Outreach Debate Camp Tournament
2022 — Online, MA/US
PF Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidegen:
tech>truth
email chain: duaasali37@gmail.com
im not gonna ghost extend for u
weigh: ur inviting intervention if you don't do that work (link weighing tends to be more important in most debates, but in gen u need to do some sort of comparative work between arguments)
defense is not sticky
i like analytical responses
saying game over and TKO is cringe
prog:
theory is mind numbing, but i'll still evaluate it
weigh ur shells if there are multiple
im not gonna project my preferences for a certain debate norm. i will vote for wtv as long as u win it
i can evaluate kritiks, but i can't promise i'm gonna be the best judge for it (just explain everything super well)
Hello. I am tech.
signpost extend and weigh. frontline in rebuttal
don't go fast if you can't
I prefer 2019-20 to 2022-2023.
quality over quantity. please analyze your responses heavily, but don't do the silly irrelevant weighing people sometimes do on responses, do real implications.
I will make a point to deprioritize new weighing and analysis in second (and hopefully first) final focus.
I will evaluate anything. don't trust to evaluate nontopical K's; I will do what I want. theory: disclosure is probably good, paraphrasing is probably bad. I am reasonable; you don’t need a counter interp you can just respond logically if you want. friv theory (round reports and friends) is fine but I will evaluate it how I feel like
**After judging a good amount of rounds, I've noticed while "I am a flow judge," I almost always find that slightly slower, cleanly spoken, and big picture debating is more persuasive. The big picture almost always will win my flow** Take that how you will when you evaluate how flow or flay I am.
I debated six years for Boston Latin School, primarily during the whole expansion of online debate and on the national circuit. I've also taught at several camps and coached a couple debaters. You can read anything you want.
Paradigm
I used to have a really long paradigm but I realized it doesn't have to be so complex. The most basic idea of debate in my mind is breaking clash and warranting arguments. That's it. Every strategy whether that is a K, a theory shell, 20 turns off rebuttal, and 5 contentions should all strategize to answer 3 fundamental questions at the end of the round: 1. Why is this argument the most important argument in the round? 2. Does the argument have strong warranting and evidence? 3. Is this argument frontlined well enough to vote on?
*The only thing that I think will be helpful to you is how do I actually evaluate debate rounds?*
1. I'm looking at the deeper question or clash in the round and who is winning this debate. What I mean by this is that you should identify the implicit central issue that both sides are getting at. If one team says that, "US diplomacy will fail because it is overstretched" and another team says that "US diplomacy is important because we need to stop threats." This debate should focus slightly on whether the US should fiat diplomacy or not. However, it definitely should contextualize how strong the United States is and answer who are our adversaries and can we over come them. The United States' strength is an implicit question to the entire resolution and clash at hand. This is why I say I vote on the big picture.
2. On a more technical level, I look at who controls the best weighed link into the best weighed impact. I'll think to myself, "What are the main couple of arguments by the end of this round." Once I have these arguments, I'll either look to see if there's weighing or framework for an argument and look there, or if an argument simply has too much defense to be voted for. This usually narrows the flow into one to two arguments that are the most important ones. From there, it's typically a question of who has the stronger link story, better weighed impact and link, or cleaner link to vote for response wise.
Recognizing that the world, and also debate, is far more complex than two sides is how you start to win my ballot. Understanding nuance and why those nuances matter makes a good debater a great one. Finally, leveraging ballot directive language is key to being a persuasive speaker. Yes, I'm flow but debate is fundamentally a persuasion based activity - Don't forget that.
Hey, I'm Raiyan! I debated for 2 years (2021-2023) in PF for BASIS Chandler, qualled to both nats and gtoc 2x. I now am a PF coach at Durham Academy and a freshman at Duke.
Email: raiyanc2005@gmail.com
TDLR: regular flow judge, down to evaluate anything but I do prefer substance rounds.
General Stuff:
tech>truth. This means I will evaluate responses purely off the flow and how contested they are in the round. However, you still need to give me clear warranting and internal links for me to vote off an argument. I will be hesitant to vote on squirrely arguments if you blippily extend them.
My job as a judge is not to impose my views on debate to you, but rather adapt to your style of debate. As a debater, I didn't like having to adapt to weird quirks each judge had, so I don't want to replicate that experience for any of y'all.
I'll disclose and try to keep my feedback as constructive as possible. I know how stressful debate can be, so let's keep the round chill and lighthearted.
I can handle speed (just like lmk before your speech if its gonna be 250+ wpm so I can prepare myself) but I unfortunately can't comprehend policy level spreading.
Let's try to keep the round moving at a decent speed, please come to the round pre-flowed and ready to start
How I evaluate arguments:
I look to who wins the weighing, then I look to that argument and see who is winning that argument. However, if there is a scenario where team A is winning the weighing but has a really muddled link to the point where it go either way if they still have access to their link and Team B has a much cleaner link but is losing the weighing I'll vote for Team B.
Procedural things I assume about the round:
Frontline in second rebuttal, otherwise it's conceded
Make sure to extend in summary and final, otherwise I can't vote for your argument, this applies for defense and offense
You can't read new offense/defense in summary
However, If a team makes a new implication in summary (i.e. cross applying a conceded response on c2 to c1) I grant the opposing team the chance to make a new frontline
Make sure to weigh, you can only make new weighing in first final if it's responding to weighing from second summary, 2nd final is too late
If a team reads a turn on c1, it goes conceded and they want to cross-apply/re-implicate the turn to another contention, they must do so in summary, not for the first time in final focus.
Speaker Scores:
I start at 28, itll go up or down based on stuff like strategy, fluency, good implications, not extending thru ink, etc.
I’ll give boosts for quick evidence delivery. I have a lot of respect for teams that put in the work, have good cards cut, and are ready to send them over quickly while keeping their docs organized. I’ll also doc points for showing up late (1 point for every minute) without notice (if you have a legitimate reason for being late please email me). This is just so we can keep the rounds going as fast as possible, and prevent delays.
Cross can get heated, just don't say stuff like "shut up" or "what are you yapping about" in cross, it's not nice, I might have to drop you
Progressive Debate:
I prefer substance debates, but am open to evaluating any arguments. During high school, I never really read theory/k's but I do understand the basics of both.I believe no RVI's applies only if there is no offense won off the shell. That is too say, even if you read no RVI's the opposing team can still win the round on the theory layer if they read a turn to the shell (e.g. paraphrasing is good against a paraphrasing shell) or win that their competing interp is better.
If you are running a K please run it properly, have good alts, solvency, links, etc. If you are running theory please make sure it is not frivolous. I don't like paraphrasing, and I like disclosure, but again run what at you want, I'm just informing you of any biases I have since it will be fully impossible for me to completely remove those notions.
The two exceptions to my policy of "do whatever you want" is tricks, friv theory, and panel rounds. Unless it's a round robin, please don't consider running them, just so we can have an educational round. To reiterate, I highly encourage teams to not run frivolous theory if this is not a round robin. I think its pretty dumb and a waste of everyone's time. Let's try to actually take something away from this round. If we're in a panel round, and there is a lay judge please don't read any progressive arguments (or at least present them in a lay friendly manner). That said, I'll still evaluate the arguments as if I'm a flow judge.
Miscellaneous:
If this helps, I really liked having Bryce Piotrowski, Pinak Panda, Eli Glickman, Nate Kruger, Anisha Musti, Elliot Beamer, and Wyatt Alpert as a judge when I was debating. I also learned debate from the goat, Lars Deutz, so I’d say my views and perception of debate is very similar to his.
Just have some fun, I know it's cliche but debate can get pretty heated at times. At the end of the day, this is an activity for y'all to learn from. As such, I'll do my best to be as helpful and considerate before and after the round.
Hello!
I'm Grant and I've debated quite a bit for Norman North
Email Chain - gjgoering@gmail.com
TLDR: I'm fairly tech. I'll try not to intervene if possible. I'll vote for pretty much anything with a warrant, but I need implications not just blips. I will do my best to adapt to you and how you like to debate
NOTE: I am a PF debater if I am judging LD then I'm sorry I don't know norms or anything. Read what you want and I'll do my best but treat me as a lay judge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOVICE
- First and foremost do what you have been told to do by your coach, if something below and what your coach said to do are in conflict please do what your coach said
- I know the first few times you compete its scary and overwhelming so don't worry about the rest of what's in here, I've been in your position, don't be scared, you can do it!
- I'll do my best to give you as much feedback as possible and if there is anything I can do to help you understand this activity better or why I made the decision I did please please find me after the round or email me, I know its intimidating but I want to help you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA 5a/6a
- I default to 29 speaks
- If your opps evidence is bad or misparaphrased show me before I leave the room, there have been problems in the past that ended up not getting dealt with because debaters didn't say anything until hours later
- DO NOT READ ME A "FRAMEWORK" in PF, I have watched or competed in well over 100 PF rounds here and not a SINGLE one of them needed a "framework" or used it correctly
- Other than that I can probably handle whatever you throw at me, just remember to have a good time and keep it consistent, don't go 150 wpm in case then 250 in summary
- My heart goes out to this circuit, I want you all to get better so if you have any questions or feel like my RFD/ballot was insufficient please find me or email me, I know we have a lot of bad judges and I will try my best not to be one of them so if you are really really sure you won and just don't get it let me know or have your coach reach out
- Regardless of what the tournament tells me to do I will tell you how I vote after the round, it is uneducational and unfair for you to only get feedback days after the competition or not at all (as happened with OSSAA state 2022), as one of my best friends Leon Shepkaru said "It's ridiculous that these tournament directors get to play god with our emotions and not tell us if we won"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERYONE ELSE
HOW I JUDGE:
- Debate is an educational game, make strategic decisions
- Tech>Truth, That isn't an excuse to under-warrant args: I need to understand what I'm voting for
- I default util and lives unless I'm told otherwise
- I presume for the team that lost the flip, if I can't know that then I default first speaking team
- I like cross but won't evaluate anything unless it's in a speech (feel free to skip grand if both sides agree, 1 min prep), cross is binding
- I default 28.5 speaks
- I disclose after the round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFERENCES:
Speed:
- I can handle ~260-280 WPM
- If you get over 230 WPM I would like a speech doc
- I'll give you 2 clears if I can't understand but after that anything I miss is on you
- You should get slower as the round progresses, if you are still going well over 200wpm by summary you need a stronger collapse
Evidence:
- I don't care if you paraphrase or read off cut cards
- All evidence must have a cut card producible within 2min, after that period I will assume it doesn't exist and you will lose speaks, if it is a repeat issue I'll be very open to a evidence ethics IVI
- If you misparaphrase to the point where the meaning of the evidence changes I will drop you and set your speaks to the lowest allowed by the tournament whether that is 25, 20, or 0
- Same goes for any brackets you add to cards if they change the meaning then I will drop you
- That being said I read cut card and I know sometimes you need to change words to make it read correctly
- You should tell me about all questionable evidence (I WILL REVIEW IT IF TOLD TO)
Prep Time:
- Don't steal prep or your speaks go down
- Flex prep is fine
- I don't care when you take prep
Speeches:
- 2nd Rebuttal needs to frontline
- Summary and FF should be mirrors: if I don't hear it in Summary I won't vote on it
- Only thing that should ever be new in 1st Final is responses to 2nd Summary's implications and weighing
- FF should be all about telling me how / what you have won, I want a story
-The threshold for a response to weighing gets lower the later you introduce it, if I get some totally new pre-req weighing in 2nd Summary any decent response in 1st final will knock it off my flow
Progressive Debate:
My Prefs:
1 (Preferable) - 5 (I am not your judge)
- Topical Debate 1
- Theory 3
- Tricks Post Bid Round 3
- Ks 4 (I don't know any of the lit, so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I will try)
- Tricks/Friv Theory Pre Bid Round 5 (STRIKE IF YOU ARE READING)
- Non-T Ks 5 (STRIKE IF YOU ARE READING)
- If you are reading a framing argument (developing world, prioritize women, extinction good, whatever) I would really prefer you read it in constructive or at the latest first rebuttal. Every time I've seen framing introduced in 2nd Rebuttal or 1st Summary the round falls apart on both sides so just read it in your case if you are going to read it
- I personally think disclosure is bad for small schools but I won't hack for either side, debate how you want and exemplify the norms you think are good but if there is ANY performative contradiction for any shell you've read at the tournament and its gets pointed out in the round its a TKO
- Friv Theory is bad don't read it (Formal cloths, Macbooks, etc.) The only exception is if both teams give verbal confirmation to me that they would like to have a Friv theory round in which case I'd be happy to judge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach Out If You Have Any Questions!
Did PF debate from 2020-2024
TLDR: I vote off of the least mitigated link into the most weighed impact.
Weigh comparatively. 9/10 times the team that wins the weighing wins the round. This doesn't mean repeating your impact and saying it's bad. This is showing me why your impact or your link is comparatively better than your opponent's. Framework must have warranting. Explain why your framework precludes all other weighing. Probability weighing isn't an excuse to read new defense.
Send speech docs if you want. If you don't send a speech doc and you spread, it's on you if I miss anything. I prefer slower rounds anyways.
Read theory as soon as the violation happens. If a team didn't disclose, read that in constructive, not rebuttal. No RVIs is dumb. I flow theory a lot slower than substance so send a doc if you are going anything faster than conversational.
Second rebuttal must frontline all offense and all defense on the argument you are going for. I have not seen a single round where this has not been possible. Also, don't be afraid to concede things, even offense. You can always weigh against it in summary.
Defense is not sticky. First summary must extend defense for me to evaluate it. However, if the defense has been dropped, I have a much lower threshold for the amount of work you need to do to extend it.
Debate in good faith, and your speaks will be fine. Don't blip spam, DA spam, miscut cards, or run friv theory with opponents that aren't your friends.
If both teams agree, I can evaluate the round on a different metric or change any part of my paradigm for that specific round.
she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu
competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist
general notes
tech > truth
please preflow before the round
i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments
love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)
warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence
can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread
if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.
won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches
rebuttal
must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)
implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round
summary + final
defense isn't sticky
collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it
progressive argumentation
i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it
i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning
have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate
other notes
i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round
if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give
if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round
tech>truth - be nice - use debate, don't let debate use you
brentwood '25
based paradigms: alec boulton, sully mrkva, elijah gripenstraw, william hong
weigh and don't be problematic
i love speech docs
substance:
- weigh
- basically everything needs a warrant (warranted analytic > unwarranted card)
- summary/ff should be the same
- defense isn't sticky
- anything dropped in the next speech is conceded (except constructive obvi)
- no new offense after rebuttal (implications are fine)
weighing:
- mechanism names dont matter, just make it comparative and warranted
- link weighing is goated
- terminalization is fine but isn't necessary - people try too hard getting the biggest number but smart link weighing wins rounds
- meta weighing is based
- Default util - I'm equally open to non-consequentialist arguments
- respond to weighing
- strength of link, probability, and clarity of x are mickey mouse
- risk of solvency/offense is typically just uniqueness comparison and is mostly just rhetoric. i evaluate it at the same level as implications of a nonunique (not necessarily a reason to look at ur arg first) mixed with urgency weighing.
prog:
- theory - probably best not to run it since it's typically done rlly poorly, but if you do send a doc
- IVIs are dope
- I can prob evaluate Ks that are structured decently (clear Link, Body, Impact, ROTB, etc)idc if they're topical or not tbh
- default to yes RVIs and Reasonability - spirit > text (ie, read warrants)
- what constitutes "friv" theory is arbitrary so if u wanna read friv bad have a clear abuse story
- I will intervene if there is an abuse that'd make checking back for it in round impossible
misc
- dont commodify ur arguments - it's really really stupid. at the same time I won't assume you're commodifying something
- grand cross is sleeper and I will not listen
- Everything is negotiable if there is warranting. The only exception is evaluating things beyond the standard offense-defense paradigm, but arguments made in favor of a different paradigm must win in both paradigms (ask me to explain if you need)
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.
̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿
Proud mother of 8
Debating at Norman North with the legend Grant Goering
National Qualifier
Please explain to me what a convention is, I hate lack of explanations they make me very sad :(
One additional speaker point if you follow Morgan Russell on TikTok (Feminist4n6)
Collapsing, weighing, and telling me why you win the round is very good.
Framework is important and winning under a framework will win you the round.
email: michellesu316@gmail.com
Hi I'm Ishaan (he/him) and I debate PF for Newton South. Excited to be your judge!
If you ever feel unsafe during round, have any questions, or j want to chat -- email me @ ishaan.tewari@outlook.com
I'm your average high school flow judge, so as long as you're enjoying the activity, I'm happy. Basically just have fun and don't be mean :))
I'm not gonna write my paradigm in depth because a bunch of other people have already written theirs much better. If you're interested, I agree with Enya Kamadolli and Janani Ganesh's paradigm (you can find them by heading to the "Paradigms" tab and searching their names up). But again, as long as you are enjoying the activity that's all that matters.
If at any point in the round you have any questions--whether it be about speech times, speech structure, music recs etc.--please don't hesitate to ask. YALL ARE GONNA KILL IT <333
Hi I'm Peggy (she/her) and I do PF at Saigon South
general stuff
if you're not nice and respectful, i will be upset and your speaks will suffer :)
i'm a flow judge, unless im judging MS kids.
tech > truth.
warrant everything.
speed
speed is fine. i tend to speak really fast during my own round as well. however, if you're mumble rapping your case like future, i will not understand you or even try. speak fast but speak with clarity pls.
extensions
i care a lot about extensions. you should not expect me to fully understand your argument if you only mention it once or twice during the entire round. i can't vote on arguments that i dont even understand.
cross
my favorite thing in pf even tho it doesn't affect my decision. i just like watching interactive cross. don't dodge questions, don't be unnecessarily aggressive and don't ask(say) things that are not in a question form. if you start reading an entire card during cross, i will get annoyed.
weighing
actual comparative (good) weighing makes me happy. please please please don't just throw weighing mechanisms into your speech and think you win. generally prefer better-weighed arguments.
speeches
- signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. roadmap is kinda unnecessary but idm
- anything not responded to in 2nd rebuttal is dropped. offense and defense in rebuttal are equally important to me.
- weighing in summary and ff should be consistent. you will make my life 10x harder and make me very confused if its not.
- collapse in back half but dont collapse and leave it unwarranted.
final words
just make debate fun and entertaining to watch. don't be sad if you lose, learning is the most important.
I have debated in some capacity at some point in my life, current PF coach for Boston Latin School/APDA debater. Tl;dr normal tech judge. (My paradigm used to say flay judge but Ive come to realize I’m a lot more tech>truth than most judges. Read anything as long as it’s not racist or bad.)
my email is lemuelyu@bu.edu, please add it to the doc/email chain/carrier pigeon
At the end of the round, I will look down at my flow and do a few things, in the following order.
-
I will look at any framing, characterization, burdens, overviews etc. and evaluate the clash (or lack thereof) there. The winning arguments will serve as a filter for arguments in the round or as a way to determine the top layer of the round.
-
I will look at each individual contention or piece of offense within the round and determine what is won and how much it has won (i.e., how well it links to its impacts, a function of warranting, INTERNAL LINKS, uniqueness, etc). I will look at defense and evaluate whether it is terminal or mitigatory, and whether defense has been properly frontlined. Importantly, I will only look at offense and responses that are both extended and implicated in the final foci, and pulled directly from summary.
-
I will look at weighing. I often think about this as “layers” for the round, the side that best accesses (via probability, scope etc) the highest amount of the most important impact will win the round. This means weighing impacts over other impacts (i.e. death over poverty), and then weighing access to impacts/link weighing (i.e. more death over less death)
- I will vote for the argument with the best link into the greatest amount of the best impact (not necessarily the greatest quantity).
some procedural stuff
- tech > truth but there is a threshold of believability for your arguments. if you claim that the sky is neon orange, you better have some EXCELLENT evidence for it. also, if you're argument is straight up racist, sexist, etc. i will not remain tabula rasa.
- I have never learned theory in my life, so I am not receptive to it. However, if you feel like running theory and get your opponent's ok to run it, you're welcome to run it at your own risk. Might make the round more interesting...
- light cussing is fine but full on spewing invective is not fine.
- I can generally flow relatively quickly but if you're gearing up to pull up speechdocs I will stop flowing. I will only flow what I comprehend.
- please don't be disrespectful. If you are disrespectful then I will be disrespectful to you :((. I don't care if you have fun or not, that's up to you. But don't make it unfun for other people.
- Weighing and warrants are important, they're what win rounds. Weigh before final focus and have a clear narrative. If no weighing is done throughout the round I will default to some stupid weighing mechanism like "who weaponizes the gay frogs". No one wants that. Also, I won't vote for an argument I don't understand.
- second rebuttal is required to at least frontline turns, otherwise they are considered dropped.
- Please signpost.
- Be as aggressive or passive as you want in cross, i'm usually not listening unless it starts to become whack. Aggressive =/= disrespectful. If both teams agree you can literally use cross as prep time if you want.
- Don't postround please, the round is over and you should have made it clear during round.
- If a card becomes heavily disputed in round, I will call it.
- If a warrant for an argument is not given, "this is not warranted" is a valid response.
- If the argument is well warranted and not empirical, "this is not carded" is not a valid response.
- if you concede defense to frontline a turn, tell me what piece of defense you concede and how it gets rid of the turn. Being able to wipe offense off my flow simply by saying “we kick out” is dumb.
- speaks start from 27 and go up from there. If I give you a 27 I think you were kinda poopoo. A 28 means you were aight. 29 means you were very nice, and a 30 means you were very very nice. Anything below 27 means that I think you're a terrible person
- Don't go more than 10 seconds overtime. I'll stop listening to what you say after that. Abuse prep and your speaks will tank.