theory bad

trad pf good

anecdotal evidence bad

tabula rasa! (unless its just an obvious flat-out lie)

general

tech > truth unless it's a blatant lie (ie: China is in Europe)

I do not care about cross. also, please do not bring up anything from grand in FF because I will be confused and not evaluate it.

extend in summary! anything in FF not in summary will be considered dropped.

offense > terminal defense > weighing > mitigatory defense (but please still weigh it makes it a lot easier to make a decision)

if you're going to be talking over 250 wpm please send a speech doc :)

please try to avoid presumption arguments if possible

prog

Theory is cool but if it's friv theory your speaks will be tanked (I'll still evaluate it though).

I can evaluate Ks but I'm not the most experienced so read Ks that aren't stock (stock as in cap, orientalism, etc.) at your own risk.

Tricks are alright, but your speaks will be very very low.

Also, please no prog in novice because that's just not okay.

old paradigm (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O3z2ygZtT-wZE0sF7m2BY9C8AlU9_ub-3IQDhAbgw6I/edit?usp=sharing) was too unserious :(((

4 years of PF in Washington State, current college freshman doing British and American Parli —> decent success in high school and college

Consider me a flow judge but keep in mind I debated in a pretty lay high school circuit (with a bit of nat circuit experience) and I’m a pretty traditional debater. College has made me better with speed but don’t policy spread lol. I’ll flow theory and Ks but my threshold of understanding is probably lower.

Some basic round analysis stuff: Unless it’s defense I expect it to be extended through all speeches if you want me to consider it (defense is sticky). Second rebuttal has to frontline. I probably won’t bring in personal topic knowledge but if you don’t do any weighing for me then I’ll mostly likely gut check each arg and vote for the most probable side or the arg that’s more intuitive. I won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to it for speaker scores.

Be respectful, I’ll drop teams for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. and report to tab.

Just ask me if you have any more specific paradigm questions.

"Whoever said debate's a game was lying. it's a ponzi scheme"

Hello I just stole a funny paradigm shoutout Kyle Hietala. If u want a funny lil round bc the round doesn’t matter click here and pick a round style we can do lol
My views align with: Ella Yu , andAnnie chen.

TLDR: I did pf for 3 years, I really hate intervening, I'll vote on whatever

ask me if u don’t know what stuff in my paradigm means, do whatever you want ask questions if u have, i flow meaning i take notes/pay attention

fionayli1004@gmail.comforemail chains

1. Tech > truth meaning I buy what happens in the round not my own biases (to the best of my ability) I will vote on the sky being green if it's not responded to. It is your job to respond to arguments no matter how stupid they may seem :(
2. second rebuttal should frontline (doesn’t apply to novice unless first final focus points out to me that they shouldn’t get new frontlines in second summary)
3. Say something funny pls
4. dc about cross/presentation, wear whatever u want, do whatever u want in cross if it’s important bring it up in a speech don’t be rude pls
5. run theory I hate this topic

and now a haiku:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH I HATE TRIX

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

my longer paradigm.

Don't be rude- don't spread a ton, and be clear as to WHY the opponent loses, and don't just compare impacts.

I've judged Parli ms debate and currently do Novice-Open Pf.

Background: started with an LD camp in 8th grade and did PF for all four years throughout highschool. I'm relatively experienced with tech debate.

Speed: go as fast as you want but anything > 300wpm (if you're unsure just send a doc) I'll need a speech doc. If not I'll say clear if I need you to slow down.

Prog: run anything you want I'll vote on the flow. My PF background doesn't give me the most experience so you might want to be a bit more deliberate in warranting out prog arguments. Generally I don't like frivolous theory but again I'll vote on it if you win.

Please give me a clear path to the ballot. You can win the round even if you're in an objectively worse position by the last speech if I find it easier to vote for you instead of your opponent.

First year out judge.

caitrinw@uw.edu, put me on evidence chains, speech docs, etc

I did PF through all four years of high school, second speaker.

Timing wise, if you go over time, I'll give you some grace but I will cut you off about ten seconds over speeches or 15 seconds over crossfires.

Speaks:

Almost always in a range of 27 - 30 unless you're shouting at your opponents/doing ad hominem attacks

PF

I want to see good impacts carried through the round. Don't drop something after rebuttal and bring it up again in FF. I want to see frontlining in second rebuttal, imo second summary is a little too late to frontline.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

Beyond that, PF is what you make it, so have fun.

Theory: I don't love theory in PF, I think it takes the 'public' out of Public Forum. That being said, debate is always changing and I recognize theory in PF is becoming more and more popular as time goes on, so I am willing to evaluate it. If you run theory, please warrant it well and give me real impacts. It takes a lot for me to vote only on theory, so don't abandon your case.

LD

As I already said, I did PF all of high school, so while I have a solid background in debate, I don't know LD very well.

I'll vote on theory as long as it's clearly warranted and done well. I'd like to see value criterions carried through the whole round, don't just say it in your constructive and then ignore them. If you're going to spread, provide speech docs.

I will still vote for your arguments if you lose the criterion/value debate but you prove convincingly that you win under your opponent's framework.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

I will try to disclose and provide an rfd unless the tournament is adamantly against it.

3 years of high school public forum debate (both 1st and 2nd speaker) experience in Washington State.

PF:

TRUTH>TECH. Just because you say the sky is green and your opponents don't respond doesn't mean the sky is green (I will try not to intervene too much).

Consider me a flow judge but keep in mind I am debating in a pretty lay high school circuit (and I competed at a couple national circuit tournaments) and I'm a pretty traditional PF debater. I try not to bring in topic knowledge/judge intervention.

Make sure to signpost (tell me what arguments you are addressing), I am fine with off-time roadmaps (nothing over 5 seconds).

I like clash in debate. In order to win the clash on an argument, you need to either explain to me why your evidence is better, or why your logic is better. Simply saying "they say this", "we say this" is not enough for me to vote for you on this clash, you need to do a comparison. Again, simply saying "their evidence says this", "ours says this" is not enough.

I will flow progressive arguments (theory, Ks, etc.), but my threshold of understanding is probably low, and please tell me before the round or before your speech if you are going to run any of the progressive arguments listed above.

Be respectful, I’ll drop teams for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. and report to tab.

• Speed and Jargon:

"PF speed" is fine as long as you enunciate. Do not spread, I will stop flowing if you are going too fast. If it's not on my flow, I will not vote on it.

I am okay with debate jargon (delink, turn, nonunique, etc.), if you are going to run progressive arguments, again my threshold for understanding and jargon will be low.

Do not run an abusive framework. If the other team does not respond to it, I will flow it through, but probably drop your speaks.

• Crossfire:

DO NOT BE RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENTS. If I feel you are being too condescending or not letting your opponents talk, I will either deduct speaker points or I will drop the debater (if it's really bad). With that being said, I will not penalize you for asking follow-up questions. I will not be flowing crossfire (I will be paying somewhat attention for speaker points), if you want it on my flow, bring it up in the next speech.

• Rebuttal:

DO NOT CONTINUE READING YOUR CASE IF YOU DIDN'T FINISH IN THE FIRST 4 MINUTES.

First rebuttal: Try to spend all 4 minutes refuting your opponent's case (I dislike it when teams spend a lot of time "rebuilding their case"). If you run out of stuff to say, weigh the debate.

Second rebuttal: You need to frontline. By frontline, I do not mean extending your argument, I need you to actually respond to your opponents' refutations. I will only vote on offense in the round, so if you concede defense, it will not count for the other team.

• Summary:

First summary: You definitely need to frontline. If you concede defense on an argument, it makes it much harder for me to vote for you on that argument. If you are dropping an argument, conceding defense is fine, do not concede turns if you are dropping an argument though. Be strategic with your time. You also need to weigh the debate, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

Second summary: Pretty much same thing as first summary. New weighing is allowed, but no new arguments, you can make new implications of arguments as long as it isn't super abusive.

For me, probability weighing is more important than magnitude. DO NOT IMPACT EVERY ARGUMENT OUT TO NUKE WAR. If you don't do the weighing, I will do the weighing. I will try not to intervene as a judge, but I would prefer if the debaters did the weighing.

• Final Focus:

Do not try to cover the entire flow. Go for voters, which are reasons why I should vote for you. Make the speech organized. A teammate once told me, the final focus is the speech you give to your team after the round complaining why you should have won.

Do not make new arguments, this includes no new weighing (weigh in summary, extend the weighing in final focus). If you blatantly lie in second final focus because your opponents can't respond to it, I will dock speaks and not count it on the flow.

+1 speaker points for both competitors on your team if you start your FF with this:

This round comes down to two worlds. One world is the world of the aff, that is the world in which (insert resolution, ex. The world in which the U.S increases diplomatic efforts in West Asia). The other world is the world of the neg, that is the status quo. What we would argue is that the (insert your side) world is comparatively better for (insert number of voters) key reasons.

• How I make my decision:

I will vote off the flow. Speaker points are awarded based on how fluent your speech is (not a whole lot of ums and stuttering), and also based on strategic decisions made in round. I will try to give high speaker points when I can.

Just ask me in round if you have any more specific paradigm questions.

im sophomore pf.

no prog

im ok with speed, but spreading is an L

tech > truth: run anything but I won't vote on an argument you can't explain

EXTEND (full warrant and impacts) or else the args gone!

weigh.

rebuttal: number your responses and try not to jump around (organized basically)

ff and 2nd summary: nothing new

call for cards during prep

+1 speaks if u say "erm aschuallyyyy" in a nerd voice when responding/frontlinting

HAVE FUN !!!