Langley '26 | PF for three years

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

While I come from the incredibly lay Virginia circuit, I have a decent amount of experience on the natcirc. I question much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes??

General

Stolen from my friend Tobin- There are not enough people yelling clear or requiring their students be clear. Yes kids today don’t flow because they just look at the speech document- but guess why they do that? Because no one can understand what the other team is saying [...] even when I say “clear” people totally ignore it.

Here is what it means when a judge says “clear”: I cannot understand what you are saying, therefore I cannot count any of the arguments you are making. Without arguments you will probably lose.

What kids hear: “LOUDER” “1% slower please” “Can you enunciate for like 5 seconds and then go back to mumbling?”

-

That being said, there are a few (pretty obvious) things that are absolutely set in stone, so you should definitely read this if you want a quick summary of my preferences. These are more lenient in novice/jv rounds (excluding respect)

1. Be respectful. Any bigotry or blatant rudeness will get you a quick L20.

2. Speed is fine- be coherent. I hold a high value in clarity because realistically if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments. Send a doc if you're going fast, but even then I prefer not to use it.

3. Obviously keep track of your own time. I will also be timing and stop flowing once the timer hits zero, give or take 3~ish seconds.

4. Evidence exchanges have a tendency to take way too long. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to grab a card your speaks will suffer. I'd prefer it if you sent cut cards before speeches or at the very least before constructive.

5. Theory is fine -- I have no defaults and ran it often, but I'll only understand K's if clearly impacted out. Even then, don't trust me much with K's.

Misc

Make my job easy by explaining your clear path to the ballot. Collapse on your case, collapse on their case. Debate is quality > quantity so rather than going for five unweighed turns it makes way more sense to go for one with good weighing and a strong link chain.

If an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there.

Weigh. Lots of round come down to whoever is winning weighing. Do lots of it, but have good warranting and explanations if you want it to be a voter. Probability weighing is just another way of explaining why you are winning your link and is often just new defense in the summary speeches. If you go up in summary and say "we outweigh on probability because their argument about nuclear war is stopped by MAD," that's new defense I won't vote on.

Open cross, politely asking questions after the round, and asking spectators to close their laptops is fine.

Callouts, tricks, and 30-speaks theory arguments are not fine.

If I look confused I probably am.

I strongly agree with Sahil Gubbi's paradigm.

DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE A GAME. DO NOT SAY / DO INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC THINGS. I WILL BE SAD.

with that, hi! i'm sherry, and i did pf on the national and texas circuits for far too long.was lowkey mid tho

sherrydebate@gmail.com

bigotry = L20

tldr typical tech judge - read wtv u want. ask me abt specifics

general:

i can flow up to 300 wpm, but be clear PLSSS PLS PLS BE CLEAR and signpost properly and slow down on tags, pause between arguments, all that jazz. i will be very sad if i end up having to flow off a doc

i flow warrants, not card names. my threshold for extensions isn’t that high – just hit every link in the chain

give me voters in the last speech – write the ballot for me. it makes the round infinitely easier to adjudicate

idgaf about cross ????i will be on my phone probably

prog:

tldr warrants are important – as long as they’re there, we’re good

i've run stock ks (cap, discourse, securitization stuff) before, and i'm comfortable evaluating both topical and non-t ks

i've also run theory. i think friv is funny but i reserve a small degree of skepticism abt friv shells. i will be sad if you read disclo

i’ve read my fair share of high theory lit (nietzsche, baudrillard, hegel). i can’t guarantee a comprehensive rfd, but with CLEAR voters, i’ll make the right decision. i ran kant once and the only ppl who thought we lost out of 20+ ppl in the room were the judges, so believe me, i know how it feels.

i've somehow hit trix thrice in pf. those rounds were def not very in-depth lol, but take that as u will

pet peeves:

1. reading pess when you're not part of that demographic (eg reading afropess as a white debater)

2. dumping a bajillion unwarranted, unimplicated, unimpacted, one-sentence turns in rebuttal and blowing them up in back half

3. profanity (unless you're reading rage/killjoy), especially if it's used aggressively

4. saying "my time will start in 3...2...1." this is a debate round, not a space shuttle launch – or "my time will start on my first word." when else would it start, ur second word?? just make sure everyone is good and start bruh lol

misc:

if u finish the round within 45 minutes of starting, i'll +1 speaks

if u email rl3.rina@gmail.com "i hate disclosure" and show me proof before round, i'll +0.2 speaks

TLDR: I will evaluate any argument as long as it's not progressive. Tech>truth. Making the round fun will always score extra points with me :)

—James Madison HH—

—JMHS '24; VT '27—

Hi! My name is Maya, I’m a graduated varsity debater from James Madison High School, and I’m the current President of the Debate Team at Virginia Tech. I started debate (PF) my Junior year of high school and competed on the national & local circuit for 2 years. Currently, I am freshman at Virginia Tech studying applied economics with a minor in political science. With all of this in mind, I feel I can evaluate any style because at this point I've pretty much seen it all. I’m not too picky with judging, but you can find my prefs below. I tend to prefer tech over truth. Have clear warrants and understand your own argument. I never want to hear someone ask you a question and your only response is "well my evidence says that it's going to happen", but you don't actually know why it's going to happen. That just tells me that you don't know the topic and will make it difficult to vote for you. I really love unique arguments, they are a great way to change what the judge is hearing all day and also surprise opponents, so please don't hold back! I will disclose my decision and give ample oral feedback unless I am forbidden to do so.

—Novice & JV—

I won’t be too picky with teams at this level, I just have a few hard prefs. No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it or it's not going to be on my flow. Finally, make sure you are signposting, you are a lot more likely to have your arguments evaluated properly if it is extended cleanly across my flow. Feel free to ask questions if I’m allowed to disclose my decision.

—Varsity/ Nat Circ—

Feel free to run what you believe in. Other prefs: No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it clearly or it's not going to be on my flow. Please signpost and don’t give me a roadmap. Nothing should be new in the second half of the debate, but I will accept new evidence in summary, just no new arguments (second rebuttal must frontline). Treat me like a flay and explain your warranting and link-chains to me. Extending author names is fine as long as you give me a quick reminder of what that author said, it really doesn’t need to be much. Use cross for gotchas and actual substance, not clarifying questions. I do not flow cross, so if something happens that you want evaluated please be sure to bring it up in a speech. Finally, be respectful. Attitude is one thing, but being straight up rude is another. I don’t really care about attitude, it can be pretty funny sometimes (feel free to be creative, funny, & witty in speeches), but be kind to your opponents or your speaks will take a hit. Also, feel free to post round or ask me questions after I disclose my decision. Obviously, my decision will not change, but it helps me learn to be better and it helps you take out some frustrations and understand why I made the decision that I made. Finally, do not lie about evidence, do not misrepresent it, and avoid making assertions without it.

—Evidence Ethics—

I DO NOT want to be on the email chain. Most times when people call for evidence it ends up being redundant. With that being said, if there is something egregious, unethical, or unbelievable going on, I will ask to be SHOWN the evidence. My evaluation of it will play into my decision, and my interpretation of the situation will not be known until my ballot is submitted. If you feel as though I have wronged you in any way, I am happy to explain my thought process. If you still feel as though an evidence challenge is necessary, I will willingly participate.

—Progressive/ Policy Style Debate—

My absolute biggest pet peeve in PF is progressive debate & wiki disclosure. I think they are becoming extremely harmful norms, and as someone who lost in semi-finals to frivolous theory and at Nationals to a K, I will not condemn anyone to the same fate. Any progressive arguments will not be flowed and speaks could also be affected if you attempt them. If you do choose to run it, at least have some substance so I have something to evaluate on your side. Same goes for disclosure, sending speech docs or posting them on the wiki is just harmful for everyone. Come into the debate prepared instead of relying on someone disclosing their case, this should never be an expectation as you enter a round.

—Conclusion—

Try your best, and good luck! I can't wait to judge your round!

Basis Independent McLean '24, UC Irvine '28 |PF| shaunjones247@gmail.com (he/him)

About Me: Debated for 3 years locally as Basis Independent McLean Z[J] and 1 year nationally as Basis Independent McLean [J]R. I was ok at both. Now I go to UC Irvine where I'm double majoring in Political Science and Mechanical Engineering.

Quick excerpt about the local VA circuit from my good friend Connor Chun:

"I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer..."

TLDR: Typical Tech > Truth judge. Good with speed, please send docs to shaunjones247@gmail.com and novacados0@gmail.com.

Please warrant things, especially in the backhalf. Preflowing before round is preferred so we can start the round asap. Anything bigoted gets a calm L20 and a report to tab. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad. Debate is a game, yall should be enjoying yourselves and having fun. Please just refer to me as Shaun, not judge. Please tell me if there is anything I can do to accommodate you in your round!

Not a fan of the oldheads who proclaim "PF is not policy-lite!!!" and "Put the Public back in Public Forum!!!" . To say that an entire event is getting ruined because people are innovating away from your personal debate style of the mid to late 20th century is... incredibly self-centered... to say the least.

Prefs:

Your best bet with me is just high speed tech substance debate. Its what I loved doing in highschool and I enjoy judging high-paced, super technical rounds. That being said, I can evaluate theory, K (both T and non-T), and basically anything else. I'm open to judging weird stuff like phil, high theory and skep, but you need to slow down in the backhalf and warrant things out so I can properly evaluate it. If you do read anything like phil or high theory, I think its cool you've spent the time to learn it and I'll try my hardest to make sure your efforts arent wasted. Trix are funny. You can read them if I'm judging and I'll eval it.

Stuff specific to the local Virginia Circuit (WACFL): Disclosure isn't a norm, I won't vote off of it. I would be inclined to drop you if you read disclosure against teams that you know don't have an opencaselist. Substance only unless both teams agree to do a prog round. I'm also not allowed to disclose rfd after round - you'll have to wait in anxiety. Please set up an email chain though; WACFL rounds run super late because it takes years for teams to call for individual cards, so setting up an email chain before round will make things much smoother.

Content Warnings:

Please provide content warnings if you are about to discuss sensitive topics (sexual violence, self-harm) in the form of an anonymous opt out form. If you don't do this and read distressing content I will drop your speaks to the lowest.

Prep Time:

pls track your own prep time, i'm too lazy. i trust u wont lie to me. Flex prep is fine.

Evidence:

Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards

Add me on the email chain. If youre going fast send a carded doc so I can follow along and so that we don't waste time calling for evidence. If you don't send a carded doc before the speech please at least send one afterwards - be wary that I'm gonna let the other team steal prep in this case. I have an extremely low bar when it comes to responses that indict evidence from Medium. If your case has evidence from Medium it better a) be from a real human being and b) have sufficient warranting for what you're reading in case.

I don't really care about clipping unless its super egregious e.g. a team deliberately highlights a part of the card that has a major implication/impact, doesnt read it, doesnt mark the doc, then collapses on that arg using that highlighted part in the extension. Other than that, I'm not gonna drop a team because they forgot to rehighlight cards after cutting down case.

I'm probably not a great judge for evidence challenges. To win one you would have to prove that a) a team deliberately cut a card to completely misrepresent what its saying and/or b) fabricated evidence. Doing either of these things is quite difficult, so you're better off just pointing out their horrible evidence ethics and it casts alot of doubt on them on my end.

Speeches:

Please signpost. I'm good with speed and I'll clear you if needed. I stop flowing 5 seconds over time.

Cross:
I dont pay attention during cross. As a result, nothing said in cross goes on my flow unless it's brought forward into subsequent speeches. Be assertive, but not overly aggressive. A good cross will benefit your speaks, even if you lose the round overall. If everyone is in agreement we can skip grand for 1 min of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've basically lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new DA's. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it shouldve been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence. (Unless its to frontline your own case in first summary)

Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it again. I won't flow it. I should be able to draw a line from the 2AC to the 2AR.

Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, ur good. If I don't hear an extension ur doomed lowkey. U should also collapse in summary, its a good idea. This also applies to turns: you have to extend UQ, the Link turn itself, and an impact or else I can only eval it as defense.

A note about turns:

Don't extend UQ? I would be hesitant to vote on it. Why? Reading your own UQ and extending a turn means that all I have to do is vote on a risk of your impact happening. Don't extend the turn itself? Self-explanatory. Don't extend an impact? I can't evaluate it as offense absent some implications that affect diff areas of case. Impact turns are cool. Read them.

Weighing is very very very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" - that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs I default to timeframe + magnitude.

My personal thoughts on probability weighing: The only probability weighing that I will buy is off an implication of a non-unique, saying that the link did trigger at some point but the impact never happened. If the other team can't frontline this properly and you do probability weighing, I'd buy it as long as its actually comparative to your case. The probability weighing that I would never buy is the blippy, unwarranted, new in 1st final weighing that just says "nuclear war has never actually happened before yap yap yap we outweigh" - thats just new defense you never read in rebuttal. Debate is a simulation - even if the argument is space col, if its conceded it has 100% probability and if weighed properly I will vote on it.

Final Focus:

Final should mirror summary. If the 2AR makes new responses not present in the 1AR then the 2NR can make frontlines that wouldve been in the 1NR had they never went new in first final. I'd also be inclined to give them a 5 second grace period bc they have to frontline something new. I will try to protect 1st Final Focus - meaning that I will be heavily scrutinizing 2nd final to make sure everything said there was actually in summary.

Framing

I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link ins to the framing" absent warranting as underviews or general responses. Youre just avoiding clash at that point. Grow up. Nuclear war doesn't link into SV framing from a technical or truth perspective. This won't factor into my decision because that would be intervening but I will a) have a very low bar for responses against it and b) would not like voting off of it. I also don't buy prefiat weighing off of a discourse argument if its not warranted.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclo, trigger warning and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions tho. If theres no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices ('obviously' means their record is on the entries page and its all PF-Novice division). If you're in varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we dont know how to respond" are not responses at all.

I default to reasonability because i can't just make up an interp if im not competing in the round so PLEASE if you're arguing against disclo/paraphrase/trigger warning you HAVE to give me a counter interp or else i err against you. Personally, I err against friv theory so if you want me to vote on a friv shell just read a CI. Just read a counter interp, it greatly increases your chances of winning.

I (might) pursue law in the future, so spirit of the interp is not something I'm gonna buy. What the interp says is whats being debated, you can't change that. Make sure your interps are as specific as possible so noone can exploit them.

If you are from a large school (>5 unique entries on your school's disclo page) and read small schools in response to the shell I'm tanking your speaks even if you win the argument. (My school has had 1 national circuit team ever and we still disclosed every single round we did that year - even locals). Just disclose, its not that hard.

IVI's are weird but if you read one and win it ill eval it.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. Never ran them when I competed so please warrant things out for me to understand. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afropess if you're not black, don't run Fem Rage if you're not female - identifying. Doing either of those is kinda weird.

Presumption:

I generally presume aff, if the neg cant prove why doing the aff is bad then I see no reason why we shouldnt at least try doing the aff.

Speaks:

I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing I like) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. If you go all in on a turn and it works in your favor you're guaranteed a 29.5 at minimum.

Postrounding:

You can, and should, postround me. Postrounding helps me as a judge improve in the future, and gives you, the competitor, a better understanding of how I voted and how to handle similar situations in the future rounds.

Fun Stuff:

If both teams agree, we can do a lay round and everyone gets 30s. Will vote off of vibes.

Any reference to the English football club Tottenham Hotspur that makes me laugh will be +0.25 speaks (COYS!)

If you truly believe that a team has no possible path to the ballot after a summary speech, you can call a TKO. If you're right, everyone in the round gets 30s. If you're wrong, its an L25 for you.

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

hi im rina (she/her)

add me to the email chain (rl3.rina@gmail.com)

long version

tldr: tech > truth

anything discriminatory will be an auto L20

read anything but warrant it well (theory, ks, ivis, etc are fine) (trix are for kids)

i don’t flow cross

don't be afraid to ask for specifics in round !!

good luck and have fun :)

The Potomac School '27 | PF for two years

Add me to the email chain: tmankovsky@potomacschool.org

sorry this is kinda rushed before outreach... it'll kinda be random thoughts

**for outreach: do a substance debate in prelims. anything is fine in elims. be nice to novices :(

----

Tech > Truth

Arguments need warrants. You need to extend these warrants. I consider "no warrant" claims somewhat persuasive, but it's better if you provide a counter-warrant as well.

Claiming your opponent has no internal link is a valid response. I consider this terminal defense if explained well.

Speak clearly. Preferably slow down on taglines and on important arguments.

I will not vote for an argument I cannot understand, so make sure you explain things coherently.

Flex-Prep is fine.

Be respectful. Anything bad = L20

Insert rehighlighting is fine.

I know this topic pretty well, I've cut a good chunk of circuit prep on it, so you should be fine running anything.

Not that good for Ks, tricks, or 30 speaks theory. If you do decide to read a K, err on the side of over-explanation, slow down in the back-half, and make the debate easy for me to evaluate.

Meh for theory, same stuff about over-explanation above.

Collapse, extend, do weighing, make my job easy. No new weighing in 2nd final, I don't like weighing in 1st final but I guess I'll evaluate it.

I am probably not paying attention in cross (texting, brawl stars, etc.)

Defense isn't "sticky."

I'm not that nitpicky about extensions unless they are called out / atrocious.

Post-rounding is fine but be chill.

PF

if you’re a middle schooler i’m judging don’t worry about all this, just debate your best :)

tech>truth

TLDR

1 - LARP

2 - Theory (but these are normally boring debates so please dont)

3 - K

4 - Phil

5 - Trix

win weighing win the round, unless implicated to the weighing debate mitigatory defense does not matter if offense is won

I flow, i can evaluate tech, prog, k's, wtv. I've ran topical and non-topical k's, friv, etc. but pref substance

make it easy to evaluate---give me comparative weighing and collapse on good arguments not many arguments (not saying don't go for more than one arg or smth just quality over quantity)

outright bigotry is an L20

be fast I don't want to be sitting in the back for 2 minutes waiting for an ev exchange to happen

prefs

spreading send speech docs, if you're going to do the same gargling marbles pf spreading most people do TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE GOING OFF THE DOC OR MARK IT IN THE DOC

have headings for your tags and please have organized docs---this affects your speaks

i'll clear you because debate is still a communication activity, just a fast one.

no new args in back half, please collapse

explicate kicks---no judge kick and you have to tell me how conceding a piece of defense kicks smth

on weighing first thing I look for is a pre req with timeframe, you should do good analysis on these things as always. but i'll look to wtv weighing mech you tell me to look at first. uniqueness matters a lot, unless you have good answers to try or die I think that link defense alone makes it difficult to pull the trigger for the negative

probability is normally fake, if you have the same impact and have good comparatives go for it but i don't just buy "this argument is not probable so you shouldn't vote for it." that's just link defense. only time you could go for probability and make some sense would be if your arg is conceded and there is ink on theirs but my threshold for responding to weighing like that is low.

Prog

I can eval theory

don't read disclo or other theory on people who don't know how to answer it that's just sad

threshold for good answers to theory is pretty low

for k's I can generally eval k's, i'm familiar with some lit but assume I'm not.

I mainly flow/watch and read decisions from NDT/CEDA K rounds, all that really means is that my standards for k is going to be pretty high and that a lot of the k debate that goes on in pf isn't something I want to judge. if you're going to read a k you should have a genuine good understanding of how to do it and especially your lit.

this doesn't mean you can just say a lot of word salad and expect me to understand it

you should have good alts and have solvency cards unless you have a reason why it's not needed and you read it in round

tell me how to eval the k vs k or policy or wtv, eg "weigh the impacts of the plan against the k"

DO THE LINE BY LINE THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES

when it comes to non-topical i'm good to evaluate them but when answering t-fw:

I enjoy creative counterinterps

you should do the work to answer whether procedural or structural issues come first

update for k debates: I do not want to sit in the back listening to a two minute overview and blippy crossapps and implications, i will have a high threshold for contextual explanations.

other prefs

please postround---i think it's important pedagogically to go hard in the postround and I will never doc speaks for the postround

pre-fiat "discourse" is silly, you don't get the ballot just for bringing up a certain problem especially if you're losing the rest of the flow. why am I voting for the neg who read a fw when the aff proved they're policy is better than the neg for those groups?

i presume first unless told otherwise

extend whatever you're going for, this rlly shouldn't have to be said...

dml good paradigm

good reads: https://the3nr.com/2012/10/16/kids-today-2/#more-2747

"1 good card >X bad ones if X is ANY NUMBER EVER."

https://the3nr.com/2011/11/28/kids-today-part-deux/

https://the3nr.com/2012/10/08/common-mistakes/

"Pay attention for your partner. Make sure they don’t drop things, answer arguments in the speech doc that weren’t read etc"

if you remind your partner of something during their speech it's not a matter for how I eval your speaks, I think it's a normal that should be in PF more

some thoughts (will add on as time goes on):

reflexive fiat is interesting, go for it if you want and i’ll do my best to evaluate it

I will evaluate topical k’s even when there’s a perfcon. eg: reading sec k after reading a bunch of escalation scenarios. why? the role of the neg is essentially to test the policies of the aff. if there is an alt when i vote neg on the k i’m not endorsing the neg but rather, if they’re winning the k, i’m endorsing the alt which solves securitization or wins them enough offense under the fw and it at least proves that the aff is bad. impacts of the k do not become non unique as that would mean that every impact of the k is non unique no matter what (which is an argument you of course can make but a perfcon will not be evaluated as defense by me unless you do a lot of work). subject to change depending on rounds ofc but just be warned if you don’t have perfcon stuff prepped (eg the perfcon takes out k warrants) you will have to do more work.

I will read your evidence and I will read evidence particularly if told to, too much PF evidence is of poor quality

Respect is top priority. If you don't respect your opponents you will lose the round.

Pronouns she/her

Preferences:

Speed is fine but make sure what you're saying is clear; enunciate your words

Eye contact is important, but I understand if you can't do so, as we are in a virtual setting

It's recommended that you keep your own time- I will keep time as well

Please roadmap your speeches, as I will be flowing. Make it clear to me what you are talking about

Weighing is crucial and will be a huge part of my decision as to who won or lost

I will give personal feedback to every speaker.

Use up all or as much as possible of your time- it tells me you have a lot to say and adds to your case

Obviously, be respectful to both your teammates and your opponents. No interrupting others

Things that will help me decide the win- weighing, impacts, and rebuttals.

May the odds ever be in your favor :)