barimanim@uscstudents.org for email chains. (add me pls)

Upper St. Clair '26 | 2 years of PF

I mostly compete on the local Pittsburgh circuit

PF is my main event, but I have competed in Parli, Congress, and Impromptu.

Run whatever you want but exercise good judgment.

PF:

Tech>Truth with an emphasis on strong warranting

I am okay with going a bit overtime in speeches as long as it is less than 10 seconds and not any new contentions/ rebuttals.

Speed is fine but I won’t be able to flow spreading. Send speech docs beforehand if you plan to spread.

Not the biggest fan of prog. I'll still evaluate theory if there's a major in-round violation (no friv). I'll also evaluate topical and nontopical K's, but you really have to convince me if you want me to vote for them.

Cross is binding,but it won't factor into my decision unless something from cross is brought up in speech.

Have fun and be chill!

I have a system for how I evaluate rounds. Here's how it goes:

weighing --> your case + frontlines --> rebuttals --> presume status quo if neither side wins on anything

Parli:

Logic>Evidence.I don't care about evidence in this event at all

Speak slowly and clearly

I evaluate based on who is fulfilling their burdens and weighing.

Definitions are important. Be sure to contest abusive definitions by the gov from the very beginning or you will make the round more difficult for yourself than it needs to be.

Unfortunately, I don't have any firsthand experience with policy or LD. I'd appreciate it if you could guide me and give me times for speeches and such. My general guidelines for PF apply to other debate events as well.

If you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, you can contact me at the following:

Email: manabarimani@gmail.com

Discord: manabarimani

thomas jefferson/darty boys for 3 years on natcirc

abenbhattachan@gmail.com

my paradigm is identical to Arjun Chimata's

I presume neg unless told otherwise

im a parent/lay judge

if u present theory u will receive a big discount

not good with speed

make sure to time yourself

summary final focus important

if there are any other questions, ask me in round

Langley '26 | PF for two years

Add me to the email chain: chunconnor@gmail.com (he/him)

While I come from the incredibly lay Virginia circuit, I have a decent amount of experience on the natcirc. I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer...

Hard Prefs

Stolen from my friend Tobin- There are not enough people yelling clear or requiring their students be clear. Yes kids today don’t flow because they just look at the speech document- but guess why they do that? Because no one can understand what the other team is saying [...] even when I say “clear” people totally ignore it.

Here is what it means when a judge says “clear”: I cannot understand what you are saying, therefore I cannot count any of the arguments you are making. Without arguments you will probably lose.

What kids hear: “LOUDER” “1% slower please” “Can you enunciate for like 5 seconds and then go back to mumbling?”

-

That being said, there are a few (pretty obvious) things that are absolutely set in stone, so you should definitely read this if you want a quick summary of my preferences. These are more lenient in novice/jv rounds (excluding respect)

1. Be respectful. Any bigotry or blatant rudeness will get you a quick L20.

2. Speed is fine- be coherent. I hold a high value in clarity because realistically if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments. Send a doc if you're going fast, but even then I prefer not to use it.

3. Obviously keep track of your own time. I will also be timing and stop flowing once the timer hits zero, give or take 3~ish seconds.

4. Evidence exchanges have a tendency to take way too long. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to grab a card your speaks will suffer. I'd prefer it if you sent cut cards before speeches or at the very least before constructive.

5. Theory is fine -- I have no defaults and ran it often, but I shouldn't be trusted to evaluate K's very well.

Other Stuff

Framing is fine. Reading carded frameworks in first summary is iffy and reading it in second summary is way too late unless you're responding to your opponents' framing. Pre-fiat "discourse" arguments aren't the most persuasive.

Make my job easy by explaining your clear path to the ballot. Collapse on your case, collapse on their case. Debate is quality > quantity so rather than going for five unweighed turns it makes way more sense to go for one with good weighing and a strong link chain.

If an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there.

Weigh. Lots of round come down to whoever is winning weighing. Do lots of it, but have good warranting and explanations if you want it to be a voter. Probability weighing is just another way of explaining why you are winning your link and is often just new defense in the summary speeches. If you go up in summary and say "we outweigh on probability because their argument about nuclear war is stopped by MAD," that's new defense I won't vote on.

Open cross, politely asking questions after the round, and asking spectators to close their laptops is fine.

Callouts, tricks, and 30-speaks theory arguments are not fine.

If I look confused I probably am.

Hi! I'm Ryan, I'm debate at McLean and I'm the coach for Longfellow

Since I debate often I know the topics very well

Here are somethings to note

• Tech > Truth, I'll vote purely off the arguments made in the round without evaluating how "true" the argument could be
• Speed is fine
• Anything un-responded to is deemed TRUE
• If it's not it summary I won't vote off of it in final

For Speaks

• Speaks are mainly based on strategy, little bit how pretty you sounded
• Pretty generous, I'll start around 28.5
• Smooth crosses without interrupting or being aggressive will boost everyone's speaks
• Be funny! I won't take your arguments less seriously if you crack a joke

Extra

• I'll probably be on my phone during cross
• Feel free to post-round, ask me questions about my decision

i’m flay NOT GOOD FOR BLIPPY BACKHALF DEBATES

send all evidence

aaron.ftian@gmail.com

yes speed but be clear - i'll clear you and you can tell if i'm not flowing

will vote on any argument - i have some of my thoughts in my paradigm but they are not strict predispositions

don't be racist sexist etc

postrounding is good but dont be rude

i eval off the flow (tech>>>>>>>>truth) - i think intervention is terrible and will comfortably evaluate solely off of in round extrapolations unless directed otherwise (ie. you make ev indicts/say look at the evidence it's bad) - that being said i think indicts are only significant with counter warranting or opposing ev

i dont think links themselves are offense

presumption must be read latest by summary - i default presume neg

i look at weighing first then if they're winning a link, but I think "any risk" only kinda applies to fw like extinction cause a low risk of a link to ex. recession even if it outweighs would translate to a mitigated impact so you can't access that (that would have to be implicated though). any risk only makes sense in the context of categorically distinct impacts.

warrants are essential, extensions are as well to an extent - I should be able to reexplain your arguments based on the summary and final extrapolation

im generally unpersuaded by intervening actors - i think most of the time its a late breaking attempt at inserting unwarranted defense but will vote on it if read well or dropped

terminal defense takes out try or die

presumption requires zero risk

K

i enjoy a good k debate but explain things well

i think most k alts are cps

good for reps ks, most basic non util fw (phil), etc, but err overexplaining > underexplaining on anything that differs from policy

i'm very skeptical about discourse alts/voters - will almost never vote on "vote for us because we brought it up" unless its absolutely dropped in which case I will be sad

i usually went for other collapses vs the k so I'm not as well versed on deep clashes on TFWK but it's probably the most common and true argument - i think T violent/T bad dumps are likely groupeable and a lot more intimidating than they are substantive

Theory

i dislike theory but will vote on it (this only applies to out of round violations like disclo or round reports, T or in round abuse is different)

theory > ev challenge on ev ethics but i'll eval an ev chal too

i think ivis are fine - they should have the same "dtd" warrants or "voter" justifications as theory ie. you need to explain why it's a procedural issue or why it outweighs

I'll vote on rvis/ocis

reasonability needs a brightline, a ci can just be defending the violation

good for T - i think a lot of positions stretch the limits of the res

General

mediocre for tricks - explain well in the backhalf if ur going for them

cross is binding but point it out in speech cause I'm not flowing cross

if you're going for impact turns you should briefly extend the link to the res ie. their case but the threshold is very low

i think the same way crossaps are considered "new" responses, implications off existing arguments on the flow are also new to an extent ex. you probably should not get away with new wipeout in final just because the arguments s risk outweighs, ai development inevitable, and an extinction link from the res exist on the flow.

yes "sticky defense" but my interp is that if the second rebuttal doesn't explicitly kick a contention but they don't answer ANYTHING on it the first summary isn't obligated to extend dropped defense and if the second summary goes for that contention the first final is justified in extending rebuttal defense. However, if only specific pieces of defense are dropped on a contention that's frontlined to any extent, the first summary has to extend dropped defense and the first final is not justified in extending straight from rebuttal.

hi!

add me to the chain - nicky26wang@gmail.com !

cross is not a speech guys!!!

its not called weighing if its not comparative

i'm a parent and not a native english speaker so probably no Ks

+ make the round entertaining and you'll get high speaks

ask any questions!

PF

tech>truth

TLDR

1 - LARP

2 - Theory (but these are normally boring debates so please dont)

3 - K

4 - Phil

5 - Trix

win weighing win the round, unless implicated to the weighing debate mitigatory defense does not matter if offense is won

I flow, i can evaluate tech, prog, k's, wtv. I've ran topical and non-topical k's, friv, etc. but pref substance

make it easy to evaluate---give me comparative weighing and collapse on good arguments not many arguments (not saying don't go for more than one arg or smth just quality over quantity)

outright bigotry is an L20

be fast I don't want to be sitting in the back for 2 minutes waiting for an ev exchange to happen

prefs

spreading send speech docs, if you're going to do the same gargling marbles pf spreading most people do TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE GOING OFF THE DOC OR MARK IT IN THE DOC

i'll clear you because debate is still a communication activity, just a fast one.

no new args in back half, please collapse

explicate kicks---no judge kick and you have to tell me how conceding a piece of defense kicks smth

on weighing first thing I look for is a pre req with timeframe, you should do good analysis on these things as always. but i'll look to wtv weighing mech you tell me to look at first. uniqueness matters a lot, unless you have good answers to try or die I think that link defense alone makes it difficult to pull the trigger for the negative

probability is normally fake, if you have the same impact and have good comparatives go for it but i don't just buy "this argument is not probable so you shouldn't vote for it." that's just link defense. only time you could go for probability and make some sense would be if your arg is conceded and there is ink on theirs but my threshold for responding to weighing like that is low.

i deeply dislike intervening actors weighing the way most people do it in pf (eg timeframe first cus longer impacts have more intervening actors or sv first cus nobody looks to sv). it’s not something you can’t win off of, nor do i think it’s a fundamentally bad way to weigh. rather, the issue is how high schoolers do it by just saying “oh there’s intervening actors so their problem gets solved” with no explanation of the mechanics. it’s basically a form of defense that for some reason we have allowed to be argued without any explanation or warranting—do better

Prog

I can eval theory

don't read disclo or other theory on people who don't know how to answer it that's just sad

threshold for good answers to theory is pretty low

for k's I can generally eval k's, i'm familiar with some lit but assume I'm not.

I mainly flow/watch and read decisions from NDT/CEDA K rounds, all that really means is that my standards for k is going to be pretty high and that a lot of the k debate that goes on in pf isn't something I want to judge. if you're going to read a k you should have a genuine good understanding of how to do it and especially your lit.

this doesn't mean you can just say a lot of word salad and expect me to understand it

you should have good alts and have solvency cards unless you have a reason why it's not needed and you read it in round

tell me how to eval the k vs k or policy or wtv, eg "weigh the impacts of the plan against the k"

DO THE LINE BY LINE THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES

when it comes to non-topical i'm good to evaluate them but when answering t-fw:

I enjoy creative counterinterps

you should do the work to answer whether procedural or structural issues come first

update for k debates: I do not want to sit in the back listening to a two minute overview and blippy crossapps and implications, i will have a high threshold for contextual explanations.

other prefs

please postround---i think it's important pedagogically to go hard in the postround and I will never doc speaks for the postround

pre-fiat "discourse" is silly, you don't get the ballot just for bringing up a certain problem especially if you're losing the rest of the flow. why am I voting for the neg who read a fw when the aff proved they're policy is better than the neg for those groups?

i presume first unless told otherwise

extend whatever you're going for, this rlly shouldn't have to be said...

dml good paradigm

good reads: https://the3nr.com/2012/10/16/kids-today-2/#more-2747

"1 good card >X bad ones if X is ANY NUMBER EVER."

https://the3nr.com/2011/11/28/kids-today-part-deux/

https://the3nr.com/2012/10/08/common-mistakes/

"Pay attention for your partner. Make sure they don’t drop things, answer arguments in the speech doc that weren’t read etc"

if you remind your partner of something during their speech it's not a matter for how I eval your speaks, I think it's a normal that should be in PF more

some thoughts (will add on as time goes on):

reflexive fiat is interesting, go for it if you want and i’ll do my best to evaluate it

I will evaluate topical k’s even when there’s a perfcon. eg: reading sec k after reading a bunch of escalation scenarios. why? the role of the neg is essentially to test the policies of the aff. if there is an alt when i vote neg on the k i’m not endorsing the neg but rather, if they’re winning the k, i’m endorsing the alt which solves securitization or wins them enough offense under the fw and it at least proves that the aff is bad. impacts of the k do not become non unique as that would mean that every impact of the k is non unique no matter what (which is an argument you of course can make but a perfcon will not be evaluated as defense by me unless you do a lot of work). subject to change depending on rounds ofc but just be warned if you don’t have perfcon stuff prepped (eg the perfcon takes out k warrants) you will have to do more work.

I will read your evidence and I will read evidence particularly if told to, too much PF evidence is of poor quality

MSPDP

Tech > truth

Anything goes. I don't care about truth value, the only thing that matters is how an argument is handled within the debate. Extend everything, if it is not in the third speech I will not vote off it, even if it could have won you the round.

Pace: Speed is fine, talk as fast as you want but I need to be able to understand it. Also if you decide to do what is basically an original oratory speech or some emotional speech instead of a debate speech, then I seriously don't care. I only care about your substance, it might help your speaker points, but it will not be able to win you the debate.

Order: order doesn't really matter, I'll assume offense defense weighing for the rebuttal and third speech, but I'll only flow like that if you don't read out an order at the start of your speech, otherwise just say how you are going to do the order and I'll flow that.

Strat: If something get's dropped by another team it is true, you can kick args, any type of prog strategies you want to use are fine. I'm more accustomed to tech debate debate so you will get more speaker points for jargon and such that speeds up the pace of the debate.

Frameworks: Only read a framework if it actually does something, if you just say I frame this debate around (the resolution almost word for word) or anything along those lines I will deduct speaker points. Your framework should be a way to pre-emptively weigh this debate for me, not just a way to isolate where the impacts of your arguments will be. If you are going to limit the debate to a specific place or thing, then you need to provide a reason why. Don't just say "we frame this debate around the United States," tell me why I should prefer the debate to be weighed around the united states and not globally.

Presumption: I will generally presume neg just based off aff burden, but if presume aff warrants are read I will evaluate those.

clairesunyu@gmail.comANDgermantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com- add to the email chain

please make email chain before round starts please preflow before round starts consider me flay don't speak too fast, cap it at 225 wpm or else you will be speaking gibberish Send Speech Docs for Case and Rebuttal regardless of how fast it is (will not flow if you don't and will dock speaks since it's just way easier to follow) WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent Theory - not educational don't read it unless real, blatant violations occur (ie misgendering, miscutting every piece of evidence), but don't try disclosure on me Kritkis - idk K literature Trix/Other Random Stuff - uneducational dk how to evaluate TKO - L20s for you be nice in cross or else I will drop you don't do -isms