hey! i'm ishaan -- i debated (1) (2) PF for 4 years at princeton high school and currently study jazz at nyu.

i'm game for whatever type of round you want to have, just debate whatever you're comfortable with and i'll be happy to accommodate.

couple quick things:

pretty good with speed but would like a doc if it's gonna be super fast (don't need to include cards)

i coach so assume i have pretty up to date topic knowledge

for dense K lit -- please err on the side of overexplanation

consistency through rebuttal-summary-final is really cool to me

please please please try your best to be friendly i would really appreciate it

feel free to ask me any questions pre or post-round!

ishaanbanerjee6@gmail.com

i debated in PF for Princeton High School.

add me to the email chain: ang3192007@gmail.com

notes + preferences:

- generally tech>truth

- run fun arguments!

- please collapse (i cannot emphasize this enough). the earlier you weigh, the better, and make sure it's comparative.be respectful (no -isms, -ophias, etc.)

- make sure you extend and weigh the same in summary and final focus

- no new frontlines or responses in final focus; the purpose of final focus is to review the round and point out how you won

- i won't vote on cross unless you are extremely disrespectful/offensive towards your opponents

- speaks are determined on fluency and rhetoric. speed doesn't matter as long as you're comprehensible

TLDR: basic flow judge, have fun and be polite to your opponents.

Add me to the email chain at: debate@nicholashagedorn.com

I'm a current senior debating for Princeton High School.

For evaluating the round, I'll look at weighing first. It doesn't matter whether you win your argument if you lose the weighing and your opponents win their arg.

Speaker points are directly proportional to how many times you say the word "nebulous."

27 = 0 times saying the word nebulous

28 = 1 time saying the word nebulous

29 = 5 times saying the word nebulous

30 = 10 times saying the word nebulous AND speaks like my amazing debate partner Will Pittman if you are first speaker AND speaks like my amazing debate partner Sasha Caracalos if you are second speaker

Hey everyone, my name is Vihaan. I'm a junior and debate PF for Princeton High School. If yall have a chain, add me to it: vihaanjain@gmail.com

TLDR: standard flow, tech>truth, read whatever you want.

Feel free to postround me/ask questions

Ask me questions before the round for other preferences, but most of what yall need should be below.

****goes without saying but being discriminatory is an auto-drop

How I evaluate a round:

• I’m good with speed, send a doc if its really fast(if its varsity, send a doc regardless with cut cards or hyperlinks to evidence if you're paraphrasing). I’ll yell ‘slow’ if you need to slow down and ‘clear’ if you’re not annunciating.

• I look to the weighing first to decide what offense to evaluate first. After that I just see if you’re winning a link and an impact.

• Extend. Everything I vote for should be in final, everything in final should be in summary(I am OK with some new weighing in first final focus, but try to frame it as a response to the weighin in second summary. Dont dump 5 new prereqs. use your best judgement).

• Every claim you make in round should have a warrant

• I dont pay attention to cross, if something happens in cross bring it up in speech

• If theres no offense left in the round, I’ll presume for whoever lost the flip unless told otherwise

• Please collapse(pick one of your arguments to go for in summary and final focus)

Stuff I will like

• If you go for a turn properly (weigh on it)

• If you have smart analytics in rebuttal

• Creative + comparative weighing

• Collapsing

Stuff I will not like

• Not collapsing

• Not extending your argument

Prog

• I'm cool with prog if yall are cool with prog. I have a very "do whatever you want" mindset around debate, just be mindful on who you run progressive arguments on. I'm cool w theory. I generally don't disclose when competing, so I've seen/had a few disclo rounds(i will also up disclo theory if you win the shell, and u might change my opinion on the issue so u can go for it). I think theory rounds only work to improve norms if the judge only evaluates whats said in the round and doesn't just vote for norms they personally think are best for the space, so I'm a good judge for you if you're reading/defending any "non-conventional" norms(like para good, disclo bad, TW bad). This doesn't mean ill hack for these norms, it just means i wont hack against them.

• For Kritiks, i'm not really familiar with a lot of lit, but i generally know how they work. I'm convinced by smart perms and indites on misrepresented lit if ur responding. i'll try my best to keep up in higher-level K rounds. I have a basic understanding of cap, setcol, sec, and some non-topical identity lit(basically the most commonly ran Ks in PF), but I'm comparable to a really annoying 'fake flow' judging these rounds.

• generally when it comes to running progressive arguments, assume that I have the knowledge of an average PF circuit debater.

Extra stuff

• I physically react a lot to things said in a round--- please do not base your in-round strategies on these reactions, they're just my inability to sit still and a bad habit. I've heard complaints from teams saying they've gone for contentions because I nodded while they read them. Please don't base your entire in-round strategy off of a couple head shakes.
• I'm iffy on death good arguments. i've read things like s-risks to outweigh x-risks in the past, but lowk ill not vote up death-good in the status quo. Basically, keep this as a neg arg saying aff causes s-risk, or s-risk coming in the far-future, bc if ur saying death good now it becomes a safety issue.
• Usually, indites are fine and ill consider them as near-defense. HOWEVER, saying ur opponents arn't as smart as ur authors, or saying to prefer ur author quals are NOT indites. The nature of debate is that some authors will be less qualified than others, so if ur not comparing the authors' actual warranting/methodology, im not convinced that I should prefer a professor to a journalist on face-value.

any offense from 1 rebuttal must be frontlined by second rebuttal or its dropped

pls weigh (also please make it be comparative)

extend. please!

collapse. please!

please frontline. i hate ppl who dont frontline and then start gaslighting the judge

rundown of what im looking for speech by speech

case - jus read case.

1 cross - i prolly wont be listening but this is a good time to clarify anything that you or ur partner is confused about - or if ur jus like that make them concede a piece of uniqueness or warranting - that'll make it a lot more fun for your second speaker in rebuttal

if there's anything of susbtance u want me to note from ANY crossfire - bring it up in a speech.

1 rebuttal- go down their case, respond on the line by line down every argument. remember the types of responses - non uniques, delinks, link turns, impact turns (not recommended), mitigation. (if u dump turns you're so real)

2 rebuttal- FRONTLINE. respond to everything that ur opps just said to ur case FIRST UNLESS it's a bunch of defense on some random argument ur not going for - then it doesn't matter. IF THEY READ A LINK TURN THO U GOTTA RESPOND. also u gotta respond to everything for the argument ur gonna be collapsing on in summary.

• after that go down ur opps case. be sure to get thru every argument!

2 cross - same as first cross - except clear up any misunderstandings or things they said from rebuttal

1 summary- please collapse. i do not want to flow three arguments on the flow. idc if they dropped all three go for 1. also flesh it out - and frontline anything they mighta said abt it in rebuttal.

then weigh. please do this. remember - prereqs, magnitude, probability are the holy trinity. no one cares abt scope. make sure your weighing is comparative - or it actually RESPONDS to the impact of your opponent. (ex. dont say a war kills people which is bad - rather war prereqs economy because without a country in war will have an economy drained by conflict)

finally, go onto ur opps case!remember, it doesn't matter if you win your opponents case if you lose your case and the weighing. that's also why it's the least important. (dont drop it tho). just like case - be sure to go for the responses that are strongest or are dropped.

*no new responses on ur opponents case in summary - that should have been said in rebuttal!

2 summary -literally the same format as before but be sure to respond to anything that they extended onto ur caseon the argument you are going for.(unless it's a turn)

grand cross - imma be honest no one cares. if yall want we can honestly skip this speech

1 + 2 final-wrap up the round! i format my final focuses as my case, weighing, opps case - jus like summary. A final focus should mirror a summary pretty similarly, since the biggest points are gonna be in summary. but in final - be sure to emphasize WHY (x) matters, and why you are winning and ur opps arent. (note that 2 minutes is pretty short tho - space ur time out well!)

Parent Judge.

1. Please be civil and respectful at all times
2. When arguments are based on value judgments, please state what those judgments are (don't assume that audience automatically or necessarily shares those same values)
3. Support arguments with actual facts
4. Admit when you don't know something
5. Spell out chains of causation, finish lines of reasoning (e.g. this is good/bad because ...); answer the question, "so what?"

Hi there! I'm Alex. Add me to the email chain: amargulis[at]princeton.edu.

I debated PF at Princeton High School for four years. Don't adjust your strategy for me — I'm happy to judge whatever round you all would like to have. Topical, off-topical*, secret third option, anything goes. I will vote for literally anything if it is done well.

Generally, I'll feel as though an argument is "done well" if you manage to convince me why it a) is true** within the context of the round, and b) matters more than any of your opponents' arguments.

*T-specific: although I'll try to be pretty tabula rasa about this sort of thing, you should probably know that while on the circuit I read cut card cases, and did not disclose.

**I have a very low bar for responding to arguments that are obviously, painfully untrue. If your opponents run something that seems blatantly false, point it out!

copied and pasted from the legendary Sean Lee

General

Treat me like a flay judge - I strongly prefer to judge slower, well-warranted, and actually coherent rounds rather than the awful current "tech" meta of reading as many contentions as possible and spreading out your opponents in every speech. I'm begging you, please please please slow down, go for less arguments, fully extend link chains and internal links, and actually read warrants for everything (especially frontlines and responses/defense). You do not need to go for every argument on both sides of the flow and speak incredibly fast to win the round -- your speaks will reflect it if you make my life miserable by being incomprehensible. The more moderately you debate, the higher your speaks and chance of winning the round will become.

Prog

Please don't run theory in front of me. My personal thoughts are that paraphrasing has its merits and disclosure is not necessarily a good norm, so do what you will with that information. I can't and would strongly prefer not to evaluate Ks. Tricks -- whatever.

Other preferences: I won't read evidence unless you explicitly tell me to call for it during a speech. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc, and I also probably won't flow more than three contentions. Go fast at your own risk. Feel free to ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round.

Ground Rules:

1. If your name is Audrey, I'm automatically dropping you - and telling you to go to class as my rfd. NO EXCEPTIONS.

2. Don't be screaming during cross. No pulling out new arguments or impacts in FF, especially if your second. If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be:

• in both summary and final
• extend the warrant, not the tagline
• preferably weighed

for scrimmage

im a sophmore - i partner with ethan tauro and if ur debating some of his kids u better win

email: kevinliren@gmail.com if yall have a chain add me

if ur audrey (or her partner) u shld start every speech with a good reason why i shouldn't drop u with 25 speaks

lowk ill evaluate anything i wld rather judge rounds that aren't boring yea i will be flowing!

bring me food or make me laugh for high speaks

if ur name is marco auto w30

but onto actual substantial stuff ig

im a second speaker so wtv u think that means go for it

any offense from 1 rebuttal must be frontlined by second rebuttal or its dropped

pls weigh (also please make it be comparative)

extend. please!

collapse. please!

please frontline. i hate ppl who dont frontline and then start gaslighting the judge

rundown of what im looking for speech by speech

case - jus read case.

1 cross - i prolly wont be listening but this is a good time to clarify anything that you or ur partner is confused about - or if ur jus like that make them concede a piece of uniqueness or warranting - that'll make it a lot more fun for your second speaker in rebuttal

if there's anything of susbtance u want me to note from ANY crossfire - bring it up in a speech.

1 rebuttal - go down their case, respond on the line by line down every argument. remember the types of responses - non uniques, delinks, link turns, impact turns (not recommended), mitigation. (if u dump turns you're so real)

2 rebuttal - FRONTLINE. respond to everything that ur opps just said to ur case FIRST UNLESS it's a bunch of defense on some random argument ur not going for - then it doesn't matter. IF THEY READ A LINK TURN THO U GOTTA RESPOND. also u gotta respond to everything for the argument ur gonna be collapsing on in summary.

• after that go down ur opps case. be sure to get thru every argument!

2 cross - same as first cross - except clear up any misunderstandings or things they said from rebuttal

1 summary - please collapse. i do not want to flow three arguments on the flow. idc if they dropped all three go for 1. also flesh it out - and frontline anything they mighta said abt it in rebuttal.

then weigh. please do this. remember - prereqs, magnitude, probability are the holy trinity. no one cares abt scope. make sure your weighing is comparative - or it actually RESPONDS to the impact of your opponent. (ex. dont say a war kills people which is bad - rather war prereqs economy because without a country in war will have an economy drained by conflict)

finally, go onto ur opps case! remember, it doesn't matter if you win your opponents case if you lose your case and the weighing. that's also why it's the least important. (dont drop it tho). just like case - be sure to go for the responses that are strongest or are dropped.

*no new responses on ur opponents case in summary - that should have been said in rebuttal!

2 summary -literally the same format as before but be sure to respond to anything that they extended onto ur caseon the argument you are going for. (unless it's a turn)

grand cross - imma be honest no one cares. if yall want we can honestly skip this speech

1 + 2 final -wrap up the round! i format my final focuses as my case, weighing, opps case - jus like summary. A final focus should mirror a summary pretty similarly, since the biggest points are gonna be in summary. but in final - be sure to emphasize WHY (x) matters, and why you are winning and ur opps arent. (note that 2 minutes is pretty short tho - space ur time out well!)

so yea gl debate is kinda fun sometimes

amanda.ns224@gmail.com

she/her

Debated for Princeton ’24; TOC junior & senior year

The debate is for you, not me. Read what you want, I'll try my best to evaluate anything barring offensive/derogatory things. Any argument needs a claim, warrant, and implication. My preferences will not fill in the gaps for what you miss.

Phil- 1

Theory- 2

Tricks- 3

Policy v not policy- 4

Policy v policy - 5

Phil-

Love! Familiar w KANT, skep, hobbes, virtue, hegel, heidegger, intuitions, constructivism, contracts, prag, levinas, polls, butler, basically in that order. Permissibility/presumption triggers/calc indicts r great.

Theory-

Great! I have a higher than expected (but reasonable imo) threshold for theory warrants. I will not default paradigm issues or extend your interp/violation/standards for you. Read ur friv shells. Blippy/prewritten is hard to follow and resolve. Weigh.

Larp-

Ok! I’ll try my best. I don’t have topic knowledge. If u put real warrants in ur util fw I’ll be impressed.

K-

I read a bit of baudrillard, psycho, and heidegger. Uplayering is not an excuse to not do LBL. I will not cross apply the entire K just bc u don’t wanna LBL truth testing. A billion ivis on everything with no LBL is unserious.

Tricks-

Sure. You can be hide them in the doc but don’t be shifty in CX. I need a warrant in the speech you read it in (eval after 1ac bc you can’t respond to this arg bc it’s after the 1ac is not a warrant) and if I miss it bc it’s not in the doc and you blitzed through it, that’s really tough.

Defaults:

truth testing

epistemic confidence

metatheory > t = theory > k

permissibility negates

presumption:

• If triggered in the context of linguistic/external world skep:
• I vote for the side closest to my mouse on tab.
• if triggered in the context of the round having no offense ie competing pieces of offense w no weighing:
• affirms in prelims
• goes to the side who lost the coin flip in elims
• if triggered in the context of a specific argument on the flow:
• I presume the argument is false.

Clearly you should not make me default for presumption so read a warrant in round please.

I’ll try to default to whatever is implicitly assumed in round by the debaters to avoid judge intervention. IE if no one reads a fw but its clearly a larp debate, I won’t auto negate on permissibility but I would rlly want to.

I like:

• Unique analytic fws
• NC AC
• Efficiency

Here is my no joke paradigm for Princeton Scrimmage:

I'm tech>truth. Don't run k's, theory, tricks, phil, or anything but the resolution in the Princeton Scrimmage. Don't be sexist or racist. That's a nono.

If you replicate the debate style of Ishaan Banerjee, Alex Margulis, Ryan Chen, Veer Prakash, Josh Cohen, Paul Wang, or Nick Budny --I'm auto picking you up.

When I'm judging, I see the round in three main categories: your case, weighing, opps case.

To win my ballot you either need to win:

Your case and the weighing

Your case and their case

When evaluating the round, I look to weighing first when I feel like it. Make me do as little work as possible. If there are two pieces of weighing, tell me which to prefer and why. Whichever team is winning the weighing, I look to their case next. But if they lose their case, and the other team wins their case -- the other team wins the round.

Some rules for the back-half

• everything must be in both summary and final for it to be on my ballot.
• extend the warrant, not the tagline (like don't say that aff relieves the wealth gap, say that because student debt disproportionately hurts colored borrowers, so relieving it would tenfold black wealth -- and thus close the wealth gap)
• A good extension includes the uniqueness (what's happening right now), the link (how affirming changes what's happening), the internal link (how your link leads to your impact), and your impact THE MOST IMPORTANT (why your argument matters)
• preferably weighed everything (this includes turns if you want offense)

Case:

Speed is fine, if it is too fast or I can't understand you, I'll ask for your case for both my flow and to run at P-Classic.

Rebuttal:

Cover everything, don't be dropping stuff. Everything on your opponent's case in the back-half should start in rebuttal. Make sure you spread out your time efficiently.

Summary:

Your case (Extend, Frontline, Weigh), Weighing (Extend, Frontline, Weigh), and Defense (Extend, Frontline, Weigh).

FF:

Condense summary into 2 minutes.

Speaks:

31: I recommend this website for you want to be the best debater ever. You truly deserve to win this tournament. https://tinyurl.com/4mzh2t9u

30: You completely blew my mind. You completely controlled cross and gave outstanding speeches. I expect you to be in at least semi's.

29.5: Excellent debater. I expend to see you in the elimination rounds.

29: Solid debater. Solid round.

28.5: You're a good debater. Right amount of everything, just wish you were a little more aggressive.

28: Everyone starts with a 28. This is the average speaker points. Try to aim higher.

27.5: Hey nice try, but not your best round...

27: You got steamrolled... I know how it feels...

26: You lied in you speech or brought something new up in FF.

I'm a Varsity PF debater at Princeton High School

Email: aishsvedula@gmail.com

Scrimmage:

Congrats on your first time debating! Remember not to stress but try your best, this is just practice to help you improve as you continue with debate in the future.

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before and after the round, I'll be happy to give any advice or pointers!

Also, please be respectful to your opponents during the debate.

There are a couple things I want to point out regarding speeches:

2nd Rebuttal - make sure to respond to your opponent's rebuttal as well as their case. Frontlining is crucial, which can also be said about summary and final focus.

Crossfire - again, please be respectful! Crossfire is an excellent opportunity to clarify your opponents arguments and to point out the potential flaws in their argument. Try to make your opponents argument seem weak, and get them to concede something. (I won't vote off of crossfire, but parent judges may do this).

Summary - make sure to extend your main contention/argument in your summary! This is crucial to set up the rest of your summary, including frontlining and weighing. In order to vote for your side, I need to clearly see what you win on and why.

Final Focus - DO NOT bring up new information in Final Focus. Instead, provide a review on the round and why you win. Follow a similar format to summary: collapse, frontline, and weigh. You should use the same weighing mechanisms your partner used in Summary.

PF debater, 3rd year debating

email: awudebate@gmail.com

a little speed is ok, but rather not have to rely on a doc to understand what ur saying, keep case in the triple digits pls

How to win my ballot:

1. Win your case
2. Win the weighing

prog:

prefer you just don't but if it comes to it,

shells ok. IVIs ok.

k's dont reccomend, trix dont reccomend

general:

tech>truth, defense is not sticky, disclo not exactly good norm, paraphrase not very good norm, prefer you run stock, will presume neg, dont be rude/discriminatory/etc., if it's a problem i will auto drop

I prefer arguments be delivered clearly and not too fast.

It is ok to be passionate. But please remember to be respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Please time yourself and let me know if you are going to take pre time.

Your overall performance, including the quality of arguments, evidence, and style, will help me determine the winner of the round.

My email is feiyang007@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain if there is one.

I'm a PHS sophomore, I've debated for around a year.

Throughout the round, be respectful, but also advocate for yourself.

No racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc or being problematic in general you will be dropped!

Treat me as a flay, so use lay appeal.

Extend your arguments in every speech, or it will be dropped.

Weigh, or else I don't know why you're winning.

Crossfire will not be flowed, I will start playing on my phone until it ends.

Summary:
Collapseif you can, obviously every round has what works better, but in general collapse to make it cleaner. The round that you think is an "exception" to this rule is probably not...

Final Focus should be as clean as possible and lay out every reason why you should get the vote.

If you're a novice running progressive, don't. If your opponent uses discriminatory content I will auto drop, you can briefly mention it to remind me in speech, but don't go into a full shell or anything. Also don't bring it up after second summary it's too late...

And have fun and believe in yourself!!!

If your name is Audrey, good luck!!