to do it.

Inherency & Solvency:

• You aren't going to summarize every card. HOWEVER, I would like to see somegooddefend & extend after the 1 AC.

Topicality:

• T debate is okay as long as you explain why what the other team is doing is a harm to the debate space.
• Voters is very important. Like, why should I vote for you??
• Policy Debate gets very boring at times so I really love to see topicality. (this doesn't mean always use it)

K (Kritik) Debate:

• I don't have any real experience in K debate. Please, keep this in mind! :)
• Your literature might be great but please... is it topical or not?
• If there is no alt in your K, it's a disad.
• I'm sorry but what is "gobbledygook"?? Please, explain this to me.

Cross Ex:

• My rules are pretty simple, do NOT talk over each other. I will deduct speaker points.
• Open Cross is okay. If I see that only one person is participating, I will also be deducting speaker points.
• Although I don't flow Cross - Ex, itmattersin whether or not you get high speaker points or not.

Magnitude & Probability:

• Please explain the probability and why it outways any possible aff/neg case.
• Always give stats, failure to do so will take away from the debate.
• Don't give me false stats, I have most of the information from helping my fellow novices prep.

RFD:

Once I click submit, I am not changing the RFD. You can make comments, however, I don't plan on changing my RFD.

Weigh

Please, weigh the debate! If you don't, I will move on to my flow where I can see where your arguments are dropped, etc.

Public Forum Debate:

Weigh

A lot of my judging for any form of debate, mainly PF, is your ability to weigh arguments throughout the Debate Round. I believe this is one of the #1 ways to win any PF round so be sure to do this!

Policy Debate (pf only section)

I know for PF, when we see that we have judges who've done Policy we want to turn PF into Policy mode. Donotdo this. I have seen enough of both forms of debate to see when you are trying to go policy on me.

My Job In The Debate Round

Please, do not make a round very hard to judge for me as I will not be putting your arguments together, making impacts for you, etc. As long as you are very clear and organized with your arguments, you should win!

Grand Crossfire

Take turns.. Don't speak over each other. I would definitely make sure that you are asking questions that are beneficial to the Debate Round. I don't really like questions to the extent of "What are your impacts?" or "Why do you think your case is good?".

Final Focus

Make sure to go over voting issues and ask yourself why you should really win the debate.

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

I try to make my paradigm as serious as possible. I'm literally one of the chillest (not) people you've been judged by, sorry if my paradigm doesn't reflect that.

Good luck, everyone! Please, read my paradigm as your ability to cooperate with this will be reflected in the Speaker Points Section.

**Don't try to show off the fact that you read this paradigm.. it will show in the round regardless.**

- Mark (please dont call me "Mark Perez" in the debate round)

Parent Judge.

I would appreciate it if you talk clearly and not too fast. Please do not spread, I need to be able to understand your facts. Would appreciate it if you could minimize the debate jargon. Also it would help if an off-time roadmap could be given. I'll listen to cross, but won't flow it. If anything happens during cross that you want me to consider in my ballot, mention it in a speech. Being assertive is good, being overly aggressive is not. Please do not throw cards at me without warranting them out.

Finally, as a public forum debater you should rely on both logic and evidence to construct your arguments.

Have Fun!

freshman @ the University of Michigan studying math of finance on a premed track currently competing policy/pf for umich debate

6 yrs in debate, 3 on vpf natl circuit competing for Brooklyn Technical HS (if you know what this is and you say bronx sucks I add speaks)

add me to the email chain (danvi@umich.edu)

General:

i hear an argument, i write it down on my flow.

don't spread

speaks start at 28 and if you say something offensive it goes down but if you impress me it goes up

low point wins may happen in round

i don't flow cross but if you flow it then i flow it

don't run k's, theory, or shells bc ill have a hard time following but if they are run i'll still vote tech > truth

1/2 ac:

do not run theory! I said it before and I'll say it again PF is PF and as a policy debater who did PF people do not want to debate policy in PF. I'll flow but beware I'll look upon it negatively.

rest is self explanatory I said it above

general cx:

make me laugh because that's what makes debate fun but do not be rude

cx is a time to argue, so do it. bonus speaks if you (respectfully) call out and say "judge...this is wrong" obviously within reason

do NOT use cx as a continuation of your speeches and if you drop a new contention I drop your speaks

rebuttal:

cleanly flow because it makes everyone's life easier, don't go all over the place because then my flow is all over the place and it's harder for you to win the round

if you're 2nd rebuttal frontline first and don't go line by line - try to save the best for last

summary:

COLLAPSE

it's OKAY to concede an argument. we can't win everything all the time so emphasize which points you HAVE won to make the debate easier for me to judge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the cleaner the flow the easier it is for you to win

do not repeat your speech in summary, and make sure to weigh

ff:

just regurgitate the biggest points + weigh; you have two minutes, so make the most of it

good luck and have fun! if you say Ohio State sucks and Go Blue you get 28.2+ speaks guaranteed(unless of course you break one of the rules above)