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!! :))

SLHS '25

3rd-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, broke at nationals in policy!

PFer

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask me questions before the round!

Debate:

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!

• Ev>presentation any day dawg - just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy.

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.

• Progressive debate:

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus

• No substantially new arguments in both

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides.

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

Speech/Interp:

I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool!

Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

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.

Background Info: Hi there! I'm a varsity debater at Katy Taylor, thank you for checking out my paradigms! :)
>> I'm most familiar with LD and PF as I've previously competed in those events. However, I do have relative experience with other debate types such as Congress and Policy/CX but may not be as well caught up to their recent resolutions/topics.

My Paradigms:
[General]
>> I prefer debaters to not spread, unless in Policy. This does not mean I am completely against spreading, but if I can barely keep up with your arguments, spreading is not going to get you points from me. I value coherency and weighing arguments over how many arguments you can address. If you drop an argument from your opponent's case, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE. Don't stress, address what you can still address.
>> Please keep the debate respectful at all times. Personal attacking such as being disrespectful, calling your opponent underhanded comments like stupid in crossfire (yes it happened to me) will not appeal your case to me.
>> Being non-topical (or off-topic) in crossfire also will not get you points from me. I expect both sides of the debate to remain calm and educational to maximize the experience.
>> I do not mind whether you choose to stand or sit, your choice, whatever you feel more comfortable with.
>> If possible, please give off-the-clock roadmaps when you can. This helps me keep track of what's happening in the round when I am flowing.

[LD]
>> I judge based off how well you respond to your opponent's arguments and vice versa. Other important factors that I suggest you stress in voters is solvency and/or why your value-criterion is something I should prefer (as a judge) over your opponents.

[PF]
>> Do not spread. That is my #1 advice to all PF peeps out there. Don't do it, I definitely will not be giving you points for trying to bomboard your opponent with a list of arguments. Basic guidelines are the same as LD but will be focusing on delivery of speech and impact weighing.

uil circuit policy debater

I am a current PF Varsity Competitor, Familiar with almost all types of speech events and all debate events. I am very technically knowledgable, do not limit the types of arguments you run.

Debate/general

Explain your arguments to me clearly. Recommended speaking speed depends on the event, but I have no qualms judging a high-speed debate round with technical terms. Voters are a must, the team who gives me the easiest path to the ballot will be winning the round. Speaker points will be given based upon speaking skills, not argumentative skills, and thus are not reflective of your technical skill as a debater, but with the persuasiveness and fluidity of your speeches.

Speech/ general

Body language is very important, I want to be able to understand your tone with more than just your voice. Time signals are fine if you request them, and I won't be too mad at a stutter here or there, especially in outrounds. BE ENGAGING AND FLUID. I cannot stress this enough. You must be able to draw me in with a good performance, do proper accents if you choose to have them, and create an overall good experience for the watcher. For extemp, make sure you speak clearly, and try to be a little more concise with your arguments, saying something with too many words is a big ick. Again for extemp, you can be the most persuasive person in the world, but I will down you if you come up to the stage and begin to spew utter nonsense. Have fun!

PFDEBATE:

My critiques for this will be much more lengthy than the others, due to this being my main event.

For Varsity: Debate is a game, go crazy. (no counterplans)

Speech by speech expectations:

Constructive: For at least your constructive, I expect you to be proficient enough with your case to be able to read you case in a fluid manner, with tone and inflection in your voice. If you can, eye contact is appreciated, and is an immediate increase in speaks. I will provide a 10-15 second grace period after your speech, but anything after that is completely ignored. I won't tell you when time is up, so make sure to time your own speeches. For later speeches, cross applying evidence from your constructive is very powerful for me, since this is evidence that has been in since the beginning of the round. For speed, I prefer constructive to be a little slower than most other speeches, to make it understandable, but I won't down a varsity debater for spreading 4 contentions and theory.

Crossfire: Not a super important part of the debate but super interesting for me, please make sure to be respectful. Anything past 2 follow up questions is just scummy and you hogging cross time. Try and come to crossfire prepared to ask questions, awkward silence on either just makes the debate less fun. Evidence should be called in prep time, not crossfire, however you can ask me in crossfire to look at a piece of evidence that your opponents have that you think is false. Falsifying evidence does not mean that I will drop you, but I won't consider any part of the argument as offense for either side.

Rebuttal: 1st rebuttal should 100% attacking, unless you're defending theory arguments. For this I don't really have a speed limit whatsoever, go crazy, but be considerate if this is a novice PF round. I know literally all of the terms, and I will basically evaluate anything other than counterplans because that's literally not allowed in the event. (If you run a counterplan in novice, I will drop you). I don't have a specific standard for analytics vs carded responses, but I will prefer whichever argument you tell me to in round. Clash is very important to me, so make sure that your frontlines and attacks are extremely responsive, this will make me disposed towards buying your argument. Terminal defense for me is super important and will probably lose you the round if you don't respond to it, unless you weigh out of it.

Summary: A super important speech imo, make sure that you weigh properly and frontline your arguments.DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY. For you novices reading this, this means that you must extend your arguments through every speech otherwise I won't consider it. Once again, you must be very responsive in this speech, and should probably start narrowing down the arguments in the round. Make sure to tell me what arguments are important and why I should vote for you. Finally,WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. The emphasis I put on weighing is so immense, that you can literally LOSE the ENTIRE ROUND'S arguments, but if you have the most fire weighing ever, you can literally turn the tide of the debate with this speech. Also no new arguments please.

Final Focus: Condense the round for me, think of your arguments as two ships sailing past each other in the night. Make your words the light that lets me see the ships. Explain to me why you won the round and why my ballot goes for you. Basically, easiest path to the ballot wins, I want to see you race there.

Postrounding: honestly funny, you can postround me even before I submit my ballot, know that it will never change my decision whatsoever. Critiques will always be given after the round on request, and I will always be disclosing.

Secrets of the ballot: Since you made it this far, here are some fun tips to win you the round. Starting off your final focus with a catchy phrase or an appropriate literary sequence will always engage me further. IMMEDIATE MAXIMUM SPEAKS FOR ALL DEBATERS WHO SPIN IN A CIRCLE EVERY TIME THEY READ A TURN. Finally, managing to rickroll me in the middle of the round will lead to maximum speaks,

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.

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

slhs sophomore

main event: pf

last yr tfa state qual in LD, this year state qual in PF + 1 gold bid to toc

You can run whatever just explain it well--links, warrants, impacts and weigh

if you want to set up an email chain --> anikasud9@gmail.com

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

vishalsurya0704@gmail.com

Seven Lakes'25

Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else.

Evaluating Debates

I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that.

I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so.

Planless Affs

Critical teams should pref me if they are confident that they can out-tech their policy opponents. If you can’t do this, then you will likely lose. I don’t have a strong ideological predisposition against critical affs, but personally believe the best arguments favor topicality.

Equally good for ‘fairness’ or ‘skills’ framework. The aff either needs to counter-define resolutional words or have an impact turn large enough to outweigh the full magnitude of the neg’s offense.

Critiques on the Neg

The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Critiques make almost no sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like CPs. By design, they lack uniqueness and attempt to establish exclusivity through something other than traditional opportunity cost. This requires an alternate framework for evaluation.

Accordingly, I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation.

Topicality

I judge topicality like any other position. This entails defaulting to offense/defense, not randomly suspending impact calculus because the aff “feels” topical enough. Reasonability is a winnable argument but requires substantial investment and should be offensively framed.

No strong opinions about any standards. Fine for ‘predictability outweighs limits’ and the reverse.

Theory

Most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. The average theory interpretation is self-serving and contrived. All CPs have ‘a process,’ anyone can be a ‘solvency advocate,’ and any CP could ‘result in the plan.’

Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome. If, however, you manage to craft an elegant theory interpretation, I’ll be receptive. This could include ‘CPs can only fiat governments,’ ‘CPs may not fiat both federal and sub-federal actors,’ and so on.

My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious CPing---like CPing out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well.

Counterplans

Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the community’s sanctimonious distaste for Process CPs and tend to think a 2AC requires more than sputtering with indignation. I won’t automatically discount a net benefit because it is ‘artificial’ or ‘not germane,’ nor do I take it for granted that process strategies are inherently less educational than their counterparts.

I’m equally good for ‘must compete textuallyandfunctionally’ and ‘functionally only.’ Textual competition alone is a hard sell. If the aff wins the CP needs to compete both textually and functionally, that justifies permutation that are partially legitimate.

I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says anything. If the aff wants not to, they need to say so in the 1AR, but it’s an uphill battle.

Disadvantages

I do not understand nor participate in the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant, so long as the neg is capable of winning it outweighs the advantages.

What fiat means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan.

Case

'Try or die' refers to whether extinction is inevitable. If the neg only goes for solvency takeouts, then the aff controls try or die. If the aff drops an internal net-benefit to a CP and only extends deficits, then the neg controls try or die. This is a relevant consideration. Both sides should always be aware of whether they access try or die and either point this out or explain why it is irrelevant.

Zero risk is obviously possible, but extremely hard to get to in practice. If the neg drops 1AC impacts, you should reference them, but don’t need to formally extend them in the 2AC. However, the 1AR must always extend an impact for it to be eligible for the 2AR.

Miscellaneous

For online debates, I’d prefer cameras on. I won’t punish you if you choose to keep it off though.

You don’t need to take prep for tech issues, going to the bathroom, getting water, etc.

You don’t need to flash analytics.

-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.