junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 1 in seven lakes AR, I copied this from my dear compañera Siri) anshika12agrawal@gmail.com

2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier

i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.

tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters

this is how i go through the round:

i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.

don't do isms

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have towarranteverything

i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls readcut cardsand have good evi ethics

progressive args

i like prog args

for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap

if you run framework, use it to actually frame the round!

paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, round reports are meh

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.

have fun and learn

Here are some general things about how I will judge, but feel free to ask me questions in round for clarification. (I have bolded the key parts of what you should know, so if you're on a time crunch just read those)

I am the first alternate to nationals in PF and third in the district in LD, please interpret that as you will. I will judge in a more technical style.

I will disclose after round after my ballots are submitted. I will not change my mind on my vote, but im happy to answer questions about it.

In terms of what I allow in round, it totally depends on your opponents. This means that, with opponent permission, the use of jargon, fast talking and whatever else is allowed unless I specifically say no. Note however, please no spreading if youre not in cx. I will not flow what I cannot understand, and I will not get on an email chain or a speech drop or whatever. In non-CX events its usually not standard practice to spread. Make sure your words have some sort of clarity basically and its not spreading. You can also ask me before round if your speed will be okay. I will also keep time, but please do not rely on me for it. Sometimes I forget, typically I do not. If your opponent goes over a speech or prep by five seconds, you can call out “time” to stop them. However, please use this only if you're sure they've gone over. If my timer isn't over then they'll be allowed to continue. Also, please do not call out how much time an opponent has used during their prep unless they've used all of it. They are probably very aware they used 3 of their 4 minutes, and calling that out is distracting.

Additionally, no progressive argumentation if youre not in policy. If you run a K I won't flow it, even if you try to disguise it. I also will not and will never buy disclosure theory, no matter the event. Neither would I usually buy an identity K, it literally accomplishes nothing and its borderline cheating. Unless you can actually prove solvency for your K and how this round specifically will have a meaningful impact on the debate space ill literally submit a ballot for the other side and take a nap.

For spectators, keep in mind that YOU are responsible for the spectators you bring into the round. Spectators should be quiet the entire round, including prep time, and should not leave when there is a speech or cross ex happening. If you bring in poorly behaved spectators it will reflect in your speaks. Additionally, if any spectators are doing something that makes you uncomfortable, feel free to ask them to stop. They are simply there to observe and should in no way interfere. I prefer they sit behind the competitors as to minimize distractions, and also ask permission of the opponent before entering.

Please also note that while it is okay to get aggressive in a round, rudeness and disrespect are generally easy ways to get low speaks/ lose the round. No matter the judge, it is REALLY HARD to side with a rude team. Do not yell, do not belittle, don't scoff, or anything else that is generally disrespectful.

More specifically on how I judge, ill prioritize voting issues like this:

1. Weighing: This will go to how well your arguments develop through the round. Having a good impact will be the way to win this one. Please do not be afraid to weigh and call out specifically what the most important arguments in the round are. Unless your opponent attacks this and tells me to prioritize other arguments, if this goes conceded ill rank the importance of arguments in that order.

2. What I actually buy: This is about how your argument actually stands in the round. A solid link chain and good responses to opponents will win you this. I can buy any argument if it has a good link chain, but its not all about who can get the nuclear war impacts first as well. Make sure it makes sense.

3. Argumentation: This is more the general skill of both debaters. Being able to effectively respond and structure your speeches, as well as efficient use of time is how you get this one.

4. Respectfulness: I severely dislike disrespect in the debate space. Debate is fun if you let it be fun. Ive already gone into this earlier though. Just generally be nice to your opponent.

I will give out speaker points starting at a 28.

To raise speaks) Effective use of time, respectfulness, being clear, having good link chains, effectively responding to arguments, good weighing, and good etiquette are all good ways to raise your speaks

To lower speaks) Basically the opposite of the raising speaks. Being disrespectful is almost an automatic 26 or 25.

PF specific stuff:

• The second rebuttal responds to the opponents case and also the first rebuttal. If not then the first speakers have every right to claim their responses as dropped.

• If you're doing the coin flip the other side calls. You need to flip where the other side can see it clearly. I prefer you flip in front of me, but if not its okay.

• Please try to stay on the same page as your partner, if I hear wildly different argumentation its hard to evaluate. Consistency is key.

• Please be respectful in grand cross. I know its easy to get carried away, but, if you're able to control it that reflects positively on you as a speaker

• First speaker gets first question

• Extensions are okay but not really necessary for me. I've already heard your case.
• Cross is listened to but will not count unless its brought up in your speeches.

LD specific stuff:

• I have only competed in one LD tournament, so I am not the absolute most familiar with everything. At least not like I am in PF.

• Value debate kind of defines everything for me. I will weigh arguments under whatever fw I buy the most.

• I really dont mind skipping cross if you dont know what to ask.

• Again, no progressive argumentation. I have dabbled in policy enough to know it when I see it. Even if you try to veil it.
  
  

Overall: Just have fun with it. I only judge novice and so please dont be afraid to ask me questions, ill never vote you down for it. Debate is supposed to be a really fun activity, so dont stress.

third year debater

pf :)

LD/PF

• spreading is fine as long as you send a doc (td.trishadas30@gmail.com)
• tech>truth but your warrants need to be well explained
• weigh throughout the round; i won't do the work for you
• i don't care about cross but don't be mean please
• speaks will start at 28 and move up or down based on performance
• mention taylor swift and i will be happy

have fun!! :))

tech judge

be loud

have fun ill give good feedback trust

pls add tharoon.eswar@gmail.com to the email chain

tldr- add me to the email chain ashwikaganti2@gmail.com

2nd yr pfer for slhs-pj jg

tech>truth

- i evaluate the link + link weighing before anything else, if there’s no link weighing it will default to warrant weighing then probability/timeframe weighing

- going for less + explaining it well> going for everything + blippy explanations

- i will vote off the flow but good comparative weighing> dumping defense/offense without weighing and warrants

general

- framework debates are good. shaping the round with impacts makes the weighing debate always easier to vote, i'm familiar with structural violence and util- anything else explain well and i'm open to vote off of it

- spreading is fine, just send docs

- i won’t evaluate cross but i will give higher speaks if you make cross fun in a respectful way!

- extend your case in summary if you want me to vote off of it, that means uq, link, impact- the same goes for conceded offense/ turns

- speaks will start at 28- and go up or down based on strategy

T’s/K’s

- theory shells, friv theory, and K’s are cool- keep in mind the implication needs to be good for me to vote off of it- don’t just extend and expect the implication is made off the extension

- i’ve debated against Ks and Ts, the ones i am familiar with are, theory: disclo, anything else explain it well and i’m open to vote off of it, K’s: cap, fem, set col, security ~ anything else needs really good explaining

- ivi’s are cool, don’t be abusive with them

learn and have fun!

Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)

I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)

has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)

and attacks the opponents case the best

If the round has gotten messy, there’s two opposing claims and both sides haven’t cleared up which claim I should vote on, I’ll vote on turns and weighing.

i’m fahim

ill answer any questions about paradigm in round, as in depth as you need

i’ll vote on anything

if u win i’ll vote for u

2nd year debater at Seven Lakes

always extend args and remember to have comparative weighing if you want me to consider them

tech>truth

speed is ok with me, but if no one can understand you, set up an email chain or speech drop and send a doc

no prog args (theories and Ks)

give a shout-out to “Tvisha Talwar” to make me happy

speaks start at 27

Hi! I'm a thrid year PFer at seven lakes.

Please extend - if you want something to be a voting issue extend it in both final focus and summary

defense is not sticky

second rebuttal should frontline- even better if you collapse

please weigh your arguments comparatively

I look at the link debate first, then evaluate which arguments to prefer based on weighing

Please please signpost!!

2nd year debater in pf

make sure to extend your arguements through every speech- if it is dropped in summary and brought back up in final focus I won't consider it.

WEIGH!!!!!

any cards you read need to be implicated.

It's fine if you speak fast, just don't spread

I pay attention to cross- I like some friendly fire, but do not be mean- it will affect your speaker points.

Speaker points start at 27

SLHS 25
I am the first speaker for SLHS CL. We have gotten 6 lifetime bids (3 golds) and have qualified twice to the TOC. Add me on the email chains: sevenlakescl@gmail.com

tech>truth.

Speed is fine until the wpm is 250+.

I cannot judge theory or K’s. It’ll be a coinflip.

Warranting, collapsing, and weighing is how you get my ballot. I particularly like debates that are more heavy on the comparative weighing.

email: rayaanmeghani13@gmail.com

PF

Tech >>> truth

For evidence comparisons: If you can't tell me why a postdate matters then it's not a response I'm evaluating. Do actual comparisons that tell me what makes your evidence better than theirs.

Prog: No theory except for Disclosure and paraphrasing or actual in-round abuse. Ks are cool but keep it low-lit like cap and stuff

Speed: Spreading is fine, be really clear, send doc.

Preferences: Weighing from 2nd rebuttal, responses shouldn't be blippy

Speaks: I'll give high speaks but good strategy and pretty speaking helps with it

Signpost!!!

I debated for four years on the national circuit

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: arnavm.218@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

Im Andres i'm a junior at Seven Lakes. 2x TFA qualifier, 1x TOC quallifier, PFBC Student Andrescasas0705@gmail.com the email chain.send speech docs with all cut cards before speech

tech > truth, The first thing i evaluate in the debate is if you are winning the link level debate because if you don't win your argument then you don't win the weighing, if both teams are winning their arguments i then go to the weighing, if there is no weighing i default to the best extended and or biggest arg of the round.

don't be disrespectful

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact. - This goes for turns as well, especially if your opponents dont extend their uq and imp for you.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, however (Quality > Quantity)

Arguments made in cross are not binding

Manage your own time i won't be timing you guys

progressive Args

I can evaluate but am not fully familiar and will not fully enjoy the round unless explained REALLLYYY well

K's im familair with are Cap, Col, Orientalism, and Fem.

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy, politeness, and presentation. (may help to be funny)

overall, have fun! i'll disclose and give feedback, feel free to ask questions about my rfd

I'm a LARP debater but I know K's, just make sure to explain more thoroughly if it's some dense K or phil. No trix. Spreading is fine with me, I will tell you, "clear", if I can't hear you properly. Please be on your own speech and prep times. You don't have to monitor your opponent's, but if they're stealing prep or overtime it's your job to call it out. Do not bully novices. Be respectful, be inclusive, and don't take anything too serious.

My Background:

I have competed in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking for 4 years, so I value delivery as well as simple argumentation.

Congress: I like confidence, delivery, vocal variation, and a simple logic chain that can be defended in questioning. I like new arguments at the beginning of the round, warrant-level refutation in the middle of the round, and pure blood bath refutation if you are giving the last speech with rhetoric as well.

Extemp: Answer the question, have vocal variation, be funny, be fluent, be your best.

PF/ LD: I'm listening for simple easy to understand arguments. Don't make me do the work, it is your job to spoon-feed me the argument: the claim, warrant, link chain, and impact.

Anything Else: Treat me as a lay judge.

she/her | pf debater at seven lakes (the 2 in seven lakes AR)

siri@ramineni.name

tech > truth, links > weighing. every argument that you are going for needs warrants + impacts

its novice night – be nice to your opponents pls

i look at weighing, then links. winning weighing doesn't matter if you lose terminal defense on case. you can still win if you win weighing and lose not terminal defense as long as its implicated correctly

read cut cards!

i'm assuming novice night won't have much prog but a few notes

1. framing should be used to actually frame the round. i would prefer an extension but it's not necessary

2. i'm familiar w/ topical set col, sec, cap, fem + race ir

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy

i try to judge like bryce Piotrowski

add me to the email chain- ameerahsuleman2008@gmail.com

I consider myself a flay judge. No new things in the final focus or 2nd summary. new stuff in 2nd summary is only allowed if you are responding to something in 1st summary.

You get a 10-second grace period if you go over time.

Analytics are kewl if you have warrants. No Ks or theories I still don't understand them despite doing PF for two years

Cross is binding. Tech> truth

I dislike prep stealing, when your opponents or teammate is sending cards/ a doc I don't want to see you prepping. Especially in online tourneys.

Spread at your own risk, there is a good chance that I won't understand what you're saying. If I don't flow it then it doesn't exist. Signposting is also important

I want you to basically sign the ballot for me and tell me why I should be judging for you. Good comparative weighing will get you my ballot

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc delete the cards you did not read

post rounding for clarification questions/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u should not.

speaks

If you're being a jerk to your opponents you WILL get downed for that.

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc

25 = You were a big jerk

27 = Below average speaking wise

28 = Average speaking

29 = Pretty good

30= Excellent, best speaking

I do pf.

Add me to the email chain: aarushi.thatola@gmail.com .

Don't be rude. If you're running anything progressive, just explain it really well and I'll vote on it. Don't forget to extend and explain your arguments. Weighing is very important. If you're spreading, send a doc but there's a chance I'll miss something.

Have fun! :D

akkivarre@gmail.com

debate:
i am year 2 PFer @ seven lakes
tech > truth

i care muchhhh more about what you talk about rather than how you say it - but that doesn't mean i don't give any regard at all to your speaking style.

PLEEEASE WEIGH - if you make good enough weighing args i'm willing to vote on solely that

i love clash

IMPLICATE!! - don't just read cards or make statements, i need to know what you mean and why i should care. this is prob the most important thing - i will genuinely not know how to eval the debate unless you extend all your arguments and implicate what you want me to vote on. basically i need warrants. every speech.

speaks
speaks range from 28-30 if you give me good rhetoric throughout the round - auto 30s
if you debate without a computer auto 30s
i love it when you are funny in round - make it entertaining you don't have to be so serious 100% of the time.

overall have fun, debate is supposed to be enjoyable so don't ruin it for yourself or anyone else.

for novices, feel free to ask questions about the topic, the round, your speech, etc. i'd love to give you advice.

if you bring me a coca cola i'll really like you

if you are online and it looks like i am not flowing - I AM I PROMISE I JUST FLOW ON MY LAPTOP

speech:

extemp and impromptu are based on your speaking ability. don't worry sooo much about your sources or your info, lie to me if you have to just make it sound good. i'm a debater i'll believe you if you make it sound like i should.
(don't lie about your sources tho pls practice good evidence ethics)

-i want clash and actual weighing in your impacts. Please properly extend your arguments, and provide me a roadmap or what you want to say for the sake of organization

-properly explain all arguments please, especially progressive ones. Provide me roadmaps and extend everything in your argument. I’m ok with spreading. Put me on the email chain: @niechan789@gmail.com. I will vote for more developed and defended arguments.

email: julian@whiteley.com

add me to email chain/speechdrop

cx/pf/ld

follow rules of event, e.g. no cp or plan in pf

no spreading

1 - trad, larp

2 - k

3- kvk, phil

4 - theory/friv/trix

I will always evaluate 1 over 2, your weighing doesn't replace my intervention.