Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

tl;dr standard fyo flow, i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

about me

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at dgarepis@uw.edu and if you’d like, check out my youtube channel at youtube.com/@danielgarepisholland. if you are a novice debater, please skip down to the novice section at the bottom.

pf for two years in middle school, two years of trad debate as palo alto gc. one year on the national circuit as palo alto gs. i got a couple bids and went to gold toc my senior year with my partner yash shetty, we also finaled ca states.

basics

speak as fast as you want (if you send a speech doc)

wear whatever you want

i will always give a verbal rfd and feedback/q and a if i can/have time

good analytics = good cards (and analytics >>>>> miscut cards)
extend clearly and collapse strategically on a few pieces of offense

do good weighing in the back half
gon't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it
ideally disclose on the wiki or at the very least send cut cards in the email chain (not share a google doc!)
i will probably blisten to cross but extend in speech. if we skip grand both teams get 1m of prep

evidence

- paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

- don’t steal prep when calling for cards, and give cards promptly when they’re called for

- ideally send a doc for constructive and rebuttal if possible. +0.2 if you do (doesn’t apply to novices)

back half

- first summary MUST extend offense (re-explain uniqueness, link chain and impact as well as frontlining) and respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. ideally you should be collapsing to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out

- i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!

- weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but sv > extinction > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. as annie chen said, "'nuke war is improbable' is not weighing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's a response w no warrant." don't give made up jargon and be comparative.

- in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

theory

- default to competing interps no rvis. i sorta think rvis are dumb so i have a sorta high threshold to vote off an rvi but it's certainly possible

- i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]

- in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do NOT need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) MUST have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

- another note on content warnings. after events at toc last year, if i find out that you read trafficking or some other possibly triggering argument and only provide an opt out form in front of flows but not lays, i reserve the right to still vote for the shell and tank your speaks

t

- yea ill vote off it

- t shell can be in paragraph form it's fine

k

- i'm by no means an expert at evaluating ks, but please run the argument

- i have a decent amount of experience with k affs, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions

- i'm more comfortable evaluating cap, security, set col, etc. and identity ks than dense postmodernist lit. please warrant and explain rotb well if you want me to vote for the k aff, especially for a non-topical k

Hello I am a parent judge and I unfortunately do not know what is going on at any point during the round. I will probably pretend to be flowing and maybe pay attention once in a while to see who sounds more confident during cross (clearly most important part of round).

Please do NOT be disrespectful or rude to anyone in the debate round...outside of it is okay I guess (only kidding). Will consider giving you good speaks if there's a nicely incorporated taylor swift or kpop or paly pf or HIMYM reference. If you don't know what that is, don't bother searching it up - I will know if you're a fake fan.......

REAL TALK

• please collapse during back-half if you know how, if not I guess you'll have to cover 5 arguments in like 2 minutes which probably isn't ideal
• "good rhetoric never hurt nobody," said zaid vellani (probably)
• let's put the public back in public forum people. talking fast is fine as long as we can understand what you're saying mostly and if we can't, send a speech doc
• extend your offense and carry through turns in speeches
• keep cross fun...if you're mean in cross, will assume you're mean in person
• signpost and tell us what's going on in your speeches, don't just start jumping through a bunch of different arguments with no warning because this is (sadly) debate, not hopscotch
• MAKE SURE TO WEIGH!!!!!!

Hi, I'm Nupur Kapadia, a senior varsity PF debater at Palo Alto High School.

General:

Add me to the evidence email chain: nupur.kapadia6@gmail.com

For PF debaters, don't worry too much about definitions because I will know your topic pretty in depth. Other events, I am unfamiliar with rules and topics.

I do flow, so I will keep track of which arguments are extended and dropped throughout the round. Please signpost all of your points clearly so that I can follow your arguments.

Talk at a reasonable pace, so that I can flow those arguments. Try not to take more than ten seconds over time to finish your speech. After the ten second grace period, I will stop flowing.

I will not flow cross, but please be courteous.

Most importantly, make sure to very clearly explain your arguments and responses and warrant all of your points. I will not buy arguments if you just assert them without evidence or warrants.

PF:

In summary and final focus, write my ballot for me. Tell me why your argument and impacts outweigh your opponents and why I need to vote for you.

Make sure you respond to both sides of the flow starting in second rebuttal.

I don't require you to extend your entire point in order to flow it. If, in summary, you frontline defense, then I will flow your points across.

Speaker Points:

Be respectful throughout the round, especially in cross. Any rude comments will result in an automatic 25. Bonus points if you make a Drake reference in round.

Good luck!

First things first! I've been debating PF since 2020. Had my fair share of lay and tech rounds, but stayed on the lay side for the most part. I don't like non-topical Ks that can be reformatted and regurgitated each topic. That's not what debate is about. I will only evaluate a K if the violation is truly egregious. If you're running theory just to win the round, that's obvious and not nice. Ex. ask your opps to disclose beforehand if you want to run disclosure on them. and only consider running paraphrase/misconstruing cards if it is a crucial point in the debate, otherwise it feels like a cop-out for a good substance debate.

With all things considered, I'm a flow judge who doesn't like theory/prog.

Debate is about education, both for the debaters and the judge, so please make sure you understand your argument and the context around it. Know your evidence, what it says and doesn't say. I'm tech > truth if the card is legit, but if it's vague and y'all extrapolate, that's not cool and won't fly. Additionally, if your opponent questions a specific about your argument, answer truthfully. Don't project your arguments as fact, but rather a logical flow from the evidence. I'm sure you know your stuff, and I'm excited to see your knowledge.

Though I'm tech>truth, I still value the presentation side of debate. I don't want the technicalities to cloud out the PUBLIC in public forum. I won't count it towards the ballot, but I will be looking out for the lay aspect of the debate of who is seemingly "more persuasive" and include it in my feedback just so y'all can reflect. In the real world no one cares if you've dropped an arg if you aren't able to explain it to a general audience.

--

Now for the tech/content bit:

Whoever came up with the idea that defense is sticky was definitely having a bad day. whatever is still hot and fresh by sum/ff is what gets thrown into the ballot.

Weighing to debate is like socks for shoes; without it things are really gross. Weigh your arguments against your opponents and extend your link chain (warranting) in the latter-half speeches. Address any responses to internal links too.

Collapse early(!!!) don't be afraid to >:))) clean up the round in summary. Final focus should be voters/offense and weighing, not covering the entire flow :(

A round without adequate clash is like a war being fought in water: everyone is just flailing around tryna stay afloat. It's not cute. Interaction is the name of the game, people! There are so many ways to interact w your opponents' args and you can be creative w weighing (but not too creative, lol). If there isn't adequate clash, I might as well flip a coin to see who wins. It's a debate, so address your opponent's points clearly (turn, nq, term def, weigh if you have no response).

On that note, having a strong narrative is different than just repeating your arg from case. Be sure to respond to all responses (that are deemed necessary), and make sure each speech is progressing the round forward.

--

Go take a peak at Sarabeth Huang's paradigm. She's pretty insane I'm ngl and I was her backpack for the past couple years (aka she carried me). Ask her if she knows how to speak Korean :D Also, if you're here from her paradigm, let her know that she spelled "speak" incorrectly for +1 speaker pts).

----

Other mumbo-jumbo:

I found the BEST cookie recipe over the pandemic. I modified it to be extra-scrumptious, but I'm also a bit of a cookie-connoisseur (not rly), and I have yet to start a cooking blog, so here goes for now:

• 1 cup browned butter (basically just boil the butter until the milk fat has dissolved and you have little bits of brown stuff floating around)

I am new to judging debate. I will probably not understand if you speak too fast.

I will pay attention during the crossfires.

crystal, she/her, junior

im debating for paly, if ur reading this its probs for practice rounds LMFAO

few points:

• please signpost, if you aren't going to do so at least do an OTRM
• please weigh!! if the point is washed, i will default neg
• i will time and let you know when your time is up (including 15 seconds grace period). i will do this every round unless you ask me not to.
• fancy jargon is ok as i probably have prepped the topic, but keep it on the dl
• speaking speed: not too fast but not too slow, ill be able to understand most of it!!
• i will drop if you're just straight inpolite. (ex, cussing, getting physical, threats...)

theories/ks/framework: please keep consistent, im ok if you run them just dont make them stupid... (i think paraphrasing is bad, disclosure is normally ok)

pls tw of ur talking abt anything too graphic

speaks start at 28 & will go down and up accordingly

please add me onto docs/email chains: licrystal0313@gmail.com

most of all: have fun & pls dont be too nervous !!

Hi, I'm Lucy (she/her). I'm a senior who has been debating PF for 4 years at Palo Alto high school in California. I started competing on the circuit my sophomore year, and I've qualled to toc and nats.

Add me to the email chain: lucyli7777@gmail.com (and feel free to ask me any questions)

TLDR: pretty standard flow judge, not entirely tech over truth (args need to make sense). The easiest way to win my ballot is to have well-warranted arguments, clash, and good comparative weighing. Wear whatever you want, I've slowly stopped putting on a suit for online tournaments lol

Speed- I'm fine with speed as long as you're coherent and send speech docs. I don't prefer to flow off speech docs though, I'd rather do it by what I'm hearing. Also, collapse so you can speak at a slower pace in the second half! If you don't, you're only hurting my ability to reasonably evaluate the round.

Progressive args- not a super big fan; I have experience hitting them but I would much rather judge substance. I will evaluate standard theory args like disclosure/TW but I'm not super familiar with Ks, so run them at your own risk. I'm not the best judge for progressive args in general, and I most likely won't vote off theory unless your opponent is doing something pretty atrocious.

Evi- I'm fine if you read something paraphrased, but you need to have the cut version ready if it gets called.
also, I really value a good analytic! I prefer them over blippy cards any day.

Structure- frontline and collapse in second rebuttal. defense is NOT sticky, arguments I vote for must be extended at the link and impact level through every speech. they also need to be warranted- if they don't make sense, I won't vote for them. also, new weighing in final focus is fine with me.

Weighing- weighing guides my ballot. weigh at the link level, and also weigh comparatively. don't just say "we have higher magnitude/scope/probability", I want to see why your links are better, and why your impacts are better than theirs, and how they interact with their impacts.

Cross- I won't vote off of something only said in cross, but if a key concession is made, and it is extended and implicated later in speech (before grand) then I will consider it.

speech time- teams get a 10-15 second grace period for me, but beyond that I'll probably stop flowing.

speaks- happy to be generous with speaks, they'll probably start at 28.5 and go up from there if you speak well. I'll drop them for rude behavior, prep stealing, taking super long to pull up evidence, or having bad evidence ethics.

Important note: Please don't be problematic or do anything that excludes your opponents from the round, and send out an opt-out form in advance if you plan on running an argument that is potentially triggering. If you make any sexist, racist, etc. comments, I reserve the right to drop you for it.

**also I will bump your speaks if you say your opponent's name in cross because I find it absolutely hilarious

I will disclose and give a verbal rfd at request. Feel free to ask questions about the round and/or how I judged it; I love giving feedback!

Most importantly, be kind to each other and have fun!! Crack jokes and make me laugh. Debate is simply an educational activity at the end of the day. :)

background: sophomore in college, debated for edina hs in minnesota on local + nat circuits, worked for public forum academy (summer 2021), currently coaching varsity pf at palo alto high school

tldr: normal tech judge. collapse + weigh + be a good person and you'll be fine. debate is needlessly stressful - have some fun in my round

general

arjun25@stanford.edu - put me on the email chain

if you need any accommodations, i'm happy to help out. feel free to message me on facebook or email me

run what you want. i like hearing creative arguments. don't be problematic

read content warnings for triggering arguments, preferably via an anonymous form

easiest ways to lose speaks: misconstruing evidence, being rude, hacking prep egregiously, delaying the round for no reason (ex: taking forever to find a card)

evidence

i paraphrased in hs and if done well i support the practice

if you're paraphrasing, you need to have the card ready at moment's notice for me or your opponents to call

if i call a card and you're paraphrasing, give me both a) the paraphrase of what you read from ur rebuttal doc and b) the cut card

expect bad speaks if you have bad evidence

i have dropped people on egregious evidence before

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

metaweighing is only rarely necessary, but in rounds with solid weighing and clash it can be important. most of the time the weighing debate can be won without having to metaweigh

progressive arguments

don't exclude your opponent

if you feel excluded by the argument, try to articulate how you've been excluded in the round

if you run progressive arguments commonly seen in PF pre-pandemic, i'll know it pretty well. if not, still read the argument, but don't expect me to know the lit base so spend a lot of time on warranting. please don't spread if you're running these arguments so that i can catch everything

i'm not an expert on evaluating Ks but im all ears if u wanna go for it

if you want to read theory/T about something that transpired in the round but don't know the formal format, still run it even if it's in paragraph form. try to have the basic idea of a shell, so: a) interpretation (your interpretation of debate), b) violation (what your opponents did to violate that interpretation of debate), c) standards (why your interpretation is a good model for debate), and d) voters (impacts to fairness/education and an implication like drop the debater or drop the argument).

teams often run theory in front of me, but i honestly am not a fan of it at all. i'll evaluate it, but i'd much, much rather see a high quality content debate! Ks are more interesting than theory to me but i'm not as good at evaluating them

strong bias against friv theory and tricks. it's terrible for debate and it's gna be hard to convince me otherwise

if there is no offense, i will presume to vote for whoever is the 1st speaking team. this is because of the structural disadvantage that 1st speaking teams experience in pf

if you have questions, feel free to ask before round.

other paradigm references: i was coached by Mark Allseits in high school if you wanna see what my background is. also, everything in this paradigm also applies to me as well (debate partner from hs)

Hi, I'm a high school student and I do pf. My email is ar42327@pausd.us if you're doing an email chain to share evidence.

I’ll be timing speeches and flowing during the round. It'll be helpful if you signpost and tell me which points you’re responding to. About evidence, arbitrary numbers/quotes aren’t enough. Make sure you explain why they’re relevant and significant to your points. Have well thought out weighing that really explains why your points matter more and why you opponent’s points are less important. Delivery isn’t terribly important to me, but please emphasize and repeat things you want me to 100% remember.

Most importantly, be nice and have fun! Good luck!

(if you can say "sweet potato" three times in the round, I’ll give you +0.1 speaks)

Email chain: yads139@gmail.com

I have 4 years of pf debate experience. My pronouns are he/him.

Please send a speech doc (with cut evidence, not just rhetoric) if possible.

General:

in round:

• I'll listen to cross; I don't understand why most tech judges don't; it's part of the activity for a reason. With that being said, I'll listen, but only vote off of what is said if you implicate it in a speech.
• defenseis sticky
• offense is not sticky
• extensions should have at minimum uniqueness, link and impacts; internal link extensions are nice too
• all args that you want me to vote on must be extended properly
• I won't evaluate args that are not extended through every speech (except first rebuttal)
• no new offense past rebuttals
• don't be abusive with new responses
• I understand the desire to do a bunch of prep and be a doc bot, but please interact with your opps case on a ev/warrant basis. It makes the debates more fun, makes weighing easier, and makes it so that I don't have to intervene.

weighing:

• Please don't say "we outweigh on magnitude, scope, probability." you need a comparative warrant for each mechanism.

• Weighing should start latest in summary; first rebuttal should be weighing.
• There should be no new weighing in final focus.
• Do not use probability weighing as a trojan horse to sneak in a new response.
• Prereqs/link-ins are a great way to make a debate fun.

Progressive arguments:

Run at your own risk! I'll vote off of theory/T, and I can understand some k's, but if yours is convoluted and/or spread I cannot guarantee I will. If you have a well constructed (and well-meaning) k or theory shell read it :)

Public Forum specifics:

• First speakers should ideally start weighing out of first rebuttal. Second speakers should weigh in second rebuttal (even if minimally).
• Please collapse on 1-2 args in summary. I have a high threshold for blippy arguments.
• Do not read the claim of a turn in rebuttal and expect to attach a warrant later on. I will only evaluate turns that are warranted, implicated and weighed out of rebuttal.
• You must go for the same arguments in summary/final focus.

LD specifics:

• Do not LD spread. I will not be able to understand what you are saying.
• Please talk slowly and clearly. Quality of arguments matters more than the quantity.
• I understand minimal circuit ld concepts. Be aware that reading a type of argument that is present in LD and PF may not translate to me.

Hi!

I'm a Flay judge so I will be flowing. Please don't spread, be respectful and have fun!