i have experience with only pf im not strict with things i specifically look for in a debate round but i will judge off my flow

dont spread

don't steal prep time and i won't be timing you guys but please be honest with how much time you took.

ALWAYS be respectful to your opponents and judge and i will call you out if you're extremely rude.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college debate - v traditional policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I've been coaching PF for 6+ years, mostly MS/some HS.

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

To be clear: fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

It shouldn't take you long to send cards if you were literally just reading them. Make it quick or it starts coming out of prep.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

TW/Para theory/K's - judged a couple times, but by no means an expert. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but you're better off going slower than usual and making your judge instructions very, very clear.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hi! I'm Vihan (he/him) and I'm a junior in high school at Oxford Academy. I have around four years of debate experience in Public Forum, and I'm currently a varsity debater for Honor Academy.

add me to email linkchain: vihanrevagadgd@gmail.com

tldr; be nice, follow the rules, weigh impacts to win and have fun!!

General Comments:

-try keeping track of your own time, but I'll also be timing as well. that being said, don't be the prep police but if your opponents are taking hidden prep or are way overtime do call them out for it.
-set up an email chain before the round and add me. i won't look at the evidence or cases unless it's indicted or called out by either side as being incorrect, but still include me in evidence sharing.
-if it takes over a minute to exchange evidence, it starts coming out of prep time for whoever is sending it
-speed is fine, and if you're going to spread please send out a doc before hand - that being said i severely dislike spreading in novice and JV tournaments because I believe that it pushes debaters out from wanting to continue the activity
-absolutely NO racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. will be tolerated. if i hear any hateful comments, I will end the round early and cast my ballot for the other side by default or give extremely low speaks depending on the severity
-be nice to each other, more than just the debate itself i appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. the nicer you are, the higher chance there is of getting higher speaks from me.

Theory/Ks/etc:

-if you read any form of theory/prog debate in novice pool and the other team says "idk how to respond" that's enough of a response for me to kick the argument - i genuinely think it pushes new debaters out of the activity when they're hit with a prog arg in their first or second tournament
-generally speaking any prog/theory argument is fine as long as you're running it because there is GENUINELY something wrong with the round that you feel the need to bring up not just as an extra argument (that being said i hate friv theory)
-must be read the speech AFTER the violation (ex. if you're running disclosure T, run it in constructive, not in the rebuttal)
-send a doc for any theory/k arg that you're going to make before

Public Forum:

tech > truth - argue whatever u want as long as you can win it and it's not offensive or harmful to anyone in the round

-PLEASE EXTEND. if it's not brought up in rebuttal, you can't talk about it in summary. if it's not extended in summary, don't extend in final focus. if i hear you talking about a brand new response past second rebuttal, i'm not going to flow it.
-you CANNOT bring up a brand new contention/subpoint after constructive speeches, it's unfair to the opposing team.
-before making a response, signpost; tell me where i should put your arguments on my flow. if i'm confused or i don't know where you're responding, i'm not going to be able to flow your arguments and they wont be evaluated in my final decision.
-empirics are important, just remember to tell me WHY i should buy them.
-don't just rely on evidence/cards, give me your own analysis and tell me WHY that matters and how that means either i vote for you/don't vote for them. if there's no analysis i don't know how to flow it bc i don't know how to evaluate it.
-make sure to weigh; i prefer that you weigh as early as summary, but if you run out of time i expect to hear it in FF. remember, weighing is the idea of COMPARING impacts, don't just give me your impacts and tell me they're important, give me YOUR impacts, THEIR impacts, and then tell me why yours are better/more impactful.
-i love collapsing, i think the idea of picking one of your contentions and telling me why that's the most important place to vote in the round is great, but don't do it just to do it - make sure it's strategically sound
-i enjoy a fun crossfire with lots of clash, but remember to keep boundaries
-HOW I EVALUATE A ROUND. 1) weighing, 2) offense/arguments left standing, 3) the line-by-line.

Lincoln-Douglas

-have around no experience regarding LD, although i'm fine with a trad round. treat me as a "lay experienced" judge.
-i'm fine with debate lingo, but anything LD specific please explain to me. if you're more of a "progressive debater", i'm fine with hearing those args as long as you slow down/ explain everything clearly.
-i would appreciate disclosure from both sides in the case of LD as it makes it easier for me to understand as a judge.

Other:

-treat me as a lay judge with absolutely no experience. don't spread, slow down and explain your arguments clearly.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or talk to me before the round :)
Don't stress out, just try your best and make sure to have fun!

Fun stuff:

+0.5 speaks for both teammates if you compliment your partner during the round (one time only)
+0.1 speaks if u physically turn when you read a turn in round
+0.3 speaks if you can make me laugh during the round

gimme a music recommendation after the round and if i fw it heavy ill give u 30 speaks

overall just do your thing and have fun!!

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a junior in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF.

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

------------------------------------------

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Bad behavior will reflect in your speaks and in some cases possibly my decision.

Speed is fine (not spreading though lol) but I prefer slower debates, especially if we are online.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to rely on me solely.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but a lot of online people just start taking prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

• To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
• On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long pulling up evidence should take, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
• If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
• To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

I hate when people wait until 2nd summary to frontline. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up in ff and says that frontlining only in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

Is defense sticky? NOPE!

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)