Hi,

I am a parent judge. I have limited experience in judging. Please don't speak too fast, this helps me better understand your arguments. Hope you have a fun experience in debating:

Richard Chen | Shs '27 | PF 1 year

-no spreading

-no theories or non-topical Ks

-no "death is good"

-cross starts right after finishing constructive

-will not take resolution exemptions into account(usually)

-be honest with prep and speech times

-paraphrasing cards slightly is generally okay

-include me in the email chain/doc rich.long.chen@gmail.com

Rebuttals: given in an organized manner and signpost. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Make sure all cards are explained clearly.

Summary: Make sure to weigh, tell me what specifically you are outweighing in and how. I would prefer you to collapse.

FF: explain why I should prefer you over the opponent.

Have a good round!

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

Hi,

My name is Li Ding. I am a parent judge. I have some experience in LD debate, limited experience in judging. Here is a list of preferences in debate, hope you have a fun experience in debating:

1) Don't speak too fast, this helps me better understand your arguments.

2) Be respectful to your opponents in cross-fire. I will also watch your body language close. Everyone wants to win but be respect to your opponents.

3) My judge primarily based on framework and how you support the framework. If your arguments don't link well to the framework, you probably will not get my vote.

4) It's better to have a strong evidence to back your arguments

Happy debating!

I'm currently the G in Saratoga GJ and I've been doing PF for the past 6 years, but I only started debating on the national circuit 3 years ago. I've been to TOC and I love rounds that are highly technical and fast with good clash and in depth analysis.

For evidence exchange: add ashish.keebab@gmail.com to the chain. If you plan on reading any new evidence in a speech I expect it to be sent in a doc before the speech on the email chain.

Debate is a game and you should play to win, but remember it's just a game.

TL;DR

tech>truth. Run whatever you want, if you're racist, sexist (any type of -ist) I won't hesitate to drop you with the lowest speaks possible. I'll look to the weighing first when voting. I need warrants for everything, and the better the warrant, the better the argument. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions i.e. I need uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact extensions in the backhalf. No, I don't care about author names, but I do care about what your author says.

If anything in my paradigm is confusing: feel free to ask me before round, email me, or reach out to me on Facebook messenger. If you are still confused after reading this paradigm, I view the round pretty similarly to: Leonardo Jia, Aarush Kaboo, Ananth Menon, & Sully Mrkva.

Pls pls look at this it'll be the easiest round of ur life if you can follow the steps below(yes, this is straight from Ananth's paradigm)

How I evaluate:

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

-If team x is winning the weighing I look to their case first

-if team x winning their case, the round is over

-if team x is losing case, I look at team y case

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I presume neg

Speeches:

Signpost to let me know where you on the flow, otherwise you risk me not being able to understand your speech. Speed is totally fine as long as it's coherent, but remember I'm flowing off your speech, not the doc. I'll only look at evidence if you explicitly tell me to or if it seems that the entirety of the round is staked on a single card.

Cross:

Don't be rude please. I'm totally fine with flex prep and open cross, but tbh I don't really listen to cross. My favorite crosses are the ones which lighten up the mood and I'll def give you a speaks boost if that's the case. If both teams are ok with this, I'm willing to skip grand cross for a minute of prep time for both teams.

Rebuttal:

I like rebuttals that generate offense, but that said, every turn you read needs to be weighed (even better if the turn has uq too) otherwise I am more likely to treat the turn as terminal defense than offense. I think weighing yourself out of turns is a pretty neat strategy too. Second Rebuttal should frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined. I have no personal preference as to whether you should collapse or go for all of case in rebuttal, but whatever you do make sure you do it well.

Summary + Final Focus:

Your frontlines need to actually interact with the response, you can't just hand wave and tell me that their response isn't true, tell me why. Everything in final needs to be in summary.

Weighing:

I absolutely love good weighing. To read good weighing, make sure it's comparative(so you need to read actual warrants as to why I should prefer your mechanism). If you read a link-in I expect it to be weighed against their link too. If there are competing mechanisms in the round PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE metaweigh otherwise I am forced to intervene and here's how I will intervene if no one does any metaweighing: Magnitude>Probability>Timeframe>Any Other Mechanism. I'm not sure I even comprehend how strength of link functions, but if there is a conceded piece of offense I do think strength of link weighing is fair game (strength of link metaweighing would be even cooler).

Theory:

I typically never read theory, but I do know how to evaluate, so if that's your strat feel free to go for it. I default to no RVIs and competing interps, and I generally prefer that your shell isn't frivolous. The more frivolous the shell, the lower my threshold for responses and the more sympathetic I'll be to reasonability claims.

Kritiks:

I honestly would not trust myself to evaluate these debates especially if it's a performance kritik, so if you do read one please dumb it down for me. I'll do my best to evaluate, and if you explain it well enough we should be fine.

Would appreciate if the Speaker provides an offline roadmap before the start of their speech and also find 10-15 seconds at the end of their speech to summarize their arguments.

Saratoga '25 | PF | leonardo.jia@gmail.com

Background: I am currently a junior at Saratoga doing PF (my partner is Ashish Goswami). My accomplishments include: quarterfinals at NCFL Grand Nationals, semifinals at Berkeley, and semifinals at TOC.

PF:

To win my ballot:

1. If you are winning the weighing, you must win whatever offense is weighed. This offense must be extended in both summary and final focus and frontlined adequately (this means no terminal defense).

2. If you are not winning the weighing, you must win offense (extended in both summary and final focus and frontlined extremely well-this means not a speck of conceded defense, whether or not its terminal) along with terminal defense on your opponents' case.

3. If nobody is clearly winning the weighing, I am forced to intervene and decide who has more offense. In the unlikely scenario that neither teams have better offense, I presume based off of a coin toss or whatever presumption warrants are read.

Non-substance: I consider myself to be a substance debater, but I am fine with non-substance. Run at your own discretion.

Speed: I am fine with anything <=250 wpm. Anything faster is your own risk. I don't flow off docs, they are only for evidence sharing.

Timing: Time yourself. I give a 5 second grace period after a speech's time is up. Anything after is off the flow.

Behavior: DBAA policy.

Everything non-PF: Treat me as a guy who flows. Don't do anything fancy.

Hi! I'm Nathan. I've debated public forum for two years now. I'm a sophomore in high school currently. If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask me before the round! My email is jiacanliu2@gmail.com if you have any further questions or concerns. Also include me in the email chain for any evidence exchange.

I am a tech over truth judge. I will flow. If someone tells me that grass is orange with good warranting, I will assume that grass is in fact orange unless you prove to me otherwise. I don't want to be put in a position where I have to analyze your arguments and draw conclusions myself. You should be doing that. If you do not respond to one of your opponents' arguments, I am forced to believe that you have conceded that argument. Don't bring up any new points/arguments after rebuttal. If you do, I will not consider them.

I believe that crossfire is very important in a good debate round. If I feel like the round is so close that I can't decide a winner, I will look back on which team did better in cross. This should go without saying, but be nice. Don't yell or be hostile to your opponents.

In terms of speed, I can handle pretty fast reading. I understand that you have a lot to get to in a short amount of time. If I have trouble understanding you, I will interrupt you and tell you. After that, if you do not slow down or enunciate better, I will just ignore what I did not understand. Of course, the faster you speak, the higher chance I miss something.

Please signpost and weigh. Don't expect me to do the work for you. If you throw out a really good argument, but do not weigh it, I will not consider it. Tell me why you have won and why your opponents haven't. Don't just regurgitate your contentions in summary or final focus. In order to win, you need to tell me why your arguments are better than your opponents' arguments. I don't care how good your or your opponents' arguments actually are.

Lastly, good luck and have fun! :)

Treat me as a flow judge. Will evaluate all substance.

Hi! I'm Kabeer Minocha, and I am a student at Saratoga High School. If I am judging your round, here are some things to know:

1. I will not tolerate excessive speeds of arguing, and this will affect my judgement. If I cannot understand you, I cannot grade you.

2. Kritiks are fine, but don't get caught in a hole of trying to argue in theoreticals. Try to stick to some imperical facts.

3. I will weigh imperical evidence over general, so try to give me numbers and facts. I find that to be stronger.

4. I don't want a brawl in the debate. Be professional and during cross-X/rebuttal, don't be rude or hurtful.

Most importantly, present me with a well-thought case and strong evidence. Have fun!

Contact Info: minocha.kabeer@gmail.com (408) 338-7294

Hey there

My name is Olowookere Ganiyat (she/her). I am an undergraduate of University of Ilorin, Nigeria. Ihave experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have some experiences as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: olowookereganiyat15@gmail.com

Conflicts: I don't have any

As a judge and educator, I prioritize creating an empowering learning environment for participants while providing valuable feedback. I value fairness, equity, and respectful engagement during discussions, and I encourage debaters to present their arguments thoughtfully and engage with opposing viewpoints respectfully.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR ONLINE SETTINGS

In virtual debate settings, I emphasize clear and audible communication, I urge participants to ensure their microphone works well and to maintain an appropriate speaking pace.I understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Best wishes

for a TL;DR, read the bolded phrases

experience:

currently debating in pf for saratoga (freshman); have completed ~4 years of debate w/h experience in mostly pf, and a year of ld

general (pf & ld):

tech>truth. in other words, yes, i will believe the craziest of link chains (have fun w/ this) as long as there's a good amount of warranting and enough probability.

but with that, a couple of things to keep in mind for general comprehension:

• don't spread, brevity is impressive (i flow on paper, and my hand will only move as fast as my hand will move, so if i don't catch something, that's on you)
• add me to the email chain/any evidence docs: hrsanyu@gmail.com
• don't be racist/sexist/ableist/any other -ist (self-explanatory)
• try to be happy to be here (i get it if you're tired, but sleep deprivation is temporary and debate is forever)
• i will disclose if allowed to (don't ask me for an rfd, but ask for immediate feedback if you want)

more common sense:

• please keep the off-time roadmaps brief... it's a "brief off-time roadmap" for a reason. no, i don't want roadmaps for case/first rebuttal
• signpost (tell me where you are on the flow)
• be courteous and respectful

rebuttals:

my favorite speech of the round, but there are a couple of ways you could ruin that for me:

please do not spam cards in rebuttal... but at the same time, i expect some level of evidence to back up wild claims/areas w/h clash/de-links. the evidence doesn't have to be specific, but it should be applicable. for general knowledge (this term is not all-encompassing)/empirics, it's ok not to read ev.

novices: please do not reread case in rebuttal or read the list of cards your coach sent you as responses to common arguments. i understand you may be nervous, but when it comes to responses, the least you can do is think about the argument logically and each part of it (uq/link/impact) and how you can refute those. short quotes from case are ok.

everyone else: you know what you're doing. generating offense on their case is strategic, so do it, but know that if you go for the turn, retain the basic argument structure. impact turns are cool as long as they're not one of the -ists and you explain why it's good.

also frontline in second rebuttal because ideally there's nothing new in summary

summary:

primarily, extend case/turns with frontlines because no offense = impossible to win (if they have a 1% risk of something and you have a 100% risk of nothing, they win). i strongly urge you to collapse down to one contention/argument because if you try to go for everything, you will run out of time. that is a fact (unless you are spreading, which i urged you not to do earlier on).

weighing in summary should be a given. no, you don't have to brand it as "weighing," but the comparison should still exist. on the flip side, please realize that weighing is not just saying the words "we outweigh on magnitude", but rather elaborate comparative analysis. ask your coach about this or ask me more about this before/after round.

ff:

voters/line-by-line... explain to me why you won (big picture --> individual ideas)

prog:

do not bust out a shell in a novice round. if you do, note that i will be much more likely to vote for your opponents and tank your speaks. please ask your opponents if they are comfortable w/ prog debate before round.

level of comfort w/h evaluating: (1 = not comfortable // 5 = go ahead)

framework .. 4-5

topicality ..... 4.5

Ks .................... 2.5

theory ........... 2

CPs ................. 5

tricks .............. 1

overall: risky, but if you must run it, explain it really well + send me a case doc

ld-specific:

framework is underrated, so please do not ignore it and please actually try to do some analysis. but that being said, winning framework isn't enough to win you the round. prove that your case still has a viable link to the framework and you're fine. also, if your opponent is clearly winning the framework by the second half of the round, please kick your own and link into theirs so you get more time to prove that your strength of link is better.

also, please have fun w/ the args you are making on the topics bc there's more potential to have fun/interesting args in ld than pf (the topics are better).

congress-specific:

no :/

speaks (pf and ld only):

usual range is 28-30 unless you were -ist or did something i really didn't like. here are some fun (and educational) boosts:

• call out the logical fallacy (strawman, slippery slope, red herring, etc) your opponent is using in your next speech (+0.2)

email me w/h any questions before round or ask in the room before we start... i will usually be there early.

have fun! if you got through the whole paradigm, let me know ;)

hey I'm ellie!

Add me to the email chain: ellieshen70@gmail.com

TLDR;

tech > truth!! If you like reading performance/K arguments I would love to hear it! I ran and went for K's such as setcol to pretty absurd ones like environmentalism so as long as you explain the theory behind it, i'll be willing to vote on it. DO NOT READ PHIL. Besides that, all (theory, policy, larp) arguments are valid and I love to hear unique and fun arguments in general as long as its well developed. Be nice and respectful, pretty self explanatory.

If you are a novice, welcome to debate and give the round your best shot :) Mention that you have read my paradigm before the round!

experience

currently debating for saratoga high in LD, around 4 years in LD and i've had good exposure to other debate styles. also a tiny bit of experience in extemp and impromptu.

specific

• speed - go as fast as you want but slow down on important info. It's not my responsibility to catch arguments if you are unclear so just know that comes with a risk. ill ask you to slow down or speak clearer by saying "clear"
• disclosure - i will disclose at the end of the round if allowed to (i understand the anticipation when judges don't disclose)
• FOLLOW your roadmaps - going out of order might make me miss arguments as i flow on different tabs
• ROTB >>>> judge - i will vote on reps or unique framing that set the debate space
• link chains - i dislike long link chains so make sure something links directly

speaks

i'll give from 27-30, 28 being the default, but you will be dropped to a 26 if called out on author indicts or if you were any -ist. you can get more points (I try to be really fun) if:

• you give me music recs (+0.2)
• dropping a joke mid speech (+0.5)

I am a parent judge.

You do not need to change your style of speaking, but would appreciate you to avoid spreading.

Please avoid using too much technical/ theory stuff, as it will be lost on me. If you do, explain it in short.

I do not take notes, so please do mention if your opponent drops an argument.

I award points based on how you speak and how you conduct yourself during the entire debate.

I'm a parent judge.

High schooler at SHS. I have experience in PF & LD (I don't do LD, but I have flowed them and understand how they work).

Lay judge. I will still flow cases.

What to know (TLDR is in bolded italics, everything else should be common sense):

Speak loud and clear. Be confident in your speech. Spreading has its negatives with a lay judge, I cannot flow as fast as some speak.

I don't mind whatever you run as long as you run it well.

Please do not cut cards to the point where they don't have the same message as the original context. EVIDENCE ETHICS is very important. If there is an email chain,add me to it. My email: zhaomh19@gmail.com

If you are anything that ends with -ist and is a negative term, I will vote the other team and give <25 speaker points.

Please weigh. Give reasoning/evidence why your impacts should be voted on. If you say magnitude, timeframe, etc., explain to me WHY. Makes it easier for a judge to vote.

Collapse for the win.

I am fine Ks and theories UNLESS the division is Novice or below. Just write a normal case instead.

I will allow you to go a reasonable amount overtime. Please do not abuse this.

DO NOT extend your case in rebuttal unless you know what you are doing.

Good analytics are better than bad evidence. Links back to my third point.

Have creative cases. I dislike stock cases, especially nuke war. This does not affect my voting, but please be more creative.

I allow counter-plans (in PF) and exceptions if teams do not object (I don't care that much about NSDA rules).

Please signpost or give an off-time road map.

Will most likely disclose if possible, but RFDs will come later.

Most importantly, debating is to have fun and to learn. DO NOT take that away from your opponents by being rude, uncourteous, etc.

Bonus for reading to the end: every 5 jumping-jacks on camera will +0.5 speaker points to your current speaks. This will be done on your speech time, so distribute your time wisely. If you spend too long on jumping-jacks you lose speech time. Choose carefully.