My name is Alex Brevde (she/her), and I am a senior at the Waring School in Beverly. I am in Varsity PF. So I come into the round with a guarantee I've done research on the topic and an understanding of the in and outs of Public Forum Debate.

> If you are offensive in any way, even if it's a "joke." I will report you to tabroom and you will lose the round.

> Respect Public Forum in its essence. What I mean by this is that PF is supposed to be accessible and should be understood by any person from off the street. Therefore if you spread (talking so fast that your words blend together), I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but just know you've lost some of my respect (and speaker points). Additionally, don't overuse debate jargon, because you are actively making debate less accessible.

> Please signpost, I'm begging you. What I mean is that tell me what you are saying. If you are responding to a contention please tell me that so I can flow it.

> Refrain from running Theory of Kritiks. I will listen to them but just know I very much dislike them. I think they are a cop-out for actually debating the resolved and I will think less of you. If you love Theory or K you should join Policy or Big Questions, because that's not what PF is about (PF actually emerged as a response to this!).

> Evidence ethics are important. Don't make up information, you should always have evidence.

>Don't mansplain, and let your opponent answer in cross please. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When someone asks a question in cross and then proceeds to answer it themselves rather than letting the opponent actually answer. Just be respectful and kind, it's not too much to ask.

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

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

Hi! I debate PF at Newton South High School!

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

creds to janani ganesh <33

general stuff

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

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

speed/speech:

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

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

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

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

content

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

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

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

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

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

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

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

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

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

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

I'm Kassra, a senior from Newton South

Pretty regular flow judge nothing out of the ordinary

Tech>Truth don't lose the flow

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Speed is fine, but if you do send a speech doc/ask opponents if they're ok with it

I will stop flowing if you're 30+ seconds overtime

Don't just use only buzzwords, warrant as well

I won't vote off of cross but I will pay attention and take into account things from cross that are mentioned in speeches

Be sure to Signpost, warrant, and implicate EVERYTHING. Don't just assert evidence, explain it otherwise its hard to vote on if your opponents point it out

Actually compare evidence, don't just respond to evidence with more evidence

WEIGH Good pre-reqs is the easiest way to get me to vote for you. Start weighing in second rebuttal tho

Extend offense through every speech otherwise i can't vote off of it

DEFENSE ISNT STICKY, bring up defense in every speech otherwise its dropped

Pls don't bring up new stuff in Final Focus, its very annoying

Theory/K's I have a basic understanding and will do my best to evaluate it but I don't really like it

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. no.

Most importantly HAVE FUN!!

--------Bonus Points--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+.5 if you make a good reference to Star Wars in speech

+.5 if you do a who..... asked? joke in grand cross

SHS ‘26 congress kid with some experience in PF/Extemp. Speechies and debate novices, go to the bottom of the paradigm!

VPF:

tldr; a pretty normal flow judge

I’m a flow judge because of the countless lost rounds due to a parent judge not going off the flow and I firmly believe that tech > truth but if you want me to switch to flay/lay i def dont mind.

if you don't weigh, you lose the round. pls weigh! (and don't j say you outweigh on xyz, tell me why!) (metaweigh too, pretty pls)

second rebuttal must frontline first rebuttal

i presume neg

anything not extended in summary AND ff is dropped.

tell me voters in ff

im not good at remembering taglines nor do i really care about them. Tell me what you’re extending instead of just saying “extending somenamehere ‘XY…”

I’d prefer more analysis on constructive/rebuttal. This doesn’t mean that your warrants can be bad, but analysis def matters more than warrants. I’d rather have you explain a really short warrant than a really long warrant explaining it for you

speed is ok as long as you are clear. I type slow and hand-write even slower so it will be really hard to flow your arguments if you’re yapping

PF Prog: tldr don’t run it unless theory

• I kinda sorta hate tricks, run it and get a 26
• i’m kinda eh about theory. i don’t like it when it is run like a free win pass, but if there is a genuine violation (or tricks. Can’t express how much i don’t like tricks…..) go for it.
• I actually like Ks as long as they make sense, but i don’t like them in pf. Run a good K for an automatic 30, run a dumb K and get a 26. If it’s like the last round and y’all just want to have fun, this doesn’t apply
• disclo is stupid imo and i won’t evaluate it

VLD:

I’ve never done LD, but if, for any reason, im judging LD, just don’t spread like crazy. I understand the event enough to not really care about any crazy progressive arguments being presented (minus tricks. Don’t do tricks) but i will remind you that my main event is congress (where everyone speaks at snail speed, no offense) so if you talk at 250+ WPM i will not understand you.

Policy:

Why is there policy on the local circuit? Why would I be judging policy on natcirc? Anyways i have no idea how policy works so treat me like a lay judge who happens to be flowing :) and don't spread-spread.

BQ

See policy. Why am I judging BQ? But since imo BQ is a lot easier to understand than CX, i may be able to judge a lot better. See VPF/VLD paradigm for more specifics

Congress:

Congress is a speech and debate event imo. Both your presentation and interaction with the round matter.

I personally rank 60% based on speeches and 40% based on questioning. Giving amazing speeches but asking no questions is kinda sucky in my book but it’s still possible to rank high. Giving great questions but no speeches, I think it’s possible to rank in the higher but you have to be like reaallly good at questions so I dont suggest it.

if you say “contention”unironically that’s an automatic 11 from me (I’m joking but like I will get really annoyed)

Personally? I don’t really care about some rehash. It’s difficult to have a completely unique speech. As long as you can add something to the debate (like a new impact, source, study, etc), it’s not gonna tank your speech scores. I’m not gonna like it very much if your whole speech is just rehash, but a bit isn’t going to hurt you.

Cool intros = cool speech scores probably

flip sides and get a 5/6 or 7/8 (depends on the scale). I really like it if you flip to the unconventional side. It’s difficult but lets be honest, you look wayyyyy better to the judge than if you were to give the 4th aff in a row

I expect almost every speech after 1A to respond to or at least mention at least 1 person, and everyone after 3A to respond to at least 2. Respond to someone as 1N or 2A and you may get bumped a rank (bc it’s annoying to change prewrittens)

po-ing is hard. do an ok job as a PO and you can expect at least a 6 or top half of chamber rank as long as you speak and ask questions to some extent. personally, i don't see po as an easy break but go for it if you really want to try!! Novices, if it’s ur first tournament like ever, I’d suggest to wait for a dif tournament for POing

Extemp

Literally y’all extempers are so talented I can’t

some ways to rank higher with me:

• choose the unconventional answer!
• Good and properly cited sources; i don’t care about fluency breaks but if you’re the best speaker in the world citing Wikipedia or something, I’m not ranking you high.
• this section is a work in progress because I havent done extemp in a hot minute. Ask me any questions in round though

ALL Speech minus extemp (even though speechies dont have paradigms):

im being honest, just do your best. y'all do great and it's so fun to watch speech final rounds or natcirc speeches. My sister also does speech (I know you read my paradigm, Alice) so i can’t really be mean and say that debate > speech nd whatnot

PF/LD/CX/BQ NOVICES:

y'all are great for giving this activity a shot. just have fun with it and don't be afraid to ask questions!! generally, i try to judge novices more flay than flow. i understand that it's super hard to try to respond to everything, but if you want me to judge full lay or just be a flow judge, that's alright as long as your opps are ok with it.

other notes:

• speak clearly! i spoke wicked fast as a novice, and that was probably a mistake bc it was hard to understand to most judges
• I tend to like more traditional debates for novices (ie. no prog). it's important to make sure you know what you're doing and get a feel for the event before jumping into Ks, theory, etc
• cross should remain civil!! this is a kinda big issue for novices but you shouldn't try to intimidate or make fun of your opponent!! poking holes in a case makes you look smart, acting like a jerk makes you look like you're full of yourself and your speaks WILL get tanked.
• don't steal prep time!! even if you have virtually nothing down, just extemp it! no harm on your speaking scores, the only way to get a 27.0- from me is if you're rude or offensive (or if you run abusive/bad prog. Dw about that yet)
• have any questions about the definitions of stuff on the rest of my paradigm? Feel free to ask me about it. It’s good to know!

email me if you have questions before or after round! (i suggest you cc both emails)

School: awhe26@students.shrewsbury.k12.ma.us

Personal: amy.he215@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Natalie! I'm a freshman at Harvard, and I debated PF for four years at Newton South. I am a flow judge, but sometimes I flow in my head.

Preferences

• I won’t vote for theory
• No spreading (I won’t read speech docs, I only flow what I hear and understand)
• I like clearly explained warrants and thorough comparative analysis
• I don’t like blippy arguments and evidence or statistics that are not clearly explained

Speaks

• +0.5 speaker points if you work in a Taylor Swift reference
• -0.5 speaker points each time you're disrespectful in cross

Good luck and good debating! Let me know before the round begins if you have any questions or need any accommodations.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

hey guys!

i'm Nain, a current debater at Newton South High School.

tech>truth!

i do flow all arguments, but I will stop flowing after a 10 second grace period. I don't flow cross :)

please don't bring in new arguments after the second summary

remember, confidence is key and take a deep breath!

(be respectful during the round and if anyone is racist/homophobic/etc, i will stop the round.)

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

General:

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

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

Progressive:

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

Frontlining:

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

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

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

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

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

• I default to the first speaking team.

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

Things I Like:

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

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

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

Things I Do Not Like:

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

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

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

Speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tech > Truth

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

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

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

I'll only intervene on two occasions

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

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

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

Speaks

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

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

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

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

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

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

Rebuttal

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Final Focus

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

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

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

Progressive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi hi I'm Taban (she/her/hers), a 3rd year public forum debater at Newton South :) Pls include me on the email chain.

Debate should be a safe and accessible environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before, during, or after round pls feel free to fill out this anonymous form or reach out to me at my email tmalihi1@gmail.com (I'll be checking it regularly during rounds/tournaments I judge)

On that note, be respectful or your speaks will suffer. In speeches, cross, when asking for evidence, always. If you read a triggering case and don't read content warnings that everyone in the round (judges included) can anonymously opt out of, it's an auto L with the lowest speaks I can give, same goes for bigoted arguments/rhetoric. General guideline: read warnings for suicide, domestic violence, sexual violence, and graphic descriptions of violence & suffering.

Disclosure: I can't disclose for LS but I'll be giving comments.

Panel tips: If I'm on a panel please adapt to the other judges' needs--I can follow a lay round, but lay judges can't often follow a flow round. Basically, just go FLAY: keep a narrative, but use efficiency+rhetoric to win on the flow.

Below I've separated my paradigm into a Novices section, Varsity section, and Everyone section. Feel free to read as much or as little as you'd like--basically I'm your standard flow judge.

তততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততত

Novices! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

I do my best to evaluate the round based on the defense and offense I have written down at the end of the round, and I really don't like having to intervene to make decisions. It's your job to tell me clearly why you win a round--write my ballot for me :)

General strategy things I like:

1. I care about your presentation, but as long as I can understand your points it doesn't matter what your speaking style is. I encourage you to try out new things and not worry about things like tripping up, stuttering, etc.--these are all part of the learning process and it's my responsibility as a judge to make sure y'all have a safe space

2. I highly recommend that you "collapse"--that means that in summary and final focus, you're going to choose only one of your arguments to talk about. For me, a single well-explained argument is ALWAYS better than two or three barely-explained arguments. The earlier in the round you collapse, the better!

3. Weigh your arguments! This tells me where to look first to evaluate arguments. Win your argument, win the weighing you used with it, and I'll 97% of the time vote on it

4. Point out things that are conceded or dropped by your opponents (if they don't respond to it in the speech after it's introduced, it's conceded/dropped. This means you probably win it, but please! If you want me to vote off of it, you HAVE to continue to explain it in every speech after that.)

Feel free to email me after round if you'd like more in-depth feedback or have questions :)

****************

Varsity! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

TLDR:

Here’s how I evaluate the round: Framing --> weighing --> offense --> default 1st speaking team

• You need to win your offense to win the weighing :)

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, judge intervention is not a fun time for anyone, do the analysis and write my RFD for me <3

• I’m a flow judge

• Tech>Truth

• Topicality>Theory

• Disclaimer: might not be the best at evaluating progressive arguments, Kritiks and non-frivolous theory (including in-round violations) are ok, but def not a fan of disclosure/paraphrase theories (regardless of my personal beliefs on debate norms)

• Please don’t run stuff just to win rounds because you know your opponents can’t respond to it. I am especially inclined to believe performative contradictions (ex: that disclosure shell one might read on a pair of novices in JV quarters, but didn’t read in a single other round, is probably not on-net helping debate norms, which makes me doubt the motives behind it). However, if it’s clear you’re reading your argument because it genuinely means a lot to you and/or exposing more people to its content would be beneficial, I will do my best to evaluate it in any round.

• Point out things that are conceded or dropped (including defense--it’s not sticky)

⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆ S̶̙͔͚̪͉̲̼͙̆̓͛͂̿͂̆P̴̧̳̤̰̟̘͚̘͙͇̚E̴̗̰̎̂̈́C̷̤̹̯̥̟͌̃̌̋̔͝Í̸͈̱͍͇̻̲̔̂̄͒̂̕̚͠F̷̛͚͍̼͍̣͉̣̱̟̠͂̊̊̓̉̌̽Į̴̣̟̜͔͈͚͙̠̃̐́̓̐̃̃͘̕͝ͅC̸̢̤̮̒̒̇̔̄̋͆̓̕Ṣ̶̡̲̮͓̫͉̲͑⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆

*THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY*

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread in any speech but if you do:

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

2) send everyone a speech doc with everything you read in round

*********************

Evidence:

• Don’t misconstrue evidence--paraphrasing is fine but please make sure you have good evidence ethics. I won't drop you for badly misconstrued evidence unless your opponents read args as to why I should, in any case I will probably just not evaluate the evidence/argument in my decision

• I’ll only look at/call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision

• When you extend evidence throughout every speech in the round, please extend the actual logic/warrant and not just the author name -- I value the content over just flowing the card name and date

*********************

Cross:

• I will be using this time to figure things out on my end, set up my flow for the next speeches, and write up my comments, so I won't flow during cross

• Please be respectful. If you're rude, aggressive, or consistently speak over others, your speaks will suffer.

*********************

Rebuttal:

• Please 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/logic ("Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO." -EK)

• Second rebuttal should at least respond to offense (turns, disads, weighing, etc.) and terminal defense

• All turns/disads need impacts, or else I don't know how to evaluate them. Weighing can come in summary.

**********************

Summary/FF:

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

• First final can have new-ish responses to new stuff in second summary, but second final should have nothing new at all (I will know)

• Collapse however you like, but quality over quantity--if I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote on it.

• WEIGHING is key--tell me why your arguments are more important than/matter more than theirs :)

• Weigh case/turns/disads

• Interact with your opponents' weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded. NOTE: just because your weighing is conceded doesn’t mean you stop explaining it, please warrant it out every time

• Meta-weigh (weigh your weighing mechanisms over their weighing mechanisms)

***********************

Thresholds for new responses:

- Offense (turns, disads): second rebuttal at the latest. First rebuttal, they don't need to be weighed, but second rebuttal, please weigh to give your opponents time to respond in first summary.

- Weighing: second summary by the latest, I'm good with meta-weighing in first final if it involves previously existing weighing in response to your opponent's weighing. The earlier you start this, the better <3

- Defense (in response to their case): second rebuttal

- Responses to their defense/frontlines/backlines: in the speech after it was introduced, otherwise what they say goes conceded, and the last I should hear of these should be first final focus at the very, very latest (and even then it's a little late)...second final focus should have nothing new at all, please

**********************

Speaker points: I base my speaker points on how well you balance technicality and maintaining a solid narrative! If I can understand your arguments and you're respectful, you will get a minimum of 28 speaks.

• +0.5 speaker points for a speech doc for every speech (even when you don't spread)

• Collapse in 2nd rebuttal! You choose ONE argument to focus on/vote on this early in the round, I give you +0.5 speaker points. Win-win.

-----｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆----‧͙⁺˚*･༓☾ ⊹ ‧̫‧ ⊹ ☽༓･*˚⁺‧͙---- ｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆-----

i agree with these paradigms

Enya Kamadolli: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Andrew Li: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=99668

Zach Diar: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Michael Chu: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Joy Taw: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

I use she/her pronouns.

For some background, I'm a first year college student and I have experience in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Here are some of my preferences/expectations:

General Important Stuff (everyone):

Be polite! Remember that debating =/= arguing; you should not be yelling at your opponents. I'm typically generous with speaks, but if you aren't civil to your opponents, I will dock points.

If your case discusses sensitive topics, you must read a trigger warning and make sure your opponents feel comfortable. Remember that the issues you debate about more often than not affect people in the real world. This means that discussing certain topics can be more stressful and personal to certain debaters.

If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, antisemitic, islamophobic, etc. I will automatically drop you.

Don't misgender your opponents! Mistakes happen, but make sure you correct yourself and apologize. If it continues, I will drop you.

Debate is supposed to be a fun an engaging activity. Don't make unsafe spaces for people!

Public Forum Stuff (everyone in PF):

Flow ---|------ Lay

Tech ----|-----Truth

I vibe with a good narrative and consistent rhetoric.

Signpost!!

Speed is fine, but warranting>card dumping with little explanation.

Please have your evidence ready so there aren't delays.

Frontline in second rebuttal! Second summary is too late.

Other than frontlining in first summary, there shouldn't be new responses or offense after rebuttals. If there are, I won't flow them (with the exception of new weighing, which is fine before second FF).

Crossfire is pretty irrelevant. If you want a concession on my flow, mention it in a speech.

I probably won't call for evidence, so if you want me to look at something, say so in a speech.

When two pieces of evidence contradict, explain why your point makes more sense, or why your evidence is better. This is always smart, even if you're completely sure their source is unreliable or misconstrued.

Make sure to weigh all the arguments you collapse on, including turns. Don't forget to tell me why your weighing is better than theirs. I'm way too lazy to do analysis for you, and it probably won't end well for you if I have to.

Progressive Argument Stuff (not for novices):

I very limited exposure to progressive debate, so if your opponent does something problematic, it's much more strategic for you to tell me in your own words than read theory or a K.

With that being said, if you do choose to read theory or a K, generally stay away from more obscure jargon if you want me to understand. Since I don't have much experience, it's in your best interest to warrant and weigh thoroughly. Explain to me exactly what decision I should make and why.

Other Stuff (everyone):

If you do a spin while saying turn, bring me food, or make high quality puns, I will give you 30 speaks.

I prefer chill and friendly rounds with lighthearted banter.

However, if someone mansplains, whitesplains, or is overall rude or condescending, feel free to sass them back. I will give you high speaks for roasting them.

Fist bumps are the move.

I'm like 19 so I will probably cringe if you call me "judge" or anything formal.

Please try to come to round with preflows so there aren't delays.

He/Him

email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu

lots of circuit experience (gtoc and more)

ask me anything before round!

tldr: run whatever, explain it, win!

disclosure is good (I mean for my decision, ofc)

• Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. I was forced by my partner to love impact turns (do what you will with that). More on progressive stuff below.

• Pleeeease read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (saves u from theory)

• for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in speech. for example, if I'm running solving domestic violence in my case, which some people could be uncomfortable debating about since that's an issue personal to them, I would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)

• Tell me if you're in the bubble and I'll give you 30s

• If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I'm fine with a nice, chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority!

Speeches

• Paraphrasing is chill, just don't lie about evidence. HOWEVER, I’m open to cut-card theory–I won’t intervene with my personal ideologies.

• I'm fine with any speed, I don’t want to limit you as the judge. However, notify me before your speech so I know what to expect! I'll let you know if I need a doc or not.

• Enunciate even if you're spreading, don't try to slur words to get more stuff out pls.

Rebuttal

• You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

• Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.

Summary/FF

• Must extend your link, impact, and clear warrant!!! (idc about author names I don't flow them)

Framework

• Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times, teams will just read a blip at the top of case saying “The fw for this debate should be how x will help in the future”

• I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)

Progressive

• ngl idk much about prog

• I was not a theory debater

judge simp bad!

Hello :)

My name is Dimitry and I am a senior at Newton South High School; this is my 3rd year of debate.

I am a flow judge but:

1. Pretty please do not run a k or theory, unless it's funny.

2. Don't talk so fast that you sound like a Looney Tunes character.

Remember that weighing is very important because it lets me know why I should vote for your side, and it's just a way to make all the points you made come together. Moreover, although I said I am a flow I do value truth a lot too, so if someone runs some bogus argument it's important for you to tell me why it's improbable or whatnot.

I do not flow cross so make sure to bring it up in other speeches if your opponent concedes something important.

Lastly, it's oK to loosen up and try to have as much fun as you can.

Hi! I'm Claire. I'm a senior at Newton South and I do PF.

for speeches:

- tech > truth

- if you spread send everyone a speech doc

- extend/warrant your entire link chain, extend your impact. I love good narrative

- please collapse

- please weigh, and explain your weighing; don’t j say “we outweigh on probability,” tell me WHY you outweigh

-try to make summary/ff structure somewhat parallel each other. If there is no weighing I default to whatever arg I think has the clearest path to the ballot

for cross:

- I don't flow cross, I'll occasionally listen; if there's an important point bring it up in the ensuing speech or I won't evaluate it

- be assertive, don't be rude

- I'll be typing up comments/feedback on my rfd during cross

other things:

- I have not evaluated prog before but I am def willing to

- if you run a sensitive arg (anything that would need a TW), send an anonymous opt-out form before round that everyone can fill out

- if you guess my favorite band i'll be happy

- if you have any questions or need to add me to the email chain: claireruan123456@gmail.com

good luck!

I'm Ka'iulani, a sophomore from Newton South High School.

I’m proud to be samoan/filipino/kanaka maoli:)

I'm a flow judge, I flow relatively fast but then again don't speak TOO fast.

Feel free to ask me any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Don't go overtime.

I won't vote off of cross but I will pay attention and take into account claims from cross that are mentioned into speeches.

Make sure to signpost, it helps me keep track of what you're responding to.

Don't bring new information in final focus please.

DO NOT be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will automatically give you the L.

------ If you give me a Cocomelon reference in your speech or bust a cool dance move, i'll give you +.5 speaks. (if your dance wasn't interesting enough, I won't give any extra points)-----

Hello!

My name is Evonne Wetzner, and I'm a parent of an 8th grade debater in Milton, MA. During the week, I work as a senior marketer at a global software organization. A large part of my job is writing clear, engaging messages about complex technologies. Focus areas for my role include: blog writing, product marketing, social media strategy, infographic design, demand generation, campaign creation & management, bridging global sales and marketing teams across the Americas, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Pacific markets.

As a judge, I am looking for debaters to:

• Cite facts and sources to back up arguments
• Speak confidently
• Be respectful, kind and supportive
• Ask thoughtful questions
• Present an organized, clear argument
• Stay engaged and adaptable throughout the session

You all are all awesome for doing this and I'm so impressed with the level of commitment you each have for debating!

I'm a college sophomore at McGill University.

I did LD in high school for 3 years.

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

Be nice :)