I am Rosalind Chang (rosalind.h.chang@gmail.com) and this is third year doing PF (second year on nat circuit) for Davidson Academy Online. I use all pronouns (they/them preferred), and I prefer to be called "you" or "judge."

TLDR: flow judge. be respectful, compare contentions, write my ballot for me.

General:

• Speed: I will lose a few words at 250+ wpm, so spread at your own risk. Feel free to send a script.

• Time yourself, keep track of your own prep. If you run over 10 seconds on a speech, I will not flow over time and your speaks will be affected.

• If I look confused, I probably am. Please feel free to use this info to collapse or elaborate.

• Ask me for clarifications before round if needed!

How I judge:

• Tech >= truth, but I won't be happy voting on a blippy link chain and won't vote on a morally repugnant argument (e.g. don't run death / racism / patriarchy good).

• Neutral to frameworks, will default to negative preference utilitarianism if none is presented.

• Will listen to (but not flow) cross, but you have to point out conceded points in the next speech and explain why it is important. Open to skipping grand cross. Flex prep okay.

• Extend in summary if you want me to weigh something. A 10 second summary of your most important cards + impact is fine. Defense isn’t sticky.

• Comparative + link weighing > impact weighing -- tell me why their responses to you don't work.

Etiquette:

• Read content warnings before the round starts. Mentioning the name of something without going into graphic detail is fine.

• Please try to be respectful during cross. Sexism / racism / homophobia / transphobia will result in a severe deduction in speaker points. Theory / IVIs will bring it to my ballot.

• Send cards promptly and don’t prep steal. Please don’t delay the round by more than 90 seconds. Exceptions: bad wifi / tech issues.

• I will call for evidence if you explicitly tell me to, but I'd really prefer not to intervene. Stop the round for an ev challenge if it's egregious, but if you lose the challenge it's an L20.

• If you clip, send a marked doc after the speech -- and your opponents can use the time before they receive the email as free prep. Paraphrasing evidence is permissible but only if you send a script of exactly what you said.

Speaker Points:

• If I think you should break, you'll probably be around 29.
• +0.3 for sending a fully carded doc AND disclosed OS (unless identity-based)
• +0.2 if you use Fontdiner Swanky OR if you format your case in a way to increase accessibility (e.g. dyslexia friendly font, colorblind friendly highlighting), add a note about it to the email chain so I know!
• Block 30s if the round is over in less than 45 minutes
• Open to 30 speaks theory <3

Prog:

** PLEASE DO NOT RUN PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS IF YOU ARE A NOVICE **

Really not a fan when people run prog because their opponents won't know how to respond in order to get a free win.

Theory is fine, Ks are iffy, explain them well but run at your own risk. I am uncomfortable with my ability to evaluate these fairly 100% of the time, but I've ran a few before- imperialism/militarism, cap, security, and queer Ks are most familiar to me. Please don't run phil, but make it very lay if you do.

• Defaults: DTD > DTA, counterinterps > reasonability, spirit > text, no RVIs

The following has my thresholds for arguments to be evaluated, with a higher threshold you'll have to do more work for me to buy an arg but I won't auto vote up/down. If you're hitting friends and want a fun round, the sky's the limit.

• truth > tech, it'll be harder for me to vote on friv.

• low threshold: disclosure good (OS > full text), round reports good, paraphrasing is usually bad

• high threshold: TKOs, tricks, presumption, plans (in PF), pomo Ks

Hi Folks!
I am a (mostly) public forum debater for Davidson Academy Online, and I'm so excited to be judging your rounds!

Debate Paradigm:

The path to my ballot is weighing your argument, signposting clearly, being responsive to what your opponents say, and having solid evidence. If you do all of those things, it is a pretty sure bet that I'm voting for you.

With that said, there are a few ways to lose my ballot.

1.) Running theory in a novice/rising star round: Debate the substantive resolution to help everyone learn. I'm totally comfortable evaluating theory, Ks, and really any progressive arguments, but if you run it in a novice round, I will drop you. If I'm judging you in an open round, run anything your heart desires- I promise I love a good theory round.

2.) Spreading in a novice round: we're here to learn, so please speak at a reasonable pace (a good max is about 230 words per minute). Don't outspread in novice rounds. With that said, I'm fine with speed (especially if you send me a doc) in any other round.

3.) Being rude: this is my personal ick in debate. If you say anything overly snarky, rude, profane, discriminatory, ect. you will lose the round. Some humor is appreciated, but please ensure you're always being respectful.

4.) Egregiously shady evidence ethics: if your opponents call you out for misusing your cards (and the card doesn't match what you said it did), I will probably drop your contention. If this happens more than twice, I will find reasons to vote against you. In other words, know your evidence and please be ethical about how you present your arguments. Represent your evidence accurately.

Some smaller things:

Please include me on the evidence exchange! glassford.elle@gmail.com. I will not look at it unless there's something your opponent calls out and I need to figure out which side I believe.

If it is a round where I'm comfortable with disclosing, I will. I promise you'll get super detailed feedback even if I orally disclose.

Speech Paradigm

I really value clear signposting in speeches! Everything you can do to make sure I'm following your argument is appreciated. I'll leave lots of detailed notes.

Hi, I am a parent lay judge and high school debater for DAO. Speed is preferred. I judge tech > truth and Friv > Theory > K > Tricks > Topicality. If you don't extend, I won't consider the argument. This goes for offense and defense. The more friv the theory, the higher I will evaluate it.

This goes without saying, but no bigotry and be nice.

Include me on email chain at nklapach@gmail.com

Speaker incentives:

+0.05 for each pushup you do during prep time

+2 if you win a friv theory argument with no jargon

+1 if you give your speech in a British accent

+0.5 if you roast Nir in your summary's off time roadmap

+0.5 if you weigh without jargon

-0.5 for each time you say the words "OMG," "bae," or "agree" Don't do it. Please don't.

-2 if you run RVIs

-0.5 if you run stock contentions

-0.5 if you say you negate the resolved on the affirmative or vice versa.

hey! I'm Nir, a junior at Davidson Academy Online and a PF national circuit debater.

add me to the email chain: (npechuk@gmail.com)and (daodebate@gmail.com)

tldr; run anything you want, if you tell me why to vote for it I will

also, feel free to ask any clarifying questions about my paradigm/preferences pre-round :)

︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵୨˚̣̣̣୧ - - - - - ୨˚̣̣̣୧ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵୨˚̣̣̣୧ - - - - - ୨˚̣̣̣୧ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵୨˚̣̣̣୧ - - - - - ୨˚̣̣̣୧ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵

general preferences:

• speed: send speech docs if you're going >225 wpm. If I can't understand you and I don't have a speech doc, I won't penalize you for it but I also won't be able to flow what you're saying
• signposting and off-time road maps: yes pls!
• extensions: feel free to make them short unless you're running something super complex
• evidence: don't misconstrue it, or speaks will plummet. I won't intervene on evidence so you have to call it out when your opponent misconstrues something in order for me to strike it from my flow.
• collapse on key pieces of defense and offense so that you have time to weigh the debate in the back half
• you'll be dropped for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or other discrimination

speaks:

• I'll add speaks for every (good) lana del rey reference you make
• other than that, these will be based on everything that my ballot won't reflect: strategy, charisma, humor, crossfire, how cool your contention names are, etc.
• I understand that speaks are a flawed system. I will range between a 28.5-30 to make sure that my implicit biases don't cost you a break

substance:

• the order I evaluate substance debates is as follows:
  metaweighing/framework (default util + magnitude) -> metaweighed weighing -> weighed offense -> remaining offense -> presume
• read literally anything you want :D

k:

• I'm open to any K as long as you explain it. Do not assume I'm familiar with your literature, but do assume that I am open to learning about it :)
• signposting is even more important here; please tell me what your link, impact, alt/method, framing, and underview are
• i'll evaluate pre and post fiat ks, but just let me know which your k is
• send speech docs if you read a k

theory:

• my default paradigm issues (all open for debate): no RVIs, yes OCIs, CIs > R, DTD > DTA
• I will vote on any type of theory if you win it
• send speech docs if you read theory

Hey y’all!

I'm Kierra Wang and I competed in PF for Davidson Academy Online. In my senior year, I accrued 7 bids to the Tournament of Champions and was ranked as high as 9th in the nation on NSD. In less than 2 years since I started debating, I championed the Columbia University Invitational with only one dropped ballot across my rounds.

TLDR - assume that I'm familiar with the procedures & terminology of public forum and can judge you accordingly.

.

A few key things:

• Be respectful to your opponents throughout the round (this should go without saying).

• Please be in the room at least 15 minutes before the round starts. I want to get ev sharing + introductions squared away before start time so I have time to give an RFD!

Include me in your email chain: kierrawang29@gmail.com. I won't really look at your cards unless the debate hinges upon an evidence comparison, and even then I need you as debaters to tell me which cards to look at and why.

.

General

!!! If you want to have a slow round, I'm down for that (and would strongly prefer it). Just confirm with your opponents and let me know before the round. I'll still flow and evaluate the round as a tech, but it's a place to practice rhetoric & have a chill rnd. More likely to give higher speaks bc I'm happier :)

I’m a traditional tech judge, Tech > Truth, tabula rasa. As a judge, it's my job to listen. Make the ballot really clear and implicate so I know how to vote in the round. I love rounds where both sides interact with each other’s links and, more importantly, warranting.

I want to make sure that I get everything in the round on my flow so as a rule of thumb, if you’re going over 225 wpm I would like a speech doc. If I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it.

Send evidence quickly — cards should be cut and ready.

Keep track of your own time. I won’t be timing you (unless you're competing in novice). Don't time-steal for prep. If I feel like there’s something fishy going on, that will be reflected in the decision and/or your speaks.

I love good warranting & implication! Although evidence is super important, I will prefer the side that explains exactly why their case is better in-round over the side that just throws evidence at me. Understand your links or you will lose the round.

.

Public Forum

I want to see clash throughout speeches. Interact with each other’s cases or I’ll be forced to vote on presumption. Note: you can contest which team I should default to if the round is a wash.

Cross: I don’t flow during cross. Anything important should be brought up in following speeches. I prefer fun crosses and stupid questions (without being mean, obviously).

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal.

Summary: This is the perfect time for weighing and implications. In the back-half of the debate, I want to hear more comparative arguments.

FF: Go over the big-picture analysis and extend what your partner says. I will not evaluate any new content; sole exception is meta-weighing in 1st FF if weighing was introduced in 2nd summary. Implications should have been made in rebuttal/summary. Try to mirror summary.

Extending is necessary. I need to hear an extension in Summary and FF or there will be no offense on your case. Extension can be a simple summary of key links / important cards + impact. I’m not that nitpicky with extensions but a better extension will help me understand your argument better and its relevance in my ballot. In general, though, I'd rather you spend more time warranting and defending the parts of your link that are being contested by your opponents' rebuttals than just reading a super long extension.

Since I don't keep track of time, I'll keep flowing speech until you stop talking. This is an incentive to time your opponents in case they go horrifically over time.

Don't spread or run prog against novices (unless they spread/run prog). It will be an auto L.

I <3 signposting, off-time roadmaps, good evidence, and weighing+meta-weighing!

.

BQ

Please try to signpost (key definitions, args, etc.) to the best of your abilities throughout speeches.

Spell out the ballot for me! Why are your definitions or examples better? What did the opp(s) drop and why is that good for you? Why do you win the round?

.

Parli

Not super experienced with parli, but I understand the rules and order. Spell out your arguments to me accordingly. Treat me like a lay judge!

I want there to be room for clash. Prop should keep this in mind, and Opp should respond accordingly. Don’t bicker about loosely related tangents because it’ll be a lot harder for me to vote on anything.

.

Theory / Ks

I think that many debaters use theory and Ks to get easy wins, which is a bad norm for the debate space because we should not be trivializing real-world issues. I do not like prog rounds.

The sole exception is IVIs. I am very willing to vote off IVIs to check back on in-round abuse.

.

Speaks / Speaker Points

The average value for speaks that I will give is a 28.5. Humor and fun rounds will boost your speaks.

+0.5 for using a ridiculous analogy to describe the opposition’s case, e.g. a donut or sponge

+0.5 for saying “bae” or “OMG” (not "oh my God" but OMG) at some point throughout the round

-0.5 for asking me how much prep you have left

.

Good luck debaters!