for georgetown:i have done literally no research on this topic just a heads up

hi! i'm samara (she/her). this is my third year debating in pf for hunter college high school.

add me to the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions: samaraburstein@hunterschools.org

tldr: flow judge, im ok w prog (although pls explain well), extend and weigh well, make sure the round is safe, be nice :)

if you have any questions ask me before the round starts im happy to explain any of my preferences

general preferences:

please pre flow ur arguments, i don't want to have to awkwardly sit in silence at the beginning of the round while u rush to write down all of ur arguments

time your own speeches, prep, cross x, etc.

i generally go w tech>truth BUT pls do not make any extremely outlandish or problematic args (no climate change is good, racism/sexism/homophobia is good, etc). i will drop u w low speaks if u say anything offensive

i'm fine with *some* speed, but if you are going over 225-275+ wpm send a speech doc. honestly it depends on how tired i am on any given day, will lyk.

i will probably listen to cross (although don't hold me to that) but i won't flow it or vote off of anything said during it unless you bring it up in speech

i'm cool with open cross and/or flex prep (skipping grand for an extra minute of prep for both teams) as long as everyone else in round is

don't steal prep. i won't drop you but it's mean so i'll probably give u low speaks

don't be rude

if you say anything offensive, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc i will drop you and give you the lowest speaks i can

you can postround *nicely.* i'm happy to explain my decision just be respectful

wear whatever you want, sit however you want, you can sit or stand for speeches. generally j do whatever ur comfortable with i dont really care.

debate/speech stuff:

please don't do any of the "3, 2, 1," "my time starts on my first word/now," stuff i won't penalize you because it's not a huge deal but it just bothers me i promise i wont start your time until you begin actually talking

extending: please please please extend. if arguments aren't extended in summary and FF i will consider them dropped. anything extended in final focus needs to have been extended in summary. don't just say "extending Smith '22" or something like that. that is not extending. i do not flow authors and will have no idea what you are talking about.

weighing: one of the most important things for me in a round. you should have clear warrants as to why your arguments are more important. im ok with probability weighing but only if actually done correctly which can be tricky. please metaweigh!

collapsing is important. please don't read me a million different contentions in summary/final focus

no new arguments in summary or final focus. anything you bring up in final has to have been brought up in summary.

signpost your speeches as you go so i know where i should be in the flow

analytics/warranting>evidence. even if you have cards that say a certain thing, if you can't explain it well you shouldn't be using it. i have to be able to understand your argument to be able to vote on it

please have cut cards and good evidence ethics. idrc if you paraphrase in case, but don't misconstrue and make sure to have a cut card.

frameworks: i love framework arguments. please give warrants as to why you are running the framework and make my role as a judge clear. make sure to extend the framework and/or rotb in every speech. and be respectful of everyone in round etc etc

progressive args:

disclaimer: i don't have a ton of experience with progressive arguments, but i will vote on them, just be sure to explain everything well. that being said, i may not be the best judge for them.

in general: please don't read progressive arguments against novices or people who very clearly don't know how to interact with it. my main priority is keeping the round safe. only read progressive arguments if you genuinely care about the issue, not just because you think you can beat the other team.

theory: dont read frivolous theory, i won't drop you, but there's a decent chance dock your speaks. only read theory if you genuinely care about making the debate space safer/setting better norms. generally, i tend to think paraphrasing is bad (i acc have complicated thoughts on this, but whatever) and i have pretty neutral thoughts on disclosure

tricks/trixs: i hate tricks. i will drop you and tank your speaks.

kritiks/ks: go for it, just go slowly and explain well. again, i don't have a ton of experience with this stuff, but i think it is valuable and will 100% judge it

once again, please keep the round safe

speaks:

i think speaker points are kind of stupid to be perfectly honest. for the most part, everyone will get good speaks.

i'll drop your speaks if you are rude

if you make me laugh i'll bump your speaks

that's pretty much it! always feel free to ask me question about anything on (or not on) here before round. and have fun <3

For MS PF'ers: treat me like a lay judge

HS:

General Stuff:

I may ask you to treat me lay if I'm tired (I apologize) but in general, tech judge.

• make email chain pre-round and add me (elamalsakini@gmail.com)
• send case before speech; I don't need docs for other speeches but no spreading (stay within ~225 wpm)
• have cut cards
• you have three-ish minutes to find a card when asked before it's dropped and we move on
• anything you want evaluated in decision should be in speeches
• i'll evaluate Ks + T but be clear/treat it like an argument
• tech > truth (don't use that as an excuse to not warrant/implicate)
• pre-flow before round
• don't be a bad person + have fun

Speaks:

I average somewhere between 28 - 29, but I go higher often enough.

How I will judge (broadly):

Add me to your card sharing doc/email chain <debatefruit@gmail.com>

Tech —-------------x-------------------------------------------------------- Truth

In essence, I am looking for the team with the strongest argument left that best answers the resolution and their rebuttals make direct contact with the opponent's arguments. I start speaks at 28.5 for varsity and points will go up or down from there. If I give you a 27 that means you were okay. I commonly give out 30s, maybe once per round? Points are solely based on how well you speak, not anything content related. I don't flow crossfire, but if you are raising your voice/rude, I will dock points if your opponents are not acting in a similar manner. Logical and convincing arguments will always trump anything tricky (read: I like stock arguments). Non-stock arguments are fine. But anything deliberately confusing needs strong evidence and impacts. Progressives and theory also should be treated as normal arguments, as in there needs to be a strong impact. In addition, I can't vote on any impact that isn't quantified or is not extended. Be kind, confident, and show up on time and I am happy to give good speaks.

In addition, I might misspell things in feedback.

Speaker boost:

if you can guess my zodiac sign or MBTI +1

being ACTUALLY funny (not rude) (ex: their case has so many holes, it's practically a sponge) +1

theory +2 (theory does not boost winning chances, but I do enjoy theory)

Extra Clarification:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QrBhvDDwu9jfR_MEJiN7Yfq23VYrBQ_1q00rLcJ_dmw/edit

4 years of PF experience.

Add mukilanmuthukumar@hunterschools.org to email chains.

Generally tech > truth.

Speed is okay, but make sure to always be clear and signpost.

To win: weigh comparatively, collapse, and extend.

I don't flow cross; bring it up in a speech if you think it's important.

Be respectful and have fun!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm