tjhsst, he/him, add me to the email chain: abennepal@gmail.com

IM FLAY

my paradigm is will sjostrom's &‎ eli glickman's but im REALLY BAD at evaluating anything prog

defense is not sticky

framing > metaweighing > weighing > cleanest arg > presumption (i presume best drip), but cleanest arg w/ contested weighing will probably always win

i follow rwang's framework for drip

I default to probability > everything else (and not really impact probability, more like strongest link)

SEND RHETORIC AND CARDS BEFORE CASE + REBUTTAL OR UR SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 27.5

anything -ist or -phobic gets u 0 speaks, sing the first 4 lines of freestyle by lil baby for 30 (song has to be playing in the background)

i love flex prep!!

any questions? ask in round or messenger (Aben Bhattachan)

Proud father of 4

English no good

Default no rvis

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ZNFqc86wlvZ6DUCT4GJQw-4dG35Gnku-XkjCb7A8AM/edit

My name is Paari and I go to Lovejoy Highschool 25'

I do Policy and have done PF, LD, and Congress

Tech > Truth

You can run any argument in front of me, but you'll have to explain it well

Feel free to ask any questions

hi i'm emily! i'm a sophomore at horace mann and i've debated PF for a few years on the natcirc

emilysdebateemail@gmail.com.

make the round clean and easy to evaluate. if you're not a decent person, i'll stop the round, drop you, and give you the worst possible speaks.

how i evaluate: i'll look at weighing/framing first, then evaluate the best link into said weighing. if you are winning the weighing and have a risk of offense, i'll almost certainly vote for you:

- if team A is winning the weighing, i look to their side first. if they're winning their link into the weighing, the ballot is signed.

- if team A isn't winning the link into the weighing, i'll then look to team B's case. if there's offense on team B's case, the ballot is signed.

- if there's no offense in the round, i'll presume neg (this happens pretty rarely tho!)

General Stuff:

- speed is chill but if you're going over 250 wpm send a doc. slow down on implications, analytics, and tags, but you can speed up on the evidence. that being said, i would rather judge a well warranted narrative debate than the dumping of 30 different blippy responses in rebuttal, but debate how you want to debate.

- metaweighing is key. if both teams are reading different weighing mechanisms, tell me which one i should evaluate first, otherwise i am forced to intervene on the weighing debate, and that's not fun. generally, i evaluate prereqs > link ins > probability (if it's not link defense) > mag/scope > timeframe > SOL. that's how i'll evaluate weighing absent metaweighing - so please metaweigh!

- summary and ff have to write my ballot. i have a pretty low threshold for extensions, but i want good warrants extended in the back half speeches for all offense. defense is NOT sticky - if you want me to evaluate defense it must be extended in the back half speeches. i will NOT grant offense on turns if there is no weighing on the turns extended.

- collapsing is a given - if you don't your speaks are capped at a 28. the number of rounds i've judged where people don't collapse is ridiculously high, so please do. please also be smart about your collapse strategy in the back half, your speaks will thank you.

- 2nd rbtl must frontline terminal defense or it's conceded

Prog:

run it at your own risk. i don't have much experience with prog so i am definitely not the best judge at evaluating it.

Speaks:

- speaks will be based on content, strategy, and speaking

- automatic 30s if: you pay me $5+ (per person) before the round starts or buy me bubble tea/a strawberry acai from starbucks.

Pls put me on the email chain - imad.shaikh037@gmail.com

I currently do LD at Clements High School but have done PF

I am a tech/flow judge, but Im fine w wtv but ill prefer it not to be boring.

General Stuff:

1] Tech>Truth -> As a judge, im not going to create any scenario where i will showcase judge intervention. A solid claim, warrant, and impact will automatically be eval true unless refuted.

2] Even with docs, I will be flowing. If you are unclear and I miss an argument, it will be ur fault. But im overall fine w wtv speed u want

LD :

You can read wtv u want but for my specific knowledge/judging capability:

Policy - 1

Trad - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 1

K - 2

Trix - 4

Debates a game, so read wtv it takes to win the game.

Speaks:

I'm a speaks fairy, but pls try to be coherent/clear as it'll make it sm easier to evaluate the round. Spreading is chill. If you are abusive, racist, sexist, etc. I will give auto L25

she/her

"topshelf"

I debated on the NatCirc every year in HS under Canyon Crest with various partners

Post-rounding is encouraged -- I love yapping but understand that's not for everyone

Include me in email chains: michisynn@gmail.com

Any racist / homophobic / sexist, etc etc argument will earn you a loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give at the tournament. This should go without saying.

TLDR

• I vote on what's in summary and FF
• I'm fine with speed but PLEASE keep things organized or else I will miss things aka SIGNPOST
• winning your offense + winning weighing = winning the round ????
• warrant all of your arguments ESPECIALLY your internal links well
• I generally give high speaks (28.0 +)
• I am bad at judging prog but will if I have to
• All of the suggestions below are based on my personal debate style. I would never punish a debater for not reading my paradigm or debating exactly like me. Just please have fun and learn something!

ROUND LOGISTICS

• Keep evidence exchanges quick. Set up an email chain before round. Yes, I want to be included.
• No skipping Grand Cross for prep because a) you should be budgeting your prep wisely and b) grand cross is funny
• For online debate, I am generally very sympathetic towards technical difficulties, so PLEASE do not take advantage of the format to steal prep / generally commit abuses
• Send docs if reading 250 WPM + (normally I judge MS so I will be confused if you do this LOL)

CONSTRUCTIVE

• Make your internal links crystal clear, especially if you are terminalizing to nuke war or extinction
• Send a doc if you are speaking 250+ WPM
• I am completely fine with paraphrasing, as long as you can provide the cut card to check back for abuse

REBUTTAL

• Signpost clearly
• Number responses if possible
• Implicate responses well rather than just reading debate jargon
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline (respond to the 1st rebuttal's attacks on your case)
• Let me know when you're going to their case if you are a 2nd rebuttal speaker

SUMMARY

• You must cover in some way, shape, or form: offense, defense, frontlining, weighing. I don't care in what order you do this, but these components must be in summary.
• High level weighing with good warranting is very strategic
• Please extend your entire link, internal link, impact (and uniqueness if that's important to the topic)
• On their case, 2 implicated responses >>> 4 unimplicated responses. Also, defense is not sticky.

FINAL FOCUS

• Collapse in this speech if you haven't done so already
• In my opinion, this speech should be heavy on big picture analysis and weighing, but as long as you cover their case, your case, and weighing you should be good.

PROG

• My opinions on this are very brief because I have limited experience with prog.
• Framing --> Run it well. Provide well researched and well thought out warranting as to why your impacts are more important, not just "education," "we brought it up first," "discourse"

• Theory --> No friv theory PLEASE. Logical analytical responses >>>> brain dead circuit responses (like the theory baiting response). Theory comes before substance b/c it's prefiat so I would suggest narrowing the debate to theory after the constructives (or whenever it's brought up)

• Ks --> I strongly dislike topical Ks because the alts are vague, but feel free to run one and I will up you if you win on the flow. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about nontopical Ks. Again, I will up you if you win on the flow.
• Regardless of what kind of K you are reading, please make the lit accessible during the round. If someone asks you about any of the "isms" in cross, please provide a basic explanation rather than spouting off buzz words. Debate is ultimately an educational activity.
• Also, please provide TWs if you are reading graphic depictions of violence and give the opposing team a document with the offensive / violent language blurred out. Warning people ahead of time is in my opinion never a bad thing and allows people in round to mentally prepare for what they are about to hear. You can still read your advocacy -- I would not want to limit or censor debaters.

• Tricks / High Theory / Friv Theory / anything strange and peculiar --> I am not the judge to run this on. Read this on Justin Wang and Derek Song :3

Ask me any questions before the round and please reach out if there were issues in the round / at the tournament! This activity is really important to me, and it's critical that debaters feel safe and confident.