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.

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

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

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.

**i want to emphasize that I was a pretty traditional PF/LD debater and my experience with theory/other progressive arguments was very limited. i won't evaluate any progressive arguments (including disclosure theory). for LD, treat me like a lay judge**

1. I vote on the flow, with that being said if it is not said, I can't vote on it. However, if both teams are not doing the work, I'll have to do it alone, and you might not like my decision.
2. Respond to everything if you are going for an argument. If you don't respond to it, it's conceded.
3. Whenever you extend a case you need to extend the entire link chain, not just the argument. This includes extending authors, warrants, and impacts.
4. Don't speak fast.

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)

Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.

TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)

Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.

If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.

Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge

Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.

Past debater, I am very lay

I really like wieghing

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 everyone!

My name is Paul (he/him) and I am a college freshman. Prior to college, I was a VPF debater at Bronx Science.
Email(for concerns, cards, etc.): petrovicicomriep@bxscience.edu

Some things to expect in a round:

- I am a flow judge but appreciate lay appeal because it usually means you are warranting more, so give me a narrative.

- Card names will not be included in my flow. You need to first explain the context of the card and then extend it.

- Cross will be listened to, but not again, not included in my flow. Anything you want me to flow will have to be said in the following speech.

- I can handle some speed in your speeches, but no spreading. You want all the evidence that you say to make my flow, so do everything you can to ensure that happens.

I want you to make it as clear as possible why I should vote for you. This means your warranting and especially your impacts should be fully extended and weighed.

I will not tolerate anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Just don't do it. A bad round impacts everyone in the debate so let's try and have a good time. Debate is not only about winning, but having fun too. Don't shy from adding humor in your speeches, it makes the experience better for all of us.

Please do not hesitate to email me with any further questions.

Hi I'm Angela! I'm a junior at lexington highschool

Pronouns are (she/her)

I've been doing LD for 3 years on both the local and national circuit. I'm comfy with most arguments, tldr is to just make sure your clear and you write my ballot for me.

Yes I want to be on the email chain angelabowman07@gmail.com but speech drop is prob easier

Quick prefs:

• friv theory - 1
• generic theory/t - 1
• generic K's - 2
• policy - 4
• generic phil (kant, hobbes, etc..) - 3
• tricks - 3

Notes:

I will try my best evaluate almost every type of argument but there's no guarantee I can evaluate it well (i.e. if you read dense phil tricks I will try but no guarantee I will vote the right way unless you explain it really clearly)

For novices:

I'm comfortable with you reading anything no matter how weak the link chain is, I vote off of any argument as long as I flow a warrant

tech>truth

please make sure you weigh (under your framework and just impact clac) and write my ballot for me in your last speech

some notes:

• tech > truth
• my speaks start at a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round
• I don't tolerate in-round violence (this includes, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) I'll drop you with low speaks
• don't be rude
• *I suck at flowing so if your opponent dropped something make sure to emphasize it
• I don't listen or flow cx

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

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)-----

Hi everyone!

I'm Mia (she/her) and I am a third year PF debater at Bronx Science.
Email chains/Questions/Feedback: zaslowm@bxscience.edu

Some general things:

- I am tech > truth, however, be reasonable. I am a flow judge but appreciate lay appeal because it usually means you are warranting more, so give me a narrative.

- I do not flow card names, so if you want me to flow your evidence through the round you need to re-explain the content of the card. Just saying "extend Smith 21" doesn't cut it for me.

- I listen to cross but do not flow it, so anything you want me to evaluate should be brought up in the next speech.

- I'm fine with some speed, but just remember you want everything you say to make it on my flow.

- I don’t really like progressive arguments so run them in front of me at your own risk.

In terms of debate structure, I just want you to make it as clear as possible why I should vote for you. This means your warranting and impacts should be extended and weighed.

Finally, please be kind. Don't do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I know how awful a bad round can feel so let's have a good time. If you can make me laugh during the round I will boost your speaks.

Email me with any questions :)