Background:

Very Tech>Truth

Varsity debater. 3 years on the national circuit for PF.

Speed:

Fine with speed. I get annoyed when people spread but if you spread send a doc that is marked.

Speaks:

These come from cross, and I default to 28.7s.

Prog args

I only have experience with Theory and a little with Ks. I can understand both fine, but if you run it (beyond like disclosure theory or para theory) go slow/send a doc. Don't run tricks.

My ballot

Weigh. It'spretty simple. Win your link, internal link, and then weigh. Do that and your chances of winning the debate are at 75%, because most debater can't do it right. Give me some Meta Weighing too and I will sing your praises.

I drop homophobia, transphobia, racism, xenophobia etc

Be smart. Collapse and win your argument before you worry about defense.

I'll vote on conceded frameworks/independent voters readily as well.

Evidence ethics are really bad in PF. If there is abused evidence that is not just a small mistake, I could drop you entirely, so don't lie.

Final stuff:

Be funny (your speaks will skyrocket), debate is a toxic activity, it can help the tension. Last but not least, have fun out there, we do this to be better people.

email : gia.atmakuri@gmail.com

i am a PF debater, been to 6 nationals.

signpost (please) and give an off-time roadmap in the first response and all speeches after response

though not on my flow, cross is still judged.

for all repsponses and points broughtup,its critical to respond to each attack,it is crucial for my vote.

if you are second speaker (as a team),frontline

if you choose to spread, send me your speech doc. only choose to spread if you know what youre saying is comprehensible.

do not bring up new evidence after the first summary.

make sure to weigh, but don't just say your impacts and say they're better than your opponents. add comparative analysis. also weigh in summary to weigh in ff or all weighing mechanisms in ff will be disregarded. effective pre req is also extra good

if we are sharing evidence, put it in a evidence chain, here is my email - samyakchat@gmail.com. when sharing evidence, dont use steal prep when the other team is sending a card.

forprep, i will keep track of time, and try to use all of your prep.

please time yourself, I generally vote on summary so pay closer attention to that.

for speaker points 28 to 29 on average, signposting, clarity and such will all add to your points.

add me to the email chain- alyssacdebate@gmail.com

Please call me "Queen of Sheba" instead of "judge"

tech > truth. that being said i am not a fan of dumping 4+ of blippy and unwarranted contentions that are being spread at the speed of light. if you do, however, decide to dump that on me, please send a speech doc. i'm not a huge fan of flowing off docs but i will if you want me to.

i vote off of the contents of a round, there are too many judges who give an rfd to the scope of "i didn't like your case" which is really stupid because it massively tanks the educational and regular value of prep that went into that round which often ends up being a screw. in other words, i will never intervene because interventionists are bad.

note- i mostly will give oral rfd, it's simpler than typing everything out. That being said, feel free to record my rfd and all its amazing pearls of wisdom because i likely won't type it all out on tab.

Singposting makes me very happy. pls pls signpost, otherwise there will likely be content that i did not flow because i didn't know where to flow it that you think should have won you the round.

i won't vote for a turn that isn't implicated or weighed.

feel free to skip grand cross for a minute of prep.

time your own prep. also stop asking me to take prep just do it pls.

defense is never sticky. extend it, always.

General

win the weighing debate to win the ballot, but win your case first. second rebuttal is expected to frontline all turn, preferably collapse or at least drop a contention. if you can frontline your entire case in second rebuttal efficeintly, expect high speaks. I have a high threshold for extensions- i will not to any work for you, you need to cleanly extend the uniqueness, link and impact of any offense you want me to evaluate- otherwise it makes it hard for me to do so. implicate and clearly flesh out all turns. collapse in summary- otherwise it makes the round super messy.

Weighing

• meta weigh for the love of god please it makes everything easier, meaning compare the weighing and actually interact with their weighing and your own weighing, don't just spew off fancy mechanisms and buzzwords to me because i will have no idea how to evaluate it.
• start weighing in summary, or rebuttal if you really want to
• please call your opps out if any probability weighing just ends up being new defense, which it does most of the time

Ev Ethics

im generally a little skeptical of paraphrasing but if you can provide me with cut card as long as it fits my flow then we're good.

Any card called for must be fully cut, meaning not googled mid round and then pasted with a URL as the citation.

Serius ev ethic violations- ie unhighlighting the word "not" or atrocious highlighting that skews ev, card clipping, or just total bsing ev will result in highly tanked speaks. If the violation goes above and beyond, an L is a real possibility.

any card called for must also be provided within 1 min, otherwise the opposing team can take prep, excluding potential tech issues

theory

before you read this know that if you're reading shells on novices or teams who clearly don't know what's happening just to grab a W, the L is a big and real possibility, also please shape shells around actual violations of real rules and actual abuses. I am highly opposed to friv theory and i think it's stupid because it does nothing to actually set good norms. Otherwise:

• i def lean towards disclo good and slightly towards para bad, but it isn't impossible to win my ballot. pretty neutral on other shells.
• that being said i also an way less experienced in theory rounds in compared to substance so flesh out and articulate things really clearly for me
• pls direct me throughout the theory debate
• i dont have a preference on rvi's
• justify your voters

K's

run to your discretion- i'm less familiar with k's but get the general idea. if you do run one, and i look confused, it's because i am. I will try my best to evaluate k's but don't trust me to do so. i'm generally not a fan of k's read in PF so think carefully before you read one.

feel free to postround me, i think its educational but do not expect my decision to change

Speaks

I'll almost always give above 28 as long as you don't completely screw up. order me bubble tea +1, guess my order right and order me bubble tea +1.5

Any questions, ask before round.

Other paradigms I agree with- Patrick Smith, Olivia Tye

Lay Paradigm

Hello

I have 24 years of experience in dolphin communications and interpersonal molecular forces.

I am best persuaded by sound logic and compelling, crystallized evidence and statistics.

Please time your speeches.

Hello,

I go by Brian, and I am a Director of Ivy Bridge Academy. I don't need to be in the loop for email chain unless it is necessary: brianchoi627@gmail.com

I do keep track of time and flow on my own. With that said, every speech ought to meet or be as close to the allotted time.

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). No spread and no spam of contentions (C1-3 is preferable). Flay judge preference

Crossfire:

Please be respectful in giving the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Don't read evidence pls. I will drop you if you don't respect the cross rules.

Rebuttal:

Sign post, sign post, sign post! Frontline is preferable for 2nd Rebuttal.

Summary:

My favorite part of the debate. Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. If you don't impact weigh, then you concede.

Final Focus:

I pay keen attention to what claims the opponent(s) dropped as well as emphasizing most of the FF on weighing cases and impacts. This is the speech to which I prefer to have the speakers tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Persuasion is key!

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time (i.e, 2 minute rebuttals.. yes I have heard these at nationals before), and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner (ie, grand cross and flow of debate).

28.1-29 You did well. This is what I usually give and you barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Horrah! You did amazing. Had no flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

email: sevendeng.wa@gmail.com

Hey guys, my name is Seven Deng, a JC varsity debater, 1N/2A in policy.

Some things to know

• tag teaming is okay during cross
• tech>truth
• please track your time.
• clarity>speed
• have fun! Do not be discouraged no matter what the result is.
• be nice to each other
• impact analysis!!!!

Hey! My name is Kate. I’ve been doing varsity PF for a few years, so I would consider myself a tech judge.

Please add me to the email chain: yxkding@gmail.com

You can talk quickly, but still speak clearly. Be polite during cross, otherwise I will dock your speaker points.

I will time your prep and speeches. Try not to go overtime.

Make sure you warrant your points; if you can’t tell me why your impacts will happen, I have a harder time voting for you.

Please do not spread, if you’re jumping around the flow I will probably miss something. Signposting is extremely important.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise you concede you cases to your opponents.

Extend your weighing and the arguments you want me to vote on. If it’s not in FF, I won’t consider it in my decision.

Do not bring up new evidence/ points in FF.

Most importantly, have fun!

lay pf judge (hire) for about 1 year now
email: jayson.tgonzalez@gmail.com - *don't* add me to the chain unless I ask
please let me know who is who before we start

stuff:
please give me an off-time roadmap
fine with speaking fast but if you waste time stumbling over your own words I'll tell you to slow down
just assume i dont have topic knowledge
i will judge cross
extend your arguments through all speeches and frontline
explain your weighing
you handle coin flip amongst yourselves
please actually use FF to explain why you win not just summary 2: electric boogaloo :)
i keep track of prep and time and speeches but I EXPECT YOU TO ASWELL
also im pretty lenient with prep, within like 3-5 second margins I'll give it to you (don't abuse)

speaks rewarded/deducted:
if you're calm and coherent (not stumbling constantly) you'll *probably* get over 28.0
if you make me laugh +0.1-0.2
if you shout over each other during cross -0.2-0.3
infighting with your teammate -0.5 ( :O ) let's be civil y'all
stealing prep -1
if you accidentally say you affirm/negate when arguing for the opposite side -0.000000001

Here is my paradigm

Main point speech- Go at what ever speed you like just say it CLEARY if I can’t understand what you are saying I will ask you to start again

Crossfire- I won’t mainly look at this but I will still listen. Be POLITE, don’t talk over each other or I will give you low speaks

1st Rebutal-

Requirments Recommended

Responding to Responses Talk about your case and why I should vote for you

2nd Rebutal-

Requirements Recommended

Respond to their case Talk about your case why you win and Respond to their responses

Summary-

Extend your case

Extend Responses

Last chance to bring up any thing new

Final Focus

Talk mainly about why YOUR case wins against theirs

I would characterize myself as a 40% tech, 60% lay judge. I know the structure of debate and will make note of any missing formalities, but I'm likely unaware of many of the JV or more advanced terms. I'm looking for a debater who is confident, passionate, can be clearly heard, and is clear in what they are saying. Speaking fast is fine and all, but it can't come at the cost of being understood. Clearly laying out what your contentions are as you go is also appreciated. Not keeping time is a huge problem in my eyes. Numbers are usually lost on me as scale is a better quantifier generally. I generally value strong arguments and reasons over cold onslaughts of statistics. Numbers and statistics are still necessary for a lot of facts and are far from useless, but just be aware of that and try to supplement them as well as avoid leaning on raw numbers too much.

I value crossfires a lot and try to flow them. The most entertaining part of the debate and the part that most tests the skill of a debater is the crossfire. I will spot logical fallacies and count it against you (particularly if I sense the logical fallacy to be intentional), although not nearly as much as I'll count it against you if your opponent catches you using one. I'll count it against your opponent as well if they don't call you out for using one. Don't use logical fallacies if you can help it. Try to keep the crossfire on track and don't fall down ridiculous arguments with your opponent. I like responses to answers and responses to responses, but make sure that they make sense and don't go on for too long. There should be at least 2 questions asked during each crossfire (pro & con or pro/con & pro/con).

As a judge, I will be flowing, keeping time, and keeping the debate moving if necessary. Do your best to ensure it's not necessary. That being said, I do prefer keeping track of prep time. Unless I make a mistake and request you to step in on tracking it, expect me to be the ultimate judge as to how much prep time you have left. I don't take specific time requests for prep time ("can I have 2 minutes of prep time?") and will instead have you say when you want prep time and when you're done. Otherwise, the timer will run until you say stop. If this is a problem for you, you can always set your own timer to track your requested time. I prefer to do the coin toss and I carry around a quarter(s) partially for this purpose.

Whether you're from the After School Program or one of our locations, I'm familiar both with "Electric cars are better than gas cars" and "The United States Federal Government should ban single use plastics" topics that we will be having today. While I don't have a particular expertise in either topic, I'm generally well read on a variety of topics and have been hearing plenty about both as a debate teacher for Ivy Bridge Academy. I am likely to spot if you're making facts up and have weak arguments and I will value a visible inherent knowledge of the subject being debated.

Concerning my background outside of debate and other details about me, I'm 24 and I'm currently a novice debate teacher at Ivy Bridge Academy who has taught 2 semesters now of After School Programs in debate. I have an associate degree in computer science and am currently working on my bachelor's at Georgia State University. I plan to use this degree (and other certifications currently in progress) to secure a job in Cybersecurity, ideally as a Pen Tester. I love tinkering with technology and am very familiar with many things computer and have a decent knowledge regarding many other technologies. I like video games, music, anime, and D&D.

I am a varsity debator and have been doing this for 4 years so I'm a tech judge. Here are a few things I like to see in a debate:

Extensions: This is one of the biggest points for me, make sure you PROPERLY EXTEND, if you don't extend something then extend that point in another speech I won't consider it in my ballot.

Frontlines:

If your 2nd speaker I like to see frontlines in your responses, I'm fine if your novice because they don't really teach you to do this and I don't think they teach new jv people too but if your in jv I'm going to expect this from you. Obviously do frontlines in summary and make sure to extend them in final focus.

Impact Weighing:

Weigh your impacts in summary and final focus, you can weigh in responses if you want to. Be clear on what your actually weighing (like magnitude, severity etc.) and compare your impacts with your opponents, it will be pretty hard to weigh if you don't explain how your impact is better than what is presented by the other side. I'm also tech over truth so you can use whatevar impacts you want unless you can give proper evidence to back it up.

Speaking:

I don't care that much about this. All I ask for is to be able to finish your speech in time, don't stutter too much even though I'm fine if its there a little and have some energy in your voice. If you add some extra emotion I'll probably add some extra speaker points.

My name is Aditi Hemanth and I am a 9th grader at Lambert High School. I've been doing PF debate for a while and have competed in different nationals. Here's what I look for in a debate:

Main Point: You need to speak well, have strong cases with credible evidence. I need to hear warranting; explain to my why each piece of evidence is connected or how your link leads to the impacts actually happening.

Cross: I do pay attention to cross, but it won't be a part of my flow. You need to be dominant and I notice if you can't answer a question. This doesn't play a big role in my decision, but it still does matter to me.

Response: If you are going second, FRONTLINE. Your responses must be signposted and I prefer an offtime road map. I don't like getting confused with what you are saying and putting it on the wrong flow. I really like seeing good analytics with logic behind them.

Summary: If you are going first, FRONTLINE in this speech. I want to hear impact weighing (ie. probability), case extensions, and either frontlining or extending responses. I am okay with collapsing, and think it is a good way to focus on what you think matters most in the debate.

Final Focus: This is your final chance to convince me for your vote. I want you to cleanly extend the cases you decide on as well as extend the weighing.

Speaker Points: I default to a 28 or 29, but will give you extra points for doing well in cross, speaking loudly, your general behavior, and your confidence while speaking. You need to know your own arguments and the topic well.

Overall, I consider myself to be a flay (mostly tech) judge. Good luck on your rounds!

Hi I’m Renee ^_^

I don’t really have any preferences for or against certain types of arguments so don’t worry about that

if your opponent drops an argument or forgets to respond to yours make sure you mention it in your speeches to make sure I’m aware of it! I will be keeping track too but make sure to mention just in case I miss it

It’s ok if you talk quickly while reading cards because I will follow along on the documents, but if you are doing analytics and your speech becomes unrecognizable I will not be able to count contentions that I cannot understand.

Lastly, try to be punctual so we can start the debate on time and do not steal prep.

im a tech judge. debated a lot of natty tournies so feel free to spread at a reasonable speed. please make the round interesting because plastics is lowk boring. +1 speaks if u have 21/drake/type music artist verses in ur speech. catchu in the round gango! debate well and please signpost so ik where u at cuz flowing alr a pain so pls make it easier for me.

Add me to the email chain: theodore.jeemin.kim@gmail.com

Be nice and respectful, it's too early/middle/late in the day to be at each other's throats. I appreciate specificity over generics, but anything goes I guess. I'm more of a realist, so try to interact with the topic/resolution reasonably (especially with impacts, make sure the links make sense and the uniqueness is unique.)

Let's hear all the weird theories and philosophies! I'm very interested in hearing about them and although there's a good chance you're going to lose if it's really weird, I'll give you extra speaker points.

Identity and framework arguments - I probably won't ever get one, but if I do, let's hear it! There's definitely value in these sorts of debates even if they aren't the 'traditional debate' educational value.

K - Love them, please run them, but explain them well and make sure they aren't ____-ist. Realism in a K doesn't make much sense but I prefer alt-Ks to in-round Ks, but anything is good.

T - Go for any T about any word/definition, but make sure it makes at least a little bit of sense.

Everything else also all good.

If there's a particular reason for me to vote for you, I expect you to point it out, explain it, and keep that point going – I'm not going to give myself extra reasons to vote for a specific side by thinking 'too much.'

Hi! My name is Ananya Kommuri and I'm a varsity debater at IBA. I usually give generous speaks, and the only things that will tank your speaks are …

1: Spreading: please read at a clear speed. I am okay with you reading fast unless you are stuttering on your own words - that's not okay.

2: Be respectful: If you are sexist, racist, or homophobic you WILL get below a 26 (Yes, that is possible). Also be respectful to your opponents guys - otherwise you just look annoying.

3: Crossfire: Please don't scream over each other - let the other person talk. Don't cut them off unless they've been talking for a long time. (Anything above 20 or 30 seconds)

I would like to be included in the email chain for sharing cards - you don't even have to ask me. My email is: ananyakommuri@gmail.com

Ways to win a debate:

Weighing: please, please, PLEASE weigh in summary and final focus. This is probably the MOST important thing in a debate - if you don't tell me why your impact matters more than the other person's, than I really don't care about your argument and you're more likely to lose the round. Do NOT give me an hypothetical impact like nuclear war without sufficient evidence and sufficient weighing. Also, COMPARATIVE WEIGHING. Don't tell me you weigh on magnitude because you affect more people and then move onto something else - EXPLAIN your weighing. I would rather you explain your weighing instead of saying three random weighing mechanisms and not explaining it at all.

Frontline: I don't think this happens much in Novice, but if you frontline in second rebuttal and first summary I will be more impressed. If you have no idea what that is, don't worry about it.

Collapsing: This is not as important, because it doesn't happen much in Novice. Just tell me the biggest reason I should vote for you - one argument that you think is the most important. It's easier for me to vote as judge instead of trying to see which of your contentions is more important than the other. Again, not as important as weighing. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, don't worry about it.

Lastly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about if you move all over the place. Tell me what part of their argument you're responding too - it makes flowing as judge SO MUCH EASIER.

I am a PF debater with 4 years of experience.

I am definitely tech over truth. If you don’t respond to arguments or responses, I will weigh them even if the arguments are ridiculous or false. Make sure to respond to everything you want to extend. If you decide to drop a contention, make sure you have responded to all turns on that argument, or the other team will still be allowed to extend turns.

Speaking- I am fine with speed, but make sure you signpost arguments, weighing, and which side of the flow you are on. Make sure your speech is clear with not a lot of blank time.

Frontlining- I prefer you frontline in the second rebuttal, but I will not consider a response conceded if you don’t.

Summary- I regard summary speech as the most important speech in the debate. I will not flow anything in the final focus that is not in summary so make sure you bring up the major voting issues by summary speech. Weighing should be brought up by summary speech at the latest, if not already brought up in rebuttal.

Weighing- In terms of weighing, impacts weighing is important but it is also important for you to discuss why your links hold up more than theirs, and extend the warranting behind your contentions.

Crossfire- I will not flow crossfire, but I will be listening, so if anything important is said in crossfire, you must bring it up in your speech. I expect civility in cross, so continually interrupting your opponent or being overly aggressive will cost you speaker points.

Cards- I am fine with paraphrasing, but if a card is important to the outcome of a round, I may call for it. If you can’t produce a card or have misrepresented a card, I will ignore the argument.

Time- I will time speeches and prep, but I expect teams to also keep track of their own time.

Ok so I’ve been doing debate for around two years now so I understand how a lot of it works. My main thing is make sure you’re actually addressing what the other-side said. I’m flowing what you guys arguing (that’s like half my job lol) and so should you if you want to win. Please also extend your arguments, rereading your cards is hardly extending and you will lose speaker points.

Please keep track of your own prep. I will try to as well, but it's your responsibility so we don't have to hold up the round trying to figure out how much prep you have,

I am generally tech > truth, but while I will likely understand your arguments if you want to go for a "They dropped this really important X thing" a sizeable portion of your last speech should be spent on it. Like DA and a turn or smth. For those who do policy debate (idk fully how it works with the others) I am good if you spread your speeches. I will yell clear if its REALLY ineligible to hear, but otherwise you should be fine.

Besides that don’t be rude, don’t steal prep (lower speaker points), and don’t curse (if you do it often it will be a VERY low point win or just a straight up loss).

Oh yeah and be funny cause the rounds gonna be like 2 hours and silent rooms are boring and just have a good time :)

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years now. I do college policy now. I'm “tech” (tabula rasa, will vote for pretty much any argument, won't do any work for you, etc etc)

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

Bergen YS is peak

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or racist pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on UNSC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need to You need to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going too new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progressive Args

Ks:

I'm a K debater myself now, I read Beller, SO I'm 100% cool with you running a K. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to. My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it)

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

• Repeatedly cut your opponents off
• Be rude to anyone in the round
• Taking super long to pull up ev
• Extending through ink
• Not signposting
• Calling everything dropped when it's not
• Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

• Throw in a Taylor Swift or Pusha T reference
• Having fun with it
• Bringing me long flow paper
• Signposting well
• Good weighing
• Smart strategy
• Calling states in Eastern Europe "Yugoslavia"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhathonest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, you'll probably lose. I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then I probably would avoid ev challenges.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAQ

1. Can I use speed? Yeah I mean go for it but make sure you're clear, ideally send a doc, and keep in mind that if I can't flow it without looking at your doc then I'm probably not writing it down.
2. Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
3. Can I read new wieghing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
4. Is cross open? Sure we ball
5. Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
6. Does a split panel change my judging prefs? Generally, I still want all of the procedural things to meet my normal prefs BUT I will give y'all a bit more credence on things like extensions or the LbyL just don't be egregious
7. Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

• The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
• If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
• Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
• In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
• If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
• Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
• Speak as clearly as possible for you.
• Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

• DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
• CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
• K: I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer EVERYTHING, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.
• T: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
• Affs: Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
• Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

• If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
• I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
• I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
• Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
• I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
• If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
• You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
• Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

• Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
• 27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
• 28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
• 29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
• 29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
• 30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

add me to the email chain/speech doc - siri.nuthalapati@gmail.com

NOVICE -

if you're in ES or Novice, i'm not going to look into any specific technicalities of the debate too much, just focus on getting your point across in speeches, be strong in crossfire, and make sure to stay confident in your speaking. i know debating at young age can be hard, and it's normal to mess up when you're talking but don't let it fluster you, and just keep going. ur main goal should just be to try your best and learn as much as you can - win or lose. good luck!

JV/OPEN -

substance>progressive always.(if u dont know what that is dw ab it)

case: good warranting > bigger impact. i don't care about speed but if you plan on spreading then send a speech doc cuz i can't evaluate what i don't understand. i'm tech>truth always and PLEASE no blippy link chains

rebuttal: go down their case, and signpost, it makes it easier for everybody. frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is expected, you must frontline turns, but i don't consider defensive responses "dropped" in second rebuttal, esp if you're not going for that arg, but you are still expected to frontline.

summary:most important speech in the round for me, and it's very simple, frontline case, extend response, and weigh. summary is important bc it sets you up for final focus, anything in final focus must be read in summary. comparative analysis and impact weighing is how you can make the round clearer for me. meta-weighing is great as well, but make sure you have warrants behind it and not just "we out weigh on mag, scope and probability." spamming mechanisms does not equal winning, weighing should be warranted. link argument is also important to me. weighing without a strong access to your impact is not recommended. collapsing is always great because it sets you up for a clear narrative for final focus.

ff: don't bring up anything new- i won't evaluate it. clear voters and weighing is important to me. having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. this is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. write my RFD for me here.

cx: i'm not gonna vote off of cx, if something really important happens, bring it up in the next speech. be nice.

ev: paraphrasing is ok, but don't misrepresent and have good evidence. be prepared to send a card if called for it. my email is at the top of the paradigm.

time: i'll do my best to time y'all, but both teams should be timing themselves. i'll let you finish your sentence if time runs out but i stop flowing 10 seconds over time.

speaking: if your passionate and i can tell you have good topic knowledge and done your research you'll get higher speaks. Also ,esp for in-person, please PROJECT your voice so I can hear you bc im lowk deaf.

ethics: I know pf can get pretty heated but please be polite and respectful to your opponents, any of the -isms and discrimination will NOT be tolerated and I'll give you 0 speaks (idc if its not possible I'll do it anyway).

i have a couple years of pf experience so pls don't hesitate to reach out and ask questions after round/email me after if u think of anything. the best way to get better is to learn from judge feedback and understand why your judge voted the way they did bc public forum debate is centered around the judge and judge adaptation.

happy debating!

add me to the email chain - purikanav21@gmail.com

tech > truth

I am ok with going fast but if you think it'll be a problem jus read everyone in the room something random at your normal pace before the round starts to make sure we can understand you

general info blah blah:

1 - I will evaluate anything

2 - have warrants - if you extend a contention with no warrant but your opponent doesn't point it out, I will have to vote off that contention. However, if they do point it out, I most likely am obligated to drop that contention off my flow

3 - i'm fine with tag team CX, I don't really care about cross anyways

4 - CROSS IS NOT A SPEECH. You must extend something said in cross or I will not evaluate it

5 - YOU MUST EXTEND WARRANT AND CARD FOR EVERY CARDED ARGUMENT YOU MAKE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BACK HALF OF THE DEBATE FOR ME TO EVALUATE IT

6 - weighing is incredibly important to me, but don't just tell me a mechanism and say you win on it, you need to give me comparative analysis of specifically why you win said weighing debate, and also preferably meta-weigh

7 - I get that sometimes you have lots of content and it may take a few extra seconds, but I'm 100% not going to evaluate anything that is 10+ seconds over time

8 - K's and theory and stuff like that is cool, just make sure it's believable (don't make it too wild tho im literally in 7th grade chill out)

9 - frontline clearly, especially if you're going to spam blocks in rebuttal

rebuttal: Frontline In second rebuttal

summary

frontline, weigh, extend responses and extend cases

ff:

don't extend through ink - tell me what I should judge the debate on and clearly write the ballot for me.

speaks:

ngl I just copy pasted the speaks stuff from what everyone at IBA writes cuz I was too lazy to actually make my own and I weigh on the same scale anyway

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

+0.5 speaks for asking ur opponents to say wallahi during cross

i am also open to bribing and will give you a high boost in speaks if you buy me food (You wont win the round but get better speaks)

if you have any specific questions feel free to ask

Add me to the chain: ctsanderson10@gmail.com

PF blurb

I currently coach PF at Ivy Bridge Academy, where a lot of my work revolves around evidence production. Therefore, I'm fairly familiar in both the topic and the general conventions of public forum debate. That being said, my background in policy debate means that sometimes understand these debates very differently than many lay judges might. Thus:

• Tech>Truth
• Speed is good, so long as you are clear
• Document sharing is good so long as both teams agree to it
• Evidence ethics violations are a voter.

1. I flow on multiple sheets of paper, one for each of your contentions. Therefore, I find off-time roadmaps to be incredibly important but often, unfortunately, lacking. Please structure your off-time road map by contention to help me be the best judge that I can.

2. Please make sure that you time your speeches, even if I'm also already timing them. Double-timing is a great competitive norm and helps make debates more fair!

3. I prioritize argumentative nuance over your speaking ability. I believe that debates are ultimately decided by debaters who are able to 'write my ballot' through solid impact calculus (weighing) and in-depth case analysis (explaining your contentions and why I should vote on them).

4. Extend your evidence! Extend their warrants! Compare evidence and don't be afraid of argumentative clash. Debaters are only as good as their evidence and the way that they use it!

T/L -- Policy

Experience --

4 years of policy debate at Chattahoochee high school. Qualled to the TOC on the NATO topic. I genuinely love this activity and (most of) the people in it. I'm currently a 2A/2N, but have debated as every position for a prolonged amount of time.

About Me --

Hey-O! I'm Charles and I love debate.

----Influences: Kevin Bancroft, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz (I sing his praise), and Sarah Lundeen. (UWG debate supremacy)

First and foremost, I want this to be a space for you. I genuinely believe that my job as a judge is twofold. The first is to deliver fair, well-thought, educational decisions and feedback. The second is to ensure that this is a debate that you can participate in. If you, at any time, feel unsafe in a round that I am present in, I will fight tooth and nail for you. In a community that is increasingly divided by and has traditionally been defined by oppression, my tolerance for violence is nonexistent. Don't be an abuser. Don't reproduce the violence that has become intrinsic to so many aspects of this activity and community. Don't be the problem. Don't be the reason the queer kid quits. I ask that you, as a debater, actively work to make this space one that can be genuinely valuable for everyone, not just your Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V, straight, white, MBA policy bro. To the queer kids, the trans kids, the people of color, the disabled kids, the kid who carries unspeakable violence with them every day, I will protect you.

Strike me if you were involved (were the aggressor) in a Title IX violation at camp. Do not ever speak to me.

I am a disabled debater. I have ADHD, PTSD, PNES (seizure disorder), a slew of mental health problems, and some other stuff that I'd rather not get into. I may ask for certain accommodations, this does not mean that I cannot judge your round, just that I need you to help me so that I can help you.

I'll be the first to say it, I'm a hack for the K. There is very little that I spend more of my time thinking about. If you're a novice and want to try out kritikal arguments, I'm your judge. However, if the K isn't your thing, don't sweat it. I'll still vote on your disad about how the plan trades off with the ability of the USFG to sell Ukraine papayas, which could cause Bosnian instability that spills over into intergalactic rubber-duckie warfare. Or your PIC. Or your 5-minute T 2NR (although I'll never forgive you for it if its bad). Tech>Truth. First and foremost, I am a blank slate when casting my ballot. Most of the time...

I will not vote on arguments that I find morally repugnant. That means --

White debaters reading Afro-Pess

Malthus

Genocide good

Racism good

Eugenics good

Obviously racist/sexist/queerphobic arguments

Trigger Warnings Bad

8 OFF or higher

Roko's

Spark/Death Good is the exception here, as I feel that they have genuine value as things to be debated.

Novice O/V --

If its packet debate, dw about it. Read your args. Have fun. Try to learn. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

If it isn't packet debate, dw about it. Explore the wider world of argumentation. Read whatever you want. Have fun. Try to learn. Reading my paradigm is probably a bit more important here. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

General Thoughts --

I think that...

• Debate is good as an activity, but is not intrinsically valuable. Debate is as good or bad as those who participate in the activity make it. Make of that what you will.
• Tech>Truth is the best "default" position for a judge to take.
• Clarity>Speed, any time. I don't care how fast you are. Your ability to do spreading drills for 5 hours every day does not affect your actual ability to debate outside of being able to say more. One good, clear argument is worth an infinite amount of speedy bad ones. I'm fine with speed, but only go as fast as you are clear. If your strat is solely reliant upon out-speeding the other team while being atrociously unclear, then you are bad at debate. Its a skill issue.
• Judge instruction is incredibly valuable for teams that want to really win rounds, not to just beat the other team. There's a difference.
• Case debate is a lost art.
• Fairness is an internal link.
• Condo/broader theory debates are really only valuable insofar as both teams get off their blocks. If one of your impacts/reasons you think that I should prefer your model in a theory debate is education, then reading noncontextual blocks straight down is not only silly, but is also a performative doubleturn. My thoughts on whether condo is good or bad don't matter here. Tell me how to think about it in your round.
• "Reject the arg, not the team" is not an escape rope that I will give you. Tell me why.
• You should tell me what your favorite song is. I'll surprise you with good speaks for reading my paradigm.
• Big schools saying "_____ hurts small schools!!!" is absurd and is almost never an argument that will be won in front of me. Lookin' at you, MBA.
• Well-thought-out author indicts that are supported by good warranting and actually have a tangible impact will not only make me very happy, but will drastically boost your speaker points. I will not object to them becoming a voter.
• Clipping is a L+25. I have a threshold for how this is decided. I will not disclose it unless it becomes an issue.
• "Lying 2A" strats will suffer in front of me. If you have to resort to this, it's a skill issue.
• Shouting at your partner is ridiculous and, if severe enough, will earn you the worst speaks that I can give you.
• CX and rebuttles will set the basis for your speaks.
• Reading paradigms is probably a good idea.
• Cowardice is bad.

Judging Philosophy --

I'm a blank slate unless told otherwise. My role is whatever you can win it is. The clearer the ROTJ is, the more likely that you are to win it. If not given a specific role of the judge, I will default to serving as an abstract, 4th dimensional entity, observing and weighing all aspects of every argument that makes it into the final 2 speeches to construct my decision.

To quote Jordan Keller, "...I want to see debaters who play with the bounds of the activity, so do what makes you the most satisfied: play your music, I'll dance with you... as long as you can pull it off. I am a depressed, tired, and impatient [high school] student - make me laugh."

Argument Specific --

Aff (Policy)

I'll hear it. High-quality evidence is something policy teams have struggled with SO MUCH recently. Same thing with powertagging. You should consider the fact that your solvency advocate and solvency evidence are literally the lifeblood of your affirmative. If you can convince me that you can solve for the harms that you present, you will be in a very strong position in these debates. Judge instruction is a powerful, often underutilized tool in these debates. Policy hacks, take a page out of your K debater friends' playbooks and start telling me how to think. God knows, I've barely figured it out on my own in the first place.

Aff (Kritikal)

I LOVE YOUR (good.) IDENTITY KAFF. These are the debates that I am the most familiar with. Don't get it twisted though, my standard for kritikal affirmatives is high. I am familiar with a wide range of lit bases and there's a good chance that I've read yours. If I haven't, I've probably read the literature that your authors based their works on. If I'm not familiar with it at all, GREAT!! I LOVE learning about new forms of critical literature. I feel that there is real, genuine ground for these affirmatives in debate and I think that they can provide real, genuine change for those both in and outside of the activity.

However...

Reading a Kaff, identity-based or not, is not an auto-aff ballot. Framework is a metric that you are required to beat. A good kaff is a kaff that pushes this activity and the people in it to change for the better. If you can't convince me that your kaff can do that, good luck.

T (Policy)

Objectively speaking, T is a spectacular argument with more utility than most other off-case positions in debate. However, T is often horrifically underutilized by negative teams when debating against policy affirmatives to the extent that I often find myself questioning why its even in the 1NC. This has led me to have an icky taste in my mouth when it comes to topicality. Affs, believe it or not, are bad. Affs, believe it or not, are very frequently not topical. When debating as the negative, understand that my opinions about this argument are situated on the very furthest ends of the spectrum from each other. Either you will debate T beautifully and meaningfully and I will reward you, or you will text-to-speech bot straight down the same recycled topicality blocks from 3 years ago, then kick it in the block, and I will be very sad. Do not put T in the 1NC unless you are prepared for 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. I am tired of wasting flow paper on T arguments that get conceded in the 1NR. If this is your current strategy, its a skill issue. Be better.

T - USFG

FW walks a fine line between two extremes. T - USFG has its roots in exclusion. It is important to recognize this for both the kritikal teams that are responding to it and the negative teams who are reading it. However, by no means do I think that T - USFG is evil. I think that it can be used in evil, exclusionary ways, and when it is, then affirmatives should utterly crush it in front of me. I also think that T - USFG is one of the best arguments which exists within debate for testing things like the ability of the aff to shape subjectivities, to alter the state of the academy, and to ensure that relevant, transformative kaffs are able to succeed in shaping the debate space. In contrast, ridiculous, abusive, or otherwise non-transformative kaffs will be filtered out by consistently losing to FW. How this argument is used in your round will decide how I view it. Better yet, don't make me decide at all, just tell me! Judge instruction, people!

DA -

I have literally no opinion on these and literally have only seen 2 good ones all year. mfw no disad ground outside of IPol.

CP -

Oh god. Ok, well lets start with this one. The CP and I have a love-hate relationship. As in, I love to debate the PIC but hate how massively abusive they often are. But who knows, maybe that's why I love it in the first place? Anyways, my unhealthy love-life aside, I feel like aff teams let the neg get away with way too much here. Vice versa, I think that neg teams lack so much ground on this topic, that there's maybe some room here for abuse as a form of counterbalancing. I lean aff on theory and neg on content. Thus, I feel that I'm fairly neutral here due to that fact. Reading 4 conditional counterplans is probably a bad idea in front of me.

K -

(Much of this can be C/A'ed to the KAFF section)

At this point, this is my life. For better or for worse, practically every thought or action that I engage in anymore draws some connection back to K debate. (Yes, believe me, it's just as depressing as it sounds.) I WILL know what you're talking about. I WILL read all of the cards read on this flow. If "judge adaption" is something that your coaches tell you that you need to get better at, you will read a kritik in front of me, and it will make me smile when you do. Because this is the kind of debate that I enjoy the most, (KvK, Policy v K), I plan to invest a bit more time getting into the meat and substance of what a good K debate should look like.

Links

• Benefit from being specific to the aff, not just the res (we have kaffs for that, silly)
• Are disads unless proven otherwise
• Should occupy a large section of the block if you plan to go for the K in the 2NR
• Should have good warrants
• Should tell me a story about what you think the world looks like
• Should probably not be cut from the anarchist library
• Are offense against FW

Impacts

• Should be resolvable by the alternative
• Don't have to be existential to outweigh the impacts of the plan, you just have to be good with the K
• Should not have a mile-long K tag

Alternatives

• SHOULD NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE KICKED IN FRONT OF ME OR SO HELP YOU GOD
• Probably shouldn't be fiated

Outside of subpoint 1., my opinions here are much more elaborate.

What does your alt advocate for? If you can't tell me in clear terms, good luck.

If you advocate for some form of anarchism, you will need to overcome a very high threshold for victory. Do this by giving me a clear line of material praxis for overcoming the state, a coherent theory of power, as well as specific indicts to the state itself. Anarchist theories of power are extremely weak, immature, and genuinely just silly 99% of the time. Ultimately, if your K relies on reverting to anarchism to solve for your impacts, then it's definitely utopian and also most certainly could not solve for your impacts in the real world.

Speaker Points --

Guide Scale

0-27.4 -- You messed up big-time. Never do whatever I told you not to do again.

27.5-27.8 -- You had a rough round. If this is you, I would seriously think about the feedback that I gave. Ask questions. It doesn't mean you should quit the activity, but it does mean that you need to go back and do some work with your coaches.

27.9 -- You had a just-below-bare-minimum round. You're getting there though. Numbers like these are ones that will come up with practice. Believe me, mine did.

28.0-28.2 -- You did decently, perhaps not to my standard, but its not something to cry in the back seat of the car about. You showed up, read blocks straight down, had a probably sub-par cross, and probably just had an average debate.

28.3-28.4 -- You had a debate. This is true neutral for me. 60% of debaters that I see will fall in this range. You probably aren't going to get a speaker award at this tournament, but you've got potential, and I definitely think you should stick to it. I look forward to seeing you progress.

28.5-28.7 -- You did pretty good. I see a world where you could possibly get a middle-range speaker ranking at this tournament. I think you could probably move on to break-rounds. All in all, good job. Ask questions. The answers that you'll get will determine between a 28.7 or a 29 in your next round. Save my email, hit me up, keep in contact with me after the tournament. Go eat some chocolate or something. I assume that all debaters who read my paradigm will be in this section or above.

28.8 -- You had a solid round. I'm impressed. I think you'll probably be in the top 12 speakers at this tournament. You should definitely be proud of yourself. Shoot for that 29 next round though, there's probably one or two mistakes that you made that locked you out of that upper tier.

28.9-29 -- You did GREAT. If you got a 28.9, its probably because your partner got the 29 and the tournament didn't let me give you both the same speaks. Very very solid job here. I think that you probably know your stuff. I think that you've probably got really solid skills as a young debater. I think that if you were to quit, the community would genuinely lose someone who could advance or shape it. I think you'll probably be in the top 7-10 speakers at this tournament. Good stuff!

29.1-29.3 -- You knocked my socks off. You have changed my standards for novice debate forever and I will never forget your round. Spectacular. I think that you'll probably be in the top 6 speakers at this tournament.

29.4 or higher -- You have probably done something amazing. I've never seen it in action. If you do it, I'll update my paradigm and just, like, write a description of you and your round or something. If you get a 29.4 or higher from me, I genuinely think that you should be winning both top speaker as well as the tournament.

Boosters

+0.1 for any of the following

1. Beating me to the round room
2. Bringing me caffeine
3. Kindness to your fellow debaters
4. Good post/pre-round banter
5. Asking for each other's pronouns

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

5

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

if ur lazy, read the bolded parts

tech > truth

go as fast as you want, but send me your speech doc

email chain: tessica213@gmail.com or selvaganesan.tessica@gmail.com

give me an explicit extension of your link, internal link, and impact in BOTH your sum. and ff; otherwise, I won't vote on that arg

extend all warrants b/c i wont flow ur argument otherwise

if you want me to vote on a turn, weigh it like any offensive ev

frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in 2nd reb., cuz if you don't frontline an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded

what i look for in a debate:

• weigh and implicate turns as soon as u can
• in sum. and ff, extend warrants for links, defense, and turns. i dont flow extended taglines
• keep track of ur prep time; I won't stop u if u go over ur prep. but I might tank ur speaks
• signpost, go line-by-line, and gimme an off-time roadmap
• call TKO
• make it easy for me to pull the trigger by extending whatever u want in summary. i won't vote for a team that ghost extends stuff into ff.
  
  • collapsing is NOT a must. if u think u can cover both sides of the flow adequately and weigh, then go for it
• i want clash (obv not when ur opponent clean concedes another contention in rebuttal, but yea).

Weighing:

• Weighing is not "EcOn OuTWeIGhS LiVeS On ScOpE & MaGnITuDe hEhEhE." Do an actual impact calc (not on scope, reversibility, timeframe, etc). i don't mind traditional weighing, but u have a better chance of getting my vote w/ pre-reqs and short-circuits.
• Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.
• link weigh and meta-weigh.
  • link-weigh when u and ur opponent's impacts r the same through strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability, etc
• disguise link turns (i.e. if you are winning an econ argument and you conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war). don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” tho - there’s a difference
• respond to weighing; ill evaluate it as conceded otherwise
• clarity of impact is NOT weighing
• "Probability" is also not weighing on the impact level. do strength of link weighing, but ultimately "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal.

Ks / Trix:

• not the best judge for this b/c I have never watched them get run.
• i do understand the stock stuff (securitization, cap, etc) for Ks, so just warrant whatever you're running.

Theory:

• substance > theory; if you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason b/c it's not a default strategy
• the shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp).
• default to rvi unless told otherwise duh
• Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why.
• weigh your shell vs your opponent's shell, the interp vs the counterinterp, etc to help make my decision easier
• I default toreasonability so that ppl can respond to theory like it's a regular argument. i wont drop anyone for adequately responding to a shell, despite not knowing what a counterinterp is
• If reading theory, structure it properly.
• If ur responding to theory and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 on you, just treat the theory arg logically

the mini theory lesson --> only read this if u dont know how to handle theory or what it is

• the difference - substance is the thing that u usually deal w/; theory is an argument abt whether or not certain args are legitimate
• there are 3 parts to a shell: violation (what did the team ur running theory against do wrong), interpretation (what do you suggest should have been done), and standards/voters (why are they — as in ur opponent — doing whatever they did bad?)
• sometimes it's ok to not have an interpretation b/c I can assume that it's to "not do whatever ur opponent did"
• you have to win ur interpretation n standards while responding to ur opponents interp n standard to win theory
• if the paragraph format makes more sense for u than the shell, then run that b/c it's lowkey better
• I have to see who won the theory debate and then evaluate substance

Framework

• your case has to fall under ur framework. super obv but ppl get it wrong
• if ur against a framework, either gimme a counter-framework or link-in. regardless, u have to answer it.

Other stuff:

• i'll call for cards if i just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or your warrant for the card changes in round
• debates can get heated, but it's not that deep
• if u call for a card and ur opponent takes > 45 secs to get it, then steal prep
• add-ons - nope. u can spread so just read ur 12 contentions in the first speech, and don't read ur add-on as a turn.
• I won't flow over time unless it's under 10 secs
• I literally do not know what the progressive argument hierarchy is, so tell me! if the round has 2 tricks, a non-t k-aff, and disclosure, tell me which order to evaluate these things in, or I don't want to hear it when I do it incorrectly.
• paraphrase ur ev. however, when it gets called for, u better have it carded (tagline, citation, and the actual highlighted part of the card)

Speaks:

will start everyone at 28 (idk why; just what i have been doing recently)

buy me snacks (Reese's, Cheetos (the hot ones), Chobani - Mango flavored, etc): +1

say "game over" twice in a row in ff lol: +0.3

twirl around while using turns: +0.4

give me asian food recs (i like eating; its not b/c I'm hungry all the time but b/c my mouth feels lonely): +1.1

I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate and just not stalk ppl in general. lmk that u have read my paradigm and I'll boost ur speaks :)

It would be helpful if the debaters I'm judging spoke at a pace at which I could understand them. A fast pace is fine, but a lightening-fast pace could mean I miss some arguments. Also try not to use extremely complicated terminology and speak very clearly. Thank You! - Abhay

Hi! My name is Saanvi Sinha. I have debated Public Forum for 6 years. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to debate, so don't question me on my decision after round.

Non-negotiable, you being rude(sexism, racism. bullying, homophobia, etc.) in round or before, results in a dent in your speaker points and a loss. Debate should be a safe community, and if it's not, my view of you is never going to be good.

Some general stuff, I will be keeping a timer, but I would recommend keeping your own timer. Please notify me of the amount of prep time just so that we can make sure we have no problems ("running prep", "30 seconds"). Just so you know, I don't flow crossfire, but if you address me, I will write it down. If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc before, otherwise rules below apply. Also, this is just me, but don't eat with your camera on. I get nats are long and not fun sometimes, but just turn your camera off if you are going to eat.

Be respectful at the end of the round too, I know you might be sad about losing, but I still want to see a "Thanks for debating" or "Good debate" at the very least.As a judge, I give verbal feedback at the end of the round. Going verbally allows me to give you more in-depth feedback, but if you are not okay with me doing so, please let me knowbefore the round starts so I can type it up. Also, I usually like to give detailed feedback so that after every round you can improve as much as possible. What this means is that I don't think you are a bad debater, just everyone has room for improvement, so I like to point that out, rather than what you are good at.

Before the round, you can ask me any questions that you have about my paradigm (terminology and if I didn't address anything). I know I sound like a lot, I just don't want anyone to be confused about anything.

Novice PF

1. Case-For most Novice students, they aren't allowed to create their own contentions. If you are allowed, I would ask that the contention is not too far-fetched, as you are only a novice student.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses. It is not required for the 2nd speaker to frontline (respond to responses), but I would definitely recommend it. If you do frontline, please frontline the turns. If you frontline, but don't frontline the turns, I might not buy your case and it would be difficult for you to win.

3. Summary- Summary must frontline on both sides if not done so in the earlier speeches. I would recommend extending responses, as I would know what I am voting on, but if you don't, I will still evaluate it. I consider a case extended if you frontline it or talk about it.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important. It isn't necessary to weigh in Novice, but I would definitely suggest it.

5. Speaking- Typically, Novices speak at a good speed, but if you don't clarity is more important. As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I don't usually call for cards, but if I do, I need you to have cards, or I will not evaluate it in the round. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I don't care about that point anymore.

If you have reached this point, tell me your favorite thing to do before the round starts for +0.3 speaker points.

JV PF

I don't like theory or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so don't waste time doing that.

1. Case- Some of y'all have more far fetched arguments. I would say stay out of the memes and focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses.

Try to implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn should have an impact or you need to weigh the turn, otherwise I'd probably evaluate it as offense.

For JV, I would want the second rebuttal to frontline at least the turns, or I will be extending them on your case. You do not have to respond to every single point, but I would like you to respond to the majority of the arguments, and at the very least, the turns.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You can try to respond to they're frontlines, but it isn't required, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended to again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Weighing is the most important thing in final focus, so please spend time weighing in the speech. Comparative weighing is preferred because it allows me to compare why I should weigh one type of weighing over the other.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point.

Varsity PF

I don't really like theories or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so maybe don't waste time doing that. If you have to read theory, just don't contradict yourself (ex. para but your cards are paraphrased).

1. Case- Some of y'all have far- fetched arguments. Focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments. This however, doesn't require it to be on a generic packet, I recommend you do that, but just don't lead to any sketchy or weird arguments. One thing to highlight, and this goes for any judge, if they aren't able to understand what your contention is about, it's not likely for a win, so keep that in mind.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, but just signpost if you don't. Implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn needs to have an impact or you need to weigh the turn otherwise it will not be evaluated as a turn, instead as offense. I'd prefer you respond to the impact, and not just cross-apply your responses on their link-ins. For Varsity, I require the second rebuttal to frontline (most of the responses) to the contentions you are extending, or I will be extending the responses on your case.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Make sure to extend impacts as well, I would recommend writing out how you are going to extend it so that's there's not a lot of "uhs" and "ums." Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You should respond to their frontlines that they made, because otherwise that's just extending through ink. I want to see why their frontline doesn't apply, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." By the way, weighing is not saying "our impacts are .... and their impacts are." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended on your case again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the most important things, so give me the voters of what you want me to vote on. Any offense and defense that you want me to focus on should me emphasized. Weighing is the most important thing in the speech, so please spend most of your time doing that. You must do comparative weighing in this speech. Please for my sanity, don't introduce new things in final focus. My ballot is pretty much already decided by summary speech, so it's not going to do anything, and just make me think of you/your partner as a bad debater/speaker.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point AND speaker points. You cannot miscut evidence after this much experience. There is the evidence out there, you have to put in the effort to look for it, and if it's really not out there, don't run the argument :)

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

About me-

I'm a varsity pf debater

Tech>truth except when its racial justice or anything like that

Frontline in second summary and in second rebuttal

Somebody please call a TKO

If you bring me any food or drink 1 extra speaks for whoever brought it (no Beef and no nuts)

add me to any email chain or docs that you use to send evidence-Visheshsood2010@gmail.com

no theory or Ks

Signpost and give an off-time roadmap

no new evidence after summary

When you're weighing impacts don't say that you're just better use comparative analysis

If you don't weigh in summary you can't weigh in FF

Time yourself

Spreading is ok but don't spread to the point where you're words start to mix

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com

<3 ATL

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations:

Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)

Artificial Intelligence Rule: I will automatically vote against you if you are caught using AI or chat gpt as speech material in round (Do not quote bard, bing, etc.). Debate is an activity for skill building, a win does not change your life but the skills you gain do change you. This is hard to enforce, but email chains are more important to me because of this. If it is suspected I will get tabroom involved and have them request to check search history. Only exeption is performative reasons to use it.

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow jargon from across those 3 events. Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs: (LD)

1- K, Plan, DA's

2 - Theory, Pomo

3 - Phil/CP's

4- Tricks

Strike- Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

More Ranting

Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Cross-examination/Crossfire heavily influences speaks. Do you use it

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

Hey guys, I know you might be nervous, don't worry, you'll do great!

You guys can go with Megha or Judge.

Well, jumping straight into the point I'd like to be clear with a few expectations and rules I'd like to go with:

1. Prioritize active listening: I will take in count about how you have responded towards each and every speech and how well the cross-ex has been answered, make sure to be straight on point and very clear with your reading as it all matters, to me and your opponent.
2. Never make silly mistakes: I've always had people read wrong cards and get the whole debate confused, never read/send the wrong cards as everything matters including every second, this might cause you to loose a few points anywhere as again, everything matters to me!
3. Logical and intellectual arguments must be made: Make sure that you use a logical and mature language as it shows how well you have aced the content and how you respect your opponent!
4. Few pieces of advice: Stay awake, listen, show confidence as "Confidence is key", act respectful and mature and you'll do great. I don't have any particular debate advice as people have their different methods so, let's rock!
5. Timing and questions: I will time you guys so don't worry about that, if you have any questions feel free to ask as I'm just judging your debate, not questions!
6. My Goal: My goal is to create a friendly debatable environment and help people learn + have fun, Of course! Well, that's enough info, again don't worry, you guys will do well, "win or lose, give your best and I'll give mine!

sohamverma03@gmail.com - add me to the email chain pls

PF

Tech>truth - Front lining is also a must. These are key to winning debates and I vote for arguments that are clashed. If something is dropped by both teams I don't make my decision based on it.

If you drop a case that still has turn on it and the other team extends it, IT COUNTS AS OFFENSE. It's technically reverting their point toward them therefore it is an offense and is a valid point to argue for. If you flesh out a turn well you can very likely win the debate because of it. Impact weighing is key and for me to evaluate it you must relate to any of the weighing mechanisms. Most teams just talk about their impact but I need you to compare it for me... so like saying why their impact is bad. If a team frontlines a response and the other team does not respond to the frontline I will count that response as dropped. please collapse flesh out warrants well.

Policy

Your speech should probably follow along the border of this:

1AC - Aff reads plan and advantage.100% just reading the evidence

1NC - Reads DA's and advantage answer.- 95% evidence, 5% analytics. Some people include analytics on cases or mention things that were said in cross-ex (CX)

2AC - Extends 1AC to explain why 1NC case defense is wrong & reads answers to DA's - case is all extensions NO CARDS unless absolutely necessary, answers to DA's are 95% cards, 5% analytics that you think of or come from CX

2NC/1NR - Extend DA's and advantage answers --- 50/50 cards and extensions you want to extend 1NC cards and then support them with more evidence

1AR - Re-extends what was said in the 2AC on the case & choose the strongest arguments to go for on the DAs (Can't go for everything b/c 1AR is 5 minutes vs Neg block which is 13 minutes) - -- 80% extensions, may need a card here or there for new things read in the block

2NR - Makes final decision on what the neg is going to go for. For example, if reading 2 DAs, 2N has to choose 1 to all in on. Do impact calc on the DA vs the advantages - 100% ANALYTICS AND EXTENSIONS

2AR - Makes final decision on what the aff is going to go for. Only extend 1 advantage and do impact calc on the ADV VS DA - 100% ANALYTICS AND EXTENSIONS

Just make sure to clash a lot and win dropped args and ill end up voting for u

I have 3 years of pf debate experience.

Just have fun. I’m fine with debate jargon and moderately fast speaking.

Extend your arguments, I love weighing. Generally, NO new evidence during summary and after.

bonus speaker points if you can come up with a smart pun during speech.

Hi! My name is Ayati Yadav (you can call me Ayati) and I will be judging you today. I consider myself what the debaters call the "tech judge". I am currently a varsity high school debater and an assistant coach at Ivy Bridge Academy.

A few notes:

Please give off-time road maps! They're so much more help to a judge so take the time.

I like to balance my decision heavily on weighing. It is crucial to my decision and if you want to win an impact, you need to weigh it.

I also expect arguments to be responded to and if they aren't, you will lose that argument automatically.

I am okay with a little aggressiveness in the crossfire or indeed in any part of the debate, so feel free to speak passionately about your case. Just don't yell.

You can speak somewhat fast, but just don't make it so fast that it is incomprehensible to anybody in the round. Also please send me your case at Ayatistar17@gmail.com, and please add me to the email chain.

PLEASE FRONTLINE! It's really good for you and it'll help your case and your speaker points a ton.

Use all your prep. Even if you are done use all of it. Even if you use it just to sit, chill, and get ready to make your speech.

If you are going to read anything that could be distressing to any people within the round, read a trigger warning. I have seen several situations as an observer where a really good team lost a round because they didn't read a trigger warning.

Some general rules:

I refuse to see any discrimination of any kind, whether it be based on race, sex, sexual orientation or identity, disability, or any other.

No profanity of any kind (swearing or cussing in layman's terms), and please be respectful to both me and your opponents.

And finally, as not just a judge, but as a debater, I would like to wish you the best of luck in your debating. Have fun!