I do PF debate at Newton South.

key thing to win my ballot: if the word nuclear isn’t in the resolution, it shouldn’t be in your speech, my vote and your speaks will further clarify that if need be!

Onto the other stuff… I flow the round. I am nicer than my paradigm makes me seem (just don't run nuclear war).

If you want feedback, I'd be more than happy to give you some after round!

Truth ---------------------------------------------*--------------------------------- Tech

stuff (tl;dr - just be reasonable, it's called public forum for a reason)

• Be nice, do not be the person that makes the debate space an unpleasant place to be. That is not appealing.

• Don't bring up new evidence when you're not supposed too. Likewise, don't burden yourself by making your entire speech about the new responses. A simple "it's new evidence so drop it" is enough; I flow after all, let me evaluate if it's new evidence.
• 10 second grace period, then I stop flowing.
• Try to have substantive, direct responses, and stray away from responses like 'this response just doesn't make sense'

• Please time your own prep!
• Tournaments are long, so please make the round interesting/funny and ill give everyone 30's. (don't run nuclear war though)
• You're given a few minutes per speech, use all of it, it exists for a reason.
• At the end of the day, it's your round, have fun, I am just your judge! (but don't run nuclear war)

Pop quiz, should you run nuclear war?

Hi! I debate PF at Newton South High School!

If u have any questions feel free to msg me on facebook messenger or email me @drormia@gmail.com

creds to janani ganesh <33

general stuff

a. i think weighing is like THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a round pls weigh and give a strong narrative

b. tech ----------------x-------------------------------------- truth

speed/speech:

- u can speak fast but not like extremely fast, try to go like conversational speed

- if u have a speaking disability (ex. stuttering) lemme know before round or msg me but if you dont feel comfortable telling me im not gonna tank anyone speaks for stuttering [the same applies for any other like disablity, i want to make debate as inclusive as possible]

- if ur opponents tell u to slow down, pls slow down there are many factors why ur opponents may ask u that

however if u r spreading send me and ur opponents a speech doc

content

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. DO VOTERS (ex. "there are 3 places ur voting for us in this round") i want to spend as little time after the round deciding who won (unless if theres clash ofc which is rly good) and i rly dont want to intervene

- weighing is so crucial. if there is not weighing i will default whoever's narrative is stronger.

- i hate theory so pls try not to run it. try to treat me like a lay with theory. if ur rly pressed about running theory/k's ask ur opponents first if they are comfortable cus not everyone has the resources to learn about these kinds of things

- make sure to point out which arguments are conceded/dropped but don't lie or i will be sad

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

- make sure ur not just asking clarifying questions but attacking their stance as well

- if both of yall run out of things to say just ask ur opponents how their day was

- dont be rude but be assertive pls i wanna see confidence!!

Debate should be a safe and inclusive environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before or during round pls feel free to reach out to me at my email: drormia@gmail.com

I'm excited to judge all of you! Let’s make every round a fun round!

general stuff (tl;dr) :

• I'm annie. I do debate. LHS '24//UChicago '28 (btw I know nothing about sports. this doesn't make me more likely to vote one way or another but if you're debating the student athlete topic just know I'm about as well-educated on that as your average hermit)

• My job is to adapt to you! This paradigm gives you a guide to my default style but if you have any preferences feel free to ask me to adapt to them. This is just here so I seem like a serious person :)

• Don’t be a jerk! I understand rounds can be heated, but there’s no need to get mad over the US sending things to alaska. Also, if your actions end in -ist, I’ll be the destructionist of your speaks

• No need to speed! The best rounds are tech rounds that are still at a conversational pace, now I can flow faster rounds but if you choose to go fast make sure you are clear (NOTE: Spread at your own risk. Stay 250 wpm or below, lest you want me to not flow something)

• Tech>truth: This means that I will be okay with voting on any arguments as long as they aren’t problematic or exclusionary, if the argument wins on the flow I will sign my ballot for it

• Ask Questions! There might be a bit of jargon in my paradigm that might not be easy to understand so if you aren’t sure how to do something, need clarification on certain parts of my paradigm, or want feedback after the round I’ll be more than happy to help!

• I like raccoons: and if you make a joke about one that would be nice, but no speaker points boost im afraid :(

Substance round:

• I evaluate rounds level by level: I start with the weighing - whose impacts are more important? Then, I ask who wins the best link into that argument? That’s where I’ll sign my ballot

• Please extend and collapse: Choose your best piece of offense (contention or turn) to go for in the backhalf, and when extending the case (giving a quick narrative summary of your argument) in summary or final, please please please actually extend the argument instead of just reading the card name ie “extend smith ‘22” is not a full extension, explain it from uniqueness to impact

• We could be weighin but you playin (in other words, please weigh!): I know this comes up a lot on paradigms, and it’s because weighing helps judges determine which impacts are more important. If both teams win links into different impacts, it’s up to weighing to determine which impact is to be prioritized

• Evidence Ethics/Calling for Evidence: I generally won’t call for evidence unless I think it’s important or if someone in the debate tells me to. I prefer evidence shared on docs because then teams won’t spend too much time sending evidence over the sub-par wifi, but it won’t affect my decision. Miscut evidence would hurt your speaks and, if miscut enough, might lose you a few arguments

• Defense is NOT sticky: sticky defense means that if a team reads defensive arguments or responses in rebuttal, second rebuttal or first summary doesn’t need to respond to it. This rule was made back when summary was only 2 minutes long but now that it’s been extended to 3 minutes there is no reason for defense to be sticky

• I presume First: If nobody wins any arguments at the end, I will presume (vote automatically) for the first speaking team. would prefer rounds not to end this way

THE REST OF THIS PARADIGM IS FOR PROGRESSIVE DEBATE! IF YOU ARE A NOVICE DON’T SWEAT IT BUT SINCE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ARE SEEPING INTO NOVICE ROUNDS THIS WILL STILL BE HERE FOR REFERENCE!

Theory (if you must):

• I have no theory biases except trigger warnings are good and disclosure is good, I won’t hack for either of these but if you run theory otherwise you might want to keep that in mind

• If you make a trigger warning you should use a trigger warning form that is anonymous for respondents, I generally think that war/poverty impacts don't need trigger warnings (but you can argue otherwise and I will consider it like any other argument) but you do need trigger warnings for anything else that could be potentially triggering (feel free to ask me if you want me to clarify) eg trafficking, genocide, mental health issues, etc

• I default to competing interps and no RVIs unless told otherwise but I have no biases on this and which way I end up evaluating the round depends on what yall say

• Extend the full shell through every speech otherwise it’s considered dropped, I have very tiny threshold for “spirit of the shell” especially if it’s frivolous theory

Ks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

• I will treat evidence challenge IVIs as round ending issues, but if I vote on an IVI I need it to be developed and warranted instead of a 3 second blip about why they should be voted down for doing X

• I am alright with prefiat frameworks but it’s better for them to be warranted in addition to the cards so the reasons why your framework means you should be voted up make sense even to debaters who aren’t familiar with prefiat arguments

• I am suspicious of “link ins are not allowed” arguments, not that I automatically vote against them but reading these arguments need a lot of good warranting for me to be open to it

• If Kritiks are read, they need to be slow and warranted, the same applies to T and perm do boths if you choose to read them in response

• If neither side wins or weighs between K and theory, I default to evaluating theory first but that changes depending on how you debate the round

• I’m not entirely comfortable voting on identity Ks against debaters of that identity, I won’t vote you down for this but it could potentially affect speaker points

Speaker Points Guide (I tend to be SUPER lenient about speaker points my coach yelled at me for giving too high speaker points so take that how you will)

29.5-30: debating was excellent, very well articulated, no big flaws in debating or strategy!

29-29.5:I thought your debating was good, maybe a few minor mistakes but nothing particularly bad

28-29: average, good debating overall but some mistakes, but not too bad (this is a pretty big range so the extent of a mistake or speaking style is going to impact where you fall on this scale)

27-28:made some pretty big strategic mistakes in this round

sub 27: There were a lot of large mistakes in this debate, or you were very unclear

I won't go below 26.5 but if you say something problematic. Then, I'm dropping your speaks to the lowest possible in the tournament .... just please don't UwU. We want to keep this a welcome space for everyone! If you feel unsafe please please please let me know ASAP - your safety is more important than a random high school debate round!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!!!!!

SHS ‘26 congress kid with some experience in PF/Extemp. Speechies and debate novices, go to the bottom of the paradigm!

VPF:

tldr; a pretty normal flow judge

I’m a flow judge because of the countless lost rounds due to a parent judge not going off the flow and I firmly believe that tech > truth but if you want me to switch to flay/lay i def dont mind.

if you don't weigh, you lose the round. pls weigh! (and don't j say you outweigh on xyz, tell me why!) (metaweigh too, pretty pls)

second rebuttal must frontline first rebuttal

i presume neg

anything not extended in summary AND ff is dropped.

tell me voters in ff

im not good at remembering taglines nor do i really care about them. Tell me what you’re extending instead of just saying “extending somenamehere ‘XY…”

I’d prefer more analysis on constructive/rebuttal. This doesn’t mean that your warrants can be bad, but analysis def matters more than warrants. I’d rather have you explain a really short warrant than a really long warrant explaining it for you

speed is ok as long as you are clear. I type slow and hand-write even slower so it will be really hard to flow your arguments if you’re yapping

PF Prog: tldr don’t run it unless theory

• I kinda sorta hate tricks, run it and get a 26
• i’m kinda eh about theory. i don’t like it when it is run like a free win pass, but if there is a genuine violation (or tricks. Can’t express how much i don’t like tricks…..) go for it.
• I actually like Ks as long as they make sense, but i don’t like them in pf. Run a good K for an automatic 30, run a dumb K and get a 26. If it’s like the last round and y’all just want to have fun, this doesn’t apply
• disclo is stupid imo and i won’t evaluate it

VLD:

I’ve never done LD, but if, for any reason, im judging LD, just don’t spread like crazy. I understand the event enough to not really care about any crazy progressive arguments being presented (minus tricks. Don’t do tricks) but i will remind you that my main event is congress (where everyone speaks at snail speed, no offense) so if you talk at 250+ WPM i will not understand you.

Policy:

Why is there policy on the local circuit? Why would I be judging policy on natcirc? Anyways i have no idea how policy works so treat me like a lay judge who happens to be flowing :) and don't spread-spread.

BQ

See policy. Why am I judging BQ? But since imo BQ is a lot easier to understand than CX, i may be able to judge a lot better. See VPF/VLD paradigm for more specifics

Congress:

Congress is a speech and debate event imo. Both your presentation and interaction with the round matter.

I personally rank 60% based on speeches and 40% based on questioning. Giving amazing speeches but asking no questions is kinda sucky in my book but it’s still possible to rank high. Giving great questions but no speeches, I think it’s possible to rank in the higher but you have to be like reaallly good at questions so I dont suggest it.

if you say “contention”unironically that’s an automatic 11 from me (I’m joking but like I will get really annoyed)

Personally? I don’t really care about some rehash. It’s difficult to have a completely unique speech. As long as you can add something to the debate (like a new impact, source, study, etc), it’s not gonna tank your speech scores. I’m not gonna like it very much if your whole speech is just rehash, but a bit isn’t going to hurt you.

Cool intros = cool speech scores probably

flip sides and get a 5/6 or 7/8 (depends on the scale). I really like it if you flip to the unconventional side. It’s difficult but lets be honest, you look wayyyyy better to the judge than if you were to give the 4th aff in a row

I expect almost every speech after 1A to respond to or at least mention at least 1 person, and everyone after 3A to respond to at least 2. Respond to someone as 1N or 2A and you may get bumped a rank (bc it’s annoying to change prewrittens)

po-ing is hard. do an ok job as a PO and you can expect at least a 6 or top half of chamber rank as long as you speak and ask questions to some extent. personally, i don't see po as an easy break but go for it if you really want to try!! Novices, if it’s ur first tournament like ever, I’d suggest to wait for a dif tournament for POing

Extemp

Literally y’all extempers are so talented I can’t

some ways to rank higher with me:

• choose the unconventional answer!
• Good and properly cited sources; i don’t care about fluency breaks but if you’re the best speaker in the world citing Wikipedia or something, I’m not ranking you high.
• this section is a work in progress because I havent done extemp in a hot minute. Ask me any questions in round though

ALL Speech minus extemp (even though speechies dont have paradigms):

im being honest, just do your best. y'all do great and it's so fun to watch speech final rounds or natcirc speeches. My sister also does speech (I know you read my paradigm, Alice) so i can’t really be mean and say that debate > speech nd whatnot

PF/LD/CX/BQ NOVICES:

y'all are great for giving this activity a shot. just have fun with it and don't be afraid to ask questions!! generally, i try to judge novices more flay than flow. i understand that it's super hard to try to respond to everything, but if you want me to judge full lay or just be a flow judge, that's alright as long as your opps are ok with it.

other notes:

• speak clearly! i spoke wicked fast as a novice, and that was probably a mistake bc it was hard to understand to most judges
• I tend to like more traditional debates for novices (ie. no prog). it's important to make sure you know what you're doing and get a feel for the event before jumping into Ks, theory, etc
• cross should remain civil!! this is a kinda big issue for novices but you shouldn't try to intimidate or make fun of your opponent!! poking holes in a case makes you look smart, acting like a jerk makes you look like you're full of yourself and your speaks WILL get tanked.
• don't steal prep time!! even if you have virtually nothing down, just extemp it! no harm on your speaking scores, the only way to get a 27.0- from me is if you're rude or offensive (or if you run abusive/bad prog. Dw about that yet)
• have any questions about the definitions of stuff on the rest of my paradigm? Feel free to ask me about it. It’s good to know!

email me if you have questions before or after round! (i suggest you cc both emails)

School: awhe26@students.shrewsbury.k12.ma.us

Personal: amy.he215@gmail.com

hihi! i’m navaa (she/her), a junior w/ 3 years of pf experience at newton south :D

YES! i wanna be on the email chain – navaamalihi@gmail.com.

if you have any questions, please email me before round!

right off the bat – any racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, antisemitism, transphobia, overt mansplaining/aggression etc will not be tolerated. automatic L + lowest speaks possible

speaks: if you do most of what I ask, you'll get a 28.5!

equity concerns: if there are any instances of abuse in the round or if you're feeling uncomfortable let me know me immediately (over email). i’ll likely notice and do something of my own accord even if you don’t!

novices:

y’all are doing amazing by just being in this space! just remember that your main priority should be learning + having a good time. there are three things i’d love to see you do: extend your warrants and impacts clearly, weigh a lot (don’t just say “we win on probability,” explain why and be comparative please!), and frontline properly (respond to your opponents' responses with clear and interactive warranting). finally, please be kind to your opponents during cross! if you have any questions, ask them before round.

FOR SCRIM:feel free to read what i've written for varsity when it comes to prog. also if you make a tiktok reference i get OR reference any uconn wcbb player (iykyk) OR dance your way into round (with or without music) you get +0.5 speaks. you can only do one of these per round.

varsity:

tldr: your average flow judge!

make my decision as easy as possible! my holy trinity is weighing *comparatively*, warranting *thoroughly*, and signposting *often* (if i don't know where you are on the flow, i will mentally check out). if you run absolutely wild args (e.g. nuke war on plastics) my threshold for responses will be super low. i hate intervening -- do everything in your power to make intervention unnecessary!

general stuff:

• evidence: evidence ethics are important! i'm fine w paraphrasing to a very conservative extent but if you fully misconstrue important evi, expect an L. if a piece of evidence sounds too good to be true or becomes really truly central to the round, expect me to call it. i won't buy something just because some author says it's true, so give me evidence + the warranting behind it. finally, i don't flow card names so don't just say "smith 21," tell me what smith says.

• i’m ok with speed but not spreading (>225 wpm), so if you spread please send docs!

• extensions: if you don’t extend your uniqueness, link and/or impact you don’t have offense, and responses must be extended in every speech. make fun of me all you want but debate is a public speaking activity so try to make your extensions sound good.

• weighing: all turns must be weighed or i can't vote off them! if your opponents don't properly weigh a turn point that out in addition to frontlining and you're set. also, please make sure you respond to your opponents' weighing! i cannot vote well if the weighing debate is a wash :(( by final weighing is all that really matters, don't get too caught up in the line-by-line!

• frontlining: please for the love of god put effort into frontlining and make it interactive. don’t group 4 unrelated responses on your case with a single blippy unresponsive frontline and call it a day.

• finals: i'm ok with a few new weighing mechanisms in first final but there absolutely shouldn't be anything new in second final. final should write my ballot for me so do exactly that!

• please please please do not run prog or trix. i have 0 experience running either so you're taking a serious shot in the dark. tbh from my experience i'm not a fan of most kinds of theory & i'm not opposed to k's but can't judge them well in the slightest, so i'd really prefer substance debates.

last but certainly not least, be kind, genuine, and civil or i'll tank your speaks!!

Hi hi I'm Taban (she/her/hers), a 3rd year public forum debater at Newton South :) Pls include me on the email chain.

Debate should be a safe and accessible environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before, during, or after round pls feel free to fill out this anonymous form or reach out to me at my email tmalihi1@gmail.com (I'll be checking it regularly during rounds/tournaments I judge)

On that note, be respectful or your speaks will suffer. In speeches, cross, when asking for evidence, always. If you read a triggering case and don't read content warnings that everyone in the round (judges included) can anonymously opt out of, it's an auto L with the lowest speaks I can give, same goes for bigoted arguments/rhetoric. General guideline: read warnings for suicide, domestic violence, sexual violence, and graphic descriptions of violence & suffering.

Disclosure: I can't disclose for LS but I'll be giving comments.

Panel tips: If I'm on a panel please adapt to the other judges' needs--I can follow a lay round, but lay judges can't often follow a flow round. Basically, just go FLAY: keep a narrative, but use efficiency+rhetoric to win on the flow.

Below I've separated my paradigm into a Novices section, Varsity section, and Everyone section. Feel free to read as much or as little as you'd like--basically I'm your standard flow judge.

তততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততত

Novices! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

I do my best to evaluate the round based on the defense and offense I have written down at the end of the round, and I really don't like having to intervene to make decisions. It's your job to tell me clearly why you win a round--write my ballot for me :)

General strategy things I like:

1. I care about your presentation, but as long as I can understand your points it doesn't matter what your speaking style is. I encourage you to try out new things and not worry about things like tripping up, stuttering, etc.--these are all part of the learning process and it's my responsibility as a judge to make sure y'all have a safe space

2. I highly recommend that you "collapse"--that means that in summary and final focus, you're going to choose only one of your arguments to talk about. For me, a single well-explained argument is ALWAYS better than two or three barely-explained arguments. The earlier in the round you collapse, the better!

3. Weigh your arguments! This tells me where to look first to evaluate arguments. Win your argument, win the weighing you used with it, and I'll 97% of the time vote on it

4. Point out things that are conceded or dropped by your opponents (if they don't respond to it in the speech after it's introduced, it's conceded/dropped. This means you probably win it, but please! If you want me to vote off of it, you HAVE to continue to explain it in every speech after that.)

Feel free to email me after round if you'd like more in-depth feedback or have questions :)

****************

Varsity! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

TLDR:

Here’s how I evaluate the round: Framing --> weighing --> offense --> default 1st speaking team

• You need to win your offense to win the weighing :)

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, judge intervention is not a fun time for anyone, do the analysis and write my RFD for me <3

• I’m a flow judge

• Tech>Truth

• Topicality>Theory

• Disclaimer: might not be the best at evaluating progressive arguments, Kritiks and non-frivolous theory (including in-round violations) are ok, but def not a fan of disclosure/paraphrase theories (regardless of my personal beliefs on debate norms)

• Please don’t run stuff just to win rounds because you know your opponents can’t respond to it. I am especially inclined to believe performative contradictions (ex: that disclosure shell one might read on a pair of novices in JV quarters, but didn’t read in a single other round, is probably not on-net helping debate norms, which makes me doubt the motives behind it). However, if it’s clear you’re reading your argument because it genuinely means a lot to you and/or exposing more people to its content would be beneficial, I will do my best to evaluate it in any round.

• Point out things that are conceded or dropped (including defense--it’s not sticky)

⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆ S̶̙͔͚̪͉̲̼͙̆̓͛͂̿͂̆P̴̧̳̤̰̟̘͚̘͙͇̚E̴̗̰̎̂̈́C̷̤̹̯̥̟͌̃̌̋̔͝Í̸͈̱͍͇̻̲̔̂̄͒̂̕̚͠F̷̛͚͍̼͍̣͉̣̱̟̠͂̊̊̓̉̌̽Į̴̣̟̜͔͈͚͙̠̃̐́̓̐̃̃͘̕͝ͅC̸̢̤̮̒̒̇̔̄̋͆̓̕Ṣ̶̡̲̮͓̫͉̲͑⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆

*THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY*

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread in any speech but if you do:

1) check with your opponents if it's okay with them

2) send everyone a speech doc with everything you read in round

*********************

Evidence:

• Don’t misconstrue evidence--paraphrasing is fine but please make sure you have good evidence ethics. I won't drop you for badly misconstrued evidence unless your opponents read args as to why I should, in any case I will probably just not evaluate the evidence/argument in my decision

• I’ll only look at/call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision

• When you extend evidence throughout every speech in the round, please extend the actual logic/warrant and not just the author name -- I value the content over just flowing the card name and date

*********************

Cross:

• I will be using this time to figure things out on my end, set up my flow for the next speeches, and write up my comments, so I won't flow during cross

• Please be respectful. If you're rude, aggressive, or consistently speak over others, your speaks will suffer.

*********************

Rebuttal:

• Please signpost/tell me where you are on the flow, off-time roadmaps are ok but pls keep them concise

• Well warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants/logic ("Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO." -EK)

• Second rebuttal should at least respond to offense (turns, disads, weighing, etc.) and terminal defense

• All turns/disads need impacts, or else I don't know how to evaluate them. Weighing can come in summary.

**********************

Summary/FF:

• Summary + FF should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL FOCUS, everything you extend in final focus should have been in summary, from the warrants to the impacts to the weighing)

• First final can have new-ish responses to new stuff in second summary, but second final should have nothing new at all (I will know)

• Collapse however you like, but quality over quantity--if I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote on it.

• WEIGHING is key--tell me why your arguments are more important than/matter more than theirs :)

• Weigh case/turns/disads

• Interact with your opponents' weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded. NOTE: just because your weighing is conceded doesn’t mean you stop explaining it, please warrant it out every time

• Meta-weigh (weigh your weighing mechanisms over their weighing mechanisms)

***********************

Thresholds for new responses:

- Offense (turns, disads): second rebuttal at the latest. First rebuttal, they don't need to be weighed, but second rebuttal, please weigh to give your opponents time to respond in first summary.

- Weighing: second summary by the latest, I'm good with meta-weighing in first final if it involves previously existing weighing in response to your opponent's weighing. The earlier you start this, the better <3

- Defense (in response to their case): second rebuttal

- Responses to their defense/frontlines/backlines: in the speech after it was introduced, otherwise what they say goes conceded, and the last I should hear of these should be first final focus at the very, very latest (and even then it's a little late)...second final focus should have nothing new at all, please

**********************

Speaker points: I base my speaker points on how well you balance technicality and maintaining a solid narrative! If I can understand your arguments and you're respectful, you will get a minimum of 28 speaks.

• +0.5 speaker points for a speech doc for every speech (even when you don't spread)

• Collapse in 2nd rebuttal! You choose ONE argument to focus on/vote on this early in the round, I give you +0.5 speaker points. Win-win.

-----｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆----‧͙⁺˚*･༓☾ ⊹ ‧̫‧ ⊹ ☽༓･*˚⁺‧͙---- ｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆-----

i agree with these paradigms

Enya Kamadolli: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Andrew Li: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=99668

Zach Diar: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Michael Chu: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Joy Taw: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

**i want to emphasize that I was a pretty traditional PF/LD debater and my experience with theory/other progressive arguments was very limited. i won't evaluate any progressive arguments (including disclosure theory). for LD, treat me like a lay judge**

1. I vote on the flow, with that being said if it is not said, I can't vote on it. However, if both teams are not doing the work, I'll have to do it alone, and you might not like my decision.
2. Respond to everything if you are going for an argument. If you don't respond to it, it's conceded.
3. Whenever you extend a case you need to extend the entire link chain, not just the argument. This includes extending authors, warrants, and impacts.
4. Don't speak fast.

Hi, I'm Anahitha! I'm a junior at Newton South and I have three years of experience with PF debate.

Just some general stuff:

I'm generally tech>truth but narrative is really good and your warranting has to make some amount of sense. I will vote for a turn if it's warranted and weighed well though.

I'm okay with speed, but be ready to send a speech doc if you spread.

Don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. in round. It makes us all uncomfortable and I will drop you for it.

If you make an email chain, please include me:

Email: anahitha.menon13@gmail.com

Speeches:

Frontline in second rebuttal

WEIGH! Above all else, please weigh. There's no easier way to win my ballot.

I'm Ben (he/him) from Milton High.

Tech>Truth

Include benneugebauer42@gmail.com in email chains for evidence, etc.

Rebuttal: Signposting is a must, 2nd rebuttal should frontline completely.

Cross: I don't flow cross but I will pay attention.

Summary+Final: Collapse something, collapsing with good weighing is better than extending three meh contentions.

Please time yourselves, I don't flow anything 15 seconds over.

Don't be jerks, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am a student debater that has been debating Varsity Public Forum for 4 years. I am also head of the Public Forum at my school.

What I expect:

• Respect throughout the entire round.
• Fluent talking, I can flow at all speech levels but believe smooth talking is the best way to debate.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Updated Jan 18 2022.

Hello! I'm Jessica. I am always extremely happy to be judging:)

I am a former LD debater from Wyoming! I qualified for Nationals in Big Questions, World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. I did CX PF and Parli in college briefly as well.

I am not looking for anything wild in terms of the way you choose to debate. I trust debaters to do what's best for them and persuade me to vote your direction. If you tell me what I should vote on, I will listen, but if you don't I will just weigh the arguments made in round considering the impacts of all arguments, logic of the arguments, and overall coverage of major arguments. Logical arguments will always outweigh cards if you do not provide your own explanation of how the evidence applies to the round. Please provide voting issues for me.

- Please be as polite as possible:)

- Off clock road maps are dandy. Online - I'd also be happy if you said your name and side before you started speaking so that if I happen to not be looking directly at the video I can still tell who's who.

- You can talk fast if you need to, I do understand speed but it will make me sad in anything that is not CX.

- I will not read the evidence in the docs (except in CX), especially if you are not reading them at a speed that I can understand probably, but you sure are welcome to send it to me, and if you specifically tell me to "look at ___ because," then I will.

- I will listen to arguments made in CX, and please be sure to bring them up again in another speech.

- If you are debating LD, please debate LD, not policy. This is not to say I won't vote for you if you are running a counter plan, or talk fast, it just means your debate needs to be centered around ethics.

Email - jessicapetri@gmail.com

Hey guys

I'm Avni (she/her), and I'm a junior at lex :) This is my third year doing LD. add me to the email chain 25stu090@lexingtonma.org

For novices, you can speak fast but just make sure your opponent is ok with it, and if you aren't clear/I can't understand you, just know that i'm not flowing it

I like policy/trad the best, but if you wanna run a k or theory I'm very familiar with too - I'm not the biggest fan of T but i will vote on it if its warranted and I am not a big fan of phil or trix. my number one biggest thing is to have VOTERS and WEIGH!!! tell me why I should be voting for you and why you outweigh. also make sure to tell I should frame the round and how you win under that FW.

just some other general noyes - please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow - if there are multiple offs, give me a second to switch flows before you keep speaking

Don't be homophopic, racist, etc. and if you say anything offensive to your opponent regarding that I will drop you

Finally, debate is supposed to be a fun activity, so don't take it too seriously! Have fun!!

If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)

Senior and PF captain @ Bronx Science.

smirnovad@bxscience.edu (put me on the email chain)

I will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check-in time and if you do not show up preflowed.

If you don't cut your cards, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).

I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

General

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.

Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Metaweighing is great, do it.

I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.

Framing/Ks

I'm most familiar with SV framing, identity Ks (fem, asian, afropess, queer), cap and sec. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.

Theory

I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. That being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me".

If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (to quote Roy Tiefer, don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments).

Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)

Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev

Other things

Dont be rude lol

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.

Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene

How to get high speaks:

1. Use Taylor Swift lyrics in your speeches
2. Say "bffr" during probability weighing
3. Bring me skittles
4. Every time you say a turn in rebuttal you have to physically turn

Hi y'all :) My name is Sofia Telio, and I am a second year PF varsity debater for Newton South High School. Yes, I want to be added to the evidence exchange chain (teliostal@gmail.com).

For scrim:

-Don't take it too seriously (ie have fun and run what you want).

- that's basically it, just don't be jerks

-if you can include a funny movie reference that I get + 0.5 speaks

-if you do cx in an accent (Southern, British, etc.) as long as it's understandable and both sides agree to it+0.5 speaks.

Non-scrim:

→I will flow the round, but I will not do the warranting for you.

→Tech > Truth

→Please track your own prep! I will time speeches and stop flowing after 10 seconds over the time limit.

→If you have questions, ask me! (You can also email me after round if you have a question about the decision).

→I will be more than happy to give feedback after round should you ask for it.

→I will disclose if allowed.

IN GENERAL:

• Don't be an awful person! Be respectful to everyone because otherwise the round isn't fun for anyone.
• Please, please, please weigh!! Ideally META weighing (comparing the weighing) but weighing of any kind is how you win the round in my eyes.
• No new evidence/responses after first summary. If a response is stated in rebuttal or case and not extended though each speech, and you come up in FF and say it was conceded, I will not believe you because I flow.
• I like collapsing in summary or second rebuttal, but that's up to you, and the round will not be decided off of it.
• Quality of speech > Number of responses
• Focus on actual content of the round. If they don't respond to something, definitely point it out, but that shouldn't be your whole speech.

ME PERSONALLY:

• Though I don't vote on it, I truly believe rounds can be won or lost during cross, so please use it wisely. (This will impact your speaks!)
• Please don't steal prep while asking for cards! It shouldn't take more than a minute to find a card.
• I'm not a huge fan of evidence indicts. I will listen to them, but the round won't be decided on them unless it's blatantly misconstrued.
• Please be coherent! I can flow quickly because I am a debater, but I do not have superpowers and if you are mumbling I won't be able to hear you.
• Writing out my ballot for me is always the best way to secure a W, so do voters.
• Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread, but if you are spreading check with your opponents and send a speech doc.
• If possible, give an off time roadmap! EVEN IF YOU GIVE ONE SIGNPOST!!!!

CLASH:

• I LOVE clash!
• However, don't just read different evidence and don't interact at all. If one side tells me pasta is good and the other tells be pasta is bad, I don't know who to vote for. Tell me WHY, and that's where I'll vote.

SPEAKER POINTS:

• Speaker points largely come from your ability to balance narrative and technicality.
• Be eloquent and don't be a bad person, and your speaks will be fine.
• My average is 28.5.

PROG (if you don't know what this is, ignore it):

• I don't like theory, I think it's annoying. I much prefer actual substance in the round, that's what the topic was, that's what you should be debating. If there is an actual violation (minus disclosure theory) you can run it, but I'd still advise against it because I will probably notice and drop them. Basically what I'm saying is you can run theory, it's your round, but I am horrible at evaluating it and will most likely chose substance over it.
• -Ks are fine. I CAN flow them, I am no expert at flowing or evaluating them. Do with that as you will.
• -Other stuff that I'm missing... the fact that I cannot name it is probably a sign to you...

At the end of the day, it's just a debate round. It will not determine your future, I promise you'll be fine. Confidence is key! Best of luck to y'all!!! :)

Also, shout out to my partner Ellis ♥ Wouldn't be here without you bestie!!!!

Hello Debaters. The only paradigm I can have is just remember to quantify your impacts, this means provide numbers to impacts also remember to signpost so I know where in the flow you are. Its okay to speak fast, critical thinking is appreciated. Remember to weigh impacts.

Thank you

I'm a college sophomore at McGill University.

I did LD in high school for 3 years.

Don't spread, stick to substance for the most accurate decision but I can handle pretty much anything.

Be nice :)

Email: ezhang8599@gmail.com

pref guide:

Trad/LARP 1

K- 1/2

phil - 4

theory - 2/3

tricks - 5/strike

LD:

CX: I don't flow CX, but I am listening. If you want it considered in my decision bring it up in a speech. i default to binding cross.

Theory/T: I will always vote on RVIs. I default to reasonability, but this can literally be changed with a single sentence. I'd prefer if this was saved for reasonable abuse instead of used as cheap strategy to win the ballot I know what it's like to be blipped and your speaks will not like it if you try to blip through a shell 1ar and collapse entirely on it in 2ar. If you can clash, just clash.

Ks: I have a basic familiarity with most K lit, but I really like setcol and cap. It's really easy to see if you don't understand what you're running and I really hate seeing that.

CP/PICs/DAs: LARP is enjoyable in LD b/c it makes debate interesting. I default to PICs good and condo good. That can very easily be changed.

Phil: If you don't know what you're talking about, that might be a good time to strike. Otherwise, although I find it boring, I will listen and vote on it.

Impact Calc: please weigh well, if you want me making decisions on how to weigh for you, it'll not only be annoying but also unpredictable for you. The more you write for my ballot the better your speaks will be

Extend your arguments. This shouldn't be "extend [random card]" it should be "extend [card] b/c [warrant]"

TL;DR: Run anything you want, provided it's not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

tech>truth