Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

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

Last Updated: 10/2/23 | CHENGZHE JIANG

My name is Chengzhe Jiang; please call me Kevin! (he/him)

Tech > Truth | Top 25 in MA

Email for TWs + Chain: chjiang26@concordcarlisle.org {Keep Safe : Monitored}

- - - - -

Paradigm:

1. I am a tech judge (tech>truth). I will flow on a computer (WPM: 120-140); if you spread (tanks speaks) or have a case over 250 WPM, in other words, over 1000 words, you must send speech doc to OPPs + Judge (PF). For LD please send a speech doc if it is fast and has prog. I am Tabula Rasa.

2. Prog. Debate:

I will evaluate theory and K's, no tricks.

Theory:

1. Interp (Norm + Rule)

2. Violation (Opponents Violate)

3. Standards (Promote Interp)

4. Voters (Impact)

Kritik:

1. Link (Topic -> K)

2. Impact (Larger Structure)

3. Alt (Counterplan)

4. Framing (Voters K OFF.)

I will allow prog debate and vote off the matter, but please make sure you know your stuff. Don't try to run a higher-level debate over the traditional level if you don't have the experience. If you do, you will most likely lose the round and get low speaks. You will get a 25 or as low as I can and an auto L if you run a trick.

Friv shells most likely won't win you the round. Don't just say yes RVI or no RVI give reasoning. DTA is good; DTD isn't unless convinced.

personal opinion: i think disclo and paraphrasing theory is really really lame.

3. I will not flow cross, but if the opponent concedes X, bring it up in summary or rebuttal.

4. Weigh, weigh, weigh. Imagine two boats crossing at night, but none of them interact and keep going alone. Then how am I supposed to determine who wins? But if one of the boats tells me it will save lives but the other doesn't, it is an easy vote because saving lives is significant! Also! Please remember that META Weighing is essential! (If you do not know what that is, it is weighing mechanisms; a common example is magnitude below scope, as in one death is less important than one million in poverty.)

5. Regarding speaks: I hope never to judge a round that has any sort of implementations of any -ist (I.E., sexist, racist...). You will get dropped and reported. If you are insulting, expect a 27. Other than that, I will give, on average, a 28.5; however, it can very quickly go up from there.

6. Spectating rounds: I am 100% fine with spectating rounds! I love watching my teammates all the time. However, if not all teams agree with the spectating, you must leave the room, as it is up to the participants. They can also prevent you from using electronics during the round in fear of external benefits (aka. cheating). If you must leave during the round, wait till someone takes to prep, or they are in the middle of the cross!

7. Speed and talking as loud as possible are not good! I am a tech judge and not someone who would vote off of a loud voice!

8. You must tell me why you won the round. I will not be thinking for you, nor will I be thinking about the benefits of either team! I will look at what was presented and decide based on the substance.

9. Please do not waste time during cross or speeches regarding who said what and whether person X said it. It will be on my flow.

10. General Substance: Collapse! It is essential to keep the quality of an argument, as stating something that took you 4 minutes into a time block of 1 minute is not feasible! So, condense and extend what you must! Furthermore, regarding evidence calling, please do not run K just because someone did not card everything and if it is just a website. Sometimes, I get lazy, too... However, please stay away from debater math! Oh, yeah, and please signpost!

If you have any questions, please ask me inside the round! I am pretty chill, and I will answer anything!

Remember to have a good time! Don't take it too seriously!

- - - - -

if you follow me on insta ill give you an auto 30 cuz why not (@chengzhejiang)

ld

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 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

**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.

Hi, I'm Anahitha! I'm a junior at Newton South and I have three years of experience with PF debate.

Just some general stuff:

I'm generally tech>truth but narrative is really good and your warranting has to make some amount of sense. I will vote for a turn if it's warranted and weighed well though.

I'm okay with speed, but be ready to send a speech doc if you spread.

Don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. in round. It makes us all uncomfortable and I will drop you for it.

If you make an email chain, please include me:

Email: anahitha.menon13@gmail.com

Speeches:

Frontline in second rebuttal

WEIGH! Above all else, please weigh. There's no easier way to win my ballot.

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!

utd 26'

email: rahulpenumetcha10@gmail.com

NDT x2

Top Level -

The debate should be up to the debaters and I will not intervene - any of my opinions discussed below will not affect my decision-making process if any argument in the debate is made over them.

A lot of this philosophy (and my beliefs in debate) will echo austin kiihnl, kevin hirn, and julian habermann's philosophies'.

There is almost always a risk of any argument, its a question of how the debaters do calc as to which risk matters more

I will vote on any argument that I disagree with or is not true if the argument is won at a technical level (doesn't apply to non-negotiables)

"Evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly"

"I have a fairly strong preference for organized, technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it a lot harder than you'd like for me to adjudicate the debate." (From Austin)

Notes:

-Analytics need to be used more (esp vs less truthful args)

-I won't judge kick unless told to

-I don't lean a certain way on cp theory but 2ac blippiness means the neg block has a low threshold to meet. I'm better than most for theory to make it into the 1AR but still, every cp theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg

-We meet on T is a yes/no question - generally T debates are my favorite when done well.

-“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.” (From Julian)

-I've spent a decent amount of time reading critical literature with the most time spent on Calvin Warren, Frank Wilderson, Christina Shrape, Arthur Kroker, and Douglas Kellner in that order. This means my threshold for your explanation might inevitably be higher, however aff specific contextualization and the explanation of the theory of power on the line by line should overcome any gap in understanding.

-I have a sweet spot for impact turn debates.

-My evaluation of K affs vs FW is best for the aff when there is either a firm impact turn strategy with some metric to evaluate aff case offense or a counter interp that focuses on establishing an inroads to 2nr offense while solving external impacts. I'm better for the negative when the strategy is either hard right fairness and providing a metric to view aff offense through or a strategy that revolves around clash/fairness and establishing ways FW can solve aff offense via a TVA/SSD. If it matters I've been on the neg side of these debates slightly more than the aff.

Non-negotiables

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or misgender.

CX is binding

I will not vote on anything that did not happen in the round because that is not what a judge ought to do.

If the debate can be made safer, accessible etc. Please let me know.

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.

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.

I'm a former university debater and currently a post-grad student-judge with 7 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged 20+ parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com

I'm okay with spreading.

Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution and impacts are provided

Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution and impacts are provided

Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.

Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.

Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.

Public Forum

Speed: Okay with varying pace and speed

Preference of arguments: None specific, as long as they are explained well and their impacts are proven

K's and theory arguments: Open so long as their impacts are proven

Tech > truth: I will evaluate the argument/s provided that the logic and impacts are proven and the opponents' arguments are engaged and rebutted

Evidence: Direct quotations on trustworthy sources and statistics are highly welcomed especially when they are linked to proving the extent of the harms and benefits of your case or your opponents'

CX, Crossfire, Grand crossfire: Questions that cast a shadow of doubt to the opponents' case are welcome. Be creative and sneaky.

Summary and FF: Should be consistent and evolve with the progression of arguments and rebuttals raised during the debate. Evaluation of questions and responses during CX and crossfire should be integrated as well, if necessary.

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 Debaters. The only paradigm I can have is just remember to quantify your impacts, this means provide numbers to impacts also remember to signpost so I know where in the flow you are. Its okay to speak fast, critical thinking is appreciated. Remember to weigh impacts.

Thank you