Background:

-Been debating PF for about 2.5 years. I debated nocember and did decent on it so I have topic knowledge.

-Email for email chain (put me on): sreejato.chatterjee@gmail.com

Good Stuff:

-If I laugh or smile kinda weird, just ignore that, I do that sometimes, it's not you. On the other hand, if I make angry or sad expressions, also ignore that. I'm probably feeling tired and stuff, so don't worry about.

-Tech>Truth sorta, if you're running something very squirrelly, you're gonna have to do some amazing warranting. Otherwise, I'll vote on anything that's not offensive.

-Please signpost so I know where you are. If you're going to give a roadmap, make sure to follow it.

-I can handle a little speed so DON’T SPREAD!!! Spreading no bueno. If you spread, I will say clear, and if you continue I will tank your speaks.

-Novices/MS: Please try to use all of your speech time. It is very valuable.

-I don’t flow cross, in fact I don’t like it that much anyway. If something is said that you think is important bring it back up in a speech. I'll give extra speaks if you can make cross fun and entertaining (for the right reasons) :)

-Second rebuttal should frontline. I think it's a good strategy and will help a lot.

-You don't need a piece of evidence for everything. I'm fine with and prefer warranted analysis over an unwarranted card.

-Things in Final Focus need to be in summary.

-Collapse. I do not want to see you bringing up every single contention and trying to win off of it. Choose an important argument, explain it to me, and tell me why it matters.

-Also, when collapsing, extend your argument fully, with uniqueness, link, warrant and impact. To make it easy, treat extensions as a mini summary of your argument. When extending evidence, don't just tell me "extend x card," actually tell me the warranting of the card and what it says.

-WEIGH!!! AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE!! I don't really accept new weighing in final focus unless both sides didn't weigh in summary or its responding to weighing from the opposing speech.

-Please also make the weighing comparative, don't just throw things and see what sticks the landing.

-If you're gonna give a framework, warrant it and extend it if its responded to. I look at the framework debate first when evaluating the flow. But also, don't make your framework lives, cost benefit analysis, util or anything similar. I get annoyed by that since most judges default to that framework.

-Look let's be honest here, I doubt middle schoolers are going to run theory or k's. My honest opinion is kinda mixed on this subject (I think certain theory is ok to check against abuse, but not others). I hit k's before so I'm mostly fine with it, but still treat me kinda lay when running them. I'm also ok with most theory but am still not completely knowledgable about it, but I'll probably accept it. Also, if I can tell that your opponents don't know how to respond to theory and aren't familiar with it, I will drop you immediately with 23's. Don't be that cool obnoxious kid who thinks they know how to debate theory/k's!

-I won't call for evidence unless someone tells me to or it becomes a "he said, she said" match in which case I'd need to see the evidence to make a decision on that front. This means that I would prefer if you did evidence comparision/weighing to make my job easier.

Speaks:

-Don’t be abusive, it’s bad. I will end the round and drop you immediately, with 23's, no questions asked.

-My speaks are generally aligned with the actual speaker point rank, 26 if u goofed, 27 for avg/meh, 28 if u were pretty decent overall, 29 if u were very good, and 30 if you were amazing. Take this with a grain of salt though, since speak rules change in tourneys.

daniel (he/him)

if you have any specific questions ask me before round.

==========================================================================================

<< ONLINE DEBATE >>

1. evidence: if an email chain is made make sure to add me on it

2. general: mute yourself when not talking, keep track of your prep when reading cards (be honest !!)

==========================================================================================

<< PF >>

general stuff:

- tech > truth but the more squirrely an argument becomes the more work you'll have to do to convince me that it's a valid argument

- signpost throughout your speeches

- speed is fine but just make sure i can understand you, if you speak too fast, i'll stop flowing and just stare at you. please don't do that. it'll be awkward for the both of us.

- i think CX is binding but i won't flow it, if something important happens tell me in the later speech

- i presume neg by default but this should never happen, am open to other presumption args (e.g. 2nd, aff)

- if i am told to call for a card and i find that it contradicts what the person running it says i'll toss it out and pretend it was never mentioned

- i average 28 speaks

- please preflow before round, i won't let you do it in the room if the round should've started already because delays suck

- i like off-time roadmaps but it make it quick

good stuff

- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal

- comparative weighing -- simply throwing out buzzwords doesn't count, interact with your opponent's offense!

- warranting your evidence

"bad" stuff (avoid!)

- progressive args (theory, kritiks, etc.): not a "bad" thing perse but i don't have much experience with these at all so i can't promise i'll make a good decision over them (if theory is run make sure it's in response to actual abuse)

- don't call me judge, i think it's weird; speeches are directed towards me anyways

- don't read a framework that's just util (cost-benefit)

- card dumping

- just reading an author tag when extending evidence is not enough -- explain what the evidence says

- being rude during CX is very lame

Update for online tourneys:

- Set up an email chain/google doc for ev sharing (if you want me to be on the chain, let me know before round starts)

- Faking tech issues ("Oh I can't hear your question so I'll ask another" <-- in reality you just want to avoid the question, etc.) during round is atrocious. Don't do it. This is your only warning.

- If you genuinely cut out, I'm fine with asking clarifying questions after a speech. Tech issues are common and completely understandable

- Flex prep is fine if both sides are fine with it

- Make sure to take breaks and stay healthy, online tourneys can be pretty stressful. Have fun!

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

Hi! I'm Michael. I've done PF debate for around 5 years by now and currently debate for Montgomery Blair HS.

TLDR: Just your typical PF flow judge.

Argumentation:

If you run an argument that makes debate an unsafe space for other debaters, I will drop you. Other than that, run whatever you want, although I'm not too familiar with Ts and Ks.

Please weigh (meta-weighing is even better). Please don't throw a list of mechanisms at me, please explain them too.

Please signpost, so it is easier for me to see where you are on the flow.

I'm pretty lax on extensions of cards. As long as you extend the warranting, you don't need to explicitly tell me the author.

Finally, I believe Summary and FF should be reflective upon each other. If you decide to collapse on one thing in Summary, make sure it is extended during FF. If it is not there on my flow for FF, I won't evaluate it. Nothing new in 2nd final.

1st Summary should extend dropped defense/turns if there are any. 2nd rebuttal must address turns made in 1st rebuttal. A turn made in 1st rebuttal that doesn't get responded in 2nd rebuttal and gets extended in 1st summary has a high chance of influencing my ballot: at that point, any new response made in 2nd summary for the dropped turn will not be evaluated.

Speed

If you decide to spread, at least share your case with your opponents (and me too please so I can understand what is going on).

Spread at your own risk. My general advice would be: if you're going to be tripping up every other sentence, just slow down and cut some things from your speech.

Evidence

Don't misrepresent evidence please. That's not fun. If you think your opponents are misrepresenting evidence, feel free to ask me to call for it, and I'll do so after the round ends.

If your evidence seems too fishy, I will gut check myself and call for it.

Speaker Points:

You can expect around a 28.5 - 29 in speaks if you do average.

If you knock my socks off you'll get a 30.

If you use problematic language, I'll warn you once and drop your speaker points by 3. Do it again, you're getting a L20. Debate is meant to be an inclusive activity, using problematic language in round is a big no-no.

I pay attention to cross. Cross is binding.

Fun stuff:

TKO is in effect (W30 or L25)

Rhyme the entire round (30 speaks)

Joke (funny) +0.2 speaks

Joke (not funny) -0.1 speaks

Sing your speech (30 speaks)

Speak in Elizabethan English for the whole round (30 speaks)

Follow my twitch? https://twitch.tv/djdheedhee

Anything I think is out of the flow judge norm/important to read if you're skimming through will be asterisked (***blah blah blah).

Background. I'm a senior at Montgomery Blair HS, and it's my 5th year debating PF. If anything in this paradigm confuses you/there's something missing, shoot me an email (dheekeshav@gmail.com) or hmu on messenger.

Tech > Truth: This is what that means for you.

1. ***I am super committed to not intervening. I WILL NOT DO WORK. This isn't a "don't make me weigh for you" situation, it's a "if you don't explicitly weigh, I'll presume" sort of deal (I'll also presume if both sides win case and weighing and neither does metaweighing). The only exception is if you win defense/link turns on what they're extending, because then the weighing isn't really needed.

a) Presumption - in the context of rounds I judge - is when I can't find a path to the ballot without doing work for you, I vote along some predetermined metric. In this case, I presume whoever lost the coin flip.

2. David puts it best when he says "Run whatever argument you want...HOWEVER, I will intervene in instances where the safety of debaters in the room is compromised. That could be through making blatantly discriminatory arguments or not providing a content warning for a sensitive topic." Anything else is fine - just win your link chain.

Speed: I'm shit at flowing.

1. ***Ok, I'm not that bad, but I would say my inability to handle whatever VIP BL called "PF speed" is one of my biggest flaws as a debater. I can get arguments down, but if you want me to catch nuance or not miss one of your responses, don't push it.

2. If I get real lost, I'll clear you, but also, sometimes I'll just think I'm the shit at flowing when actually im catching like 2/3 of the responses sooo...

3. Idk where my threshold for starting to drop stuff is but it's probably somewhere around 225 WPM.

4. Don't send a speech doc because you plan on breaking the sonic barrier. I'll allow it if it's because your mic is trash or you cut out a lot

Extensions

1. ***Generally, I don't care if you extend card names. In fact, I would much rather you just said "Extend the C1 about Iran, that it would expand and lead to nuke war" or something like that. As long as I get your links and your impact, I'm good. I don't see the point in making y'all repeat yourselves for 30 seconds in each speech in the back half. This means I fully expect this to be in your speech. I'm making this easy on y'all. If you miss your impact, that's not my fault.

2. When extending responses and turns, keep in mind that my flowing is shitty. I still don't think you need the card names, but it'd help me on the flow a lot if you just told me the number of the response and the gist of it.

3. ***If your opponents extend case/turns/defense through ink, just say its through ink. If I don't have that ink on my flow, that's a big yikes.

4. ***I just lifted a lot of the regulation PF burden off of the summary/FF's shoulders. If you somehow still go 300 WPM in your summary, expect me to be very unhappy. If you blip through the 1 sentence extension, I might not catch it and think you dropped case, so slow down when you extend. Or just be slow the whole time.

Speech Stuff: Responding

1. 2nd rebuttal only has to frontline turns. Conceded contentions/turns have 100% strength of link, which is NOT the same thing as 100% probability of impact.

2. 1st summary needs to backline any frontlines that the 2nd rebuttal put on their defense if they want that defense in final focus. Dropped defense only needs to be "extended" in 2nd summary.

3. ***Turns have to be in summary. If you extend a dropped turn and frame it as defense in 1st final focus, I'll allow it.

4. No new responses to case/turns in summary (1st summary can frontline turns). No new frontlines in FF.

5. Signpost. Ideally, list # of responses to each argument before going into it.

Speech Stuff: Weighing

1. *** Only do real weighing please. I'll still evaluate it, but I die a little bit inside everytime someone tells me their two reasons they outweigh are probability and clarity of impact.

2. ***The last speech for new weighing is summary (not counting meta-weighing).

a) 1st FF is allowed if nobody does it before, and 2nd FF is allowed if nobody does it before (including 1st FF).

3. *** If both sides win case and weigh and nobody interacts with the other weighing/does meta-weighing, I'll presume.

4. I'd prefer if you didn't weigh on the flow (don't weigh as you get to their C1), but rather if all the weighing was separate from the line-by-line in your speech.

Crossfire

1. I'll probably be listening. If you're funny or smart in cross, your speaks will go up, and if you're rude or dumb in cross, your speaks will go down. A few more things on that:

a) Any sort of question or comment in the crossfire that has to do with you seeing evidence after the crossfire will annoy the shit outta me. You could be fantastic in round, but if you keep doing that in cross, your speaks will not reflect your impeccable speeches.

b) Inserting speeches into cross makes me sad.

c) My favorite crossfires happen when teams have multiple quickfire lines of questioning, even if nobody concedes anything in the process. Understanding when you're circling or when you're not going to get a concession and moving on is a goddamn talent.

2. ***Nobody is obligated to talk during cross-x. If you and the other team want to prep for 3 minutes, I'll allow it. If either team wants to ask questions, though, the other team's gotta answer them.

2. ***If you wanna use flex prep to ask questions, go for it.

Progressive Argumentation: I didn't run a lot of progressive arguments as a debater, but I did help write a cap K last year, and my school has won several rounds on paraphrasing theory, so I'm exposed to the argumentation.

1. *** For ALL debaters considering running progressive args in my round: I think that progressive arguments do belong in PF, but NOT in the way that they do in CX/LD. They should a) be read at the pace of a normal case, and b) be well-tagged so that the case itself is understandable OR paraphrased. If you spread me a semiocap K straight out of the backfiles, and your speech doc is extremely confusing, then I'll still evaluate it AS BEST I CAN, but your speaks will TANK. Debate, progressive or not, should be accessible and comprehensible. I also prefer paragraph theory when judging, even though I think that the shell format is better-organized, because I think that shells are more exclusionary.

2. You should extend theory and K's more rigorously than case, because it may be harder for myself/other debaters to grasp initially, so repeating it and explaining it well is helpful.

3. ***I default no RVI's, CI > Reasonability, DtA > DtD, but this is only if neither side tells me what to do. If you don't know what this means, maybe don't run theory (or ask me before round, I don't know that much more than y'all but I'll do my best).

4. ***By default, I will evaluate Theory and Ks before case, but since both have a ROB, if neither side tells me whether I go to Theory first or K's first in a debate where they're at odds with each other, I'll just kick both and go to the case debate. PLEASE do this weighing.

5. ***I'll evaluate tricks but I don't particularly like them. I'd easily take a paragraph theory argument about why tricks are bad because they reduce clash or arguments about why the spirit of the resolution > text of the resolution. ALSO DON'T HIDE TRICKS. Put them in a contention (or 5), or in a subpoint (can be in an unrelated contention) or in an over/underview. If it's hidden in your debt contention link chain, I'm not evaluating it.

Evidence ethics.

1. I'm not calling cards if nobody tells me to/there are no evidence conflicts.

2. ***I think if your evidence doesn't have a warrant but you do, I have no problem with that warrant/evidence combo. If your evidence and you have different warrants, that might be a problem.

3. If someone miscuts evidence and it's called out, I won't evaluate the card. As David puts it, "If you expect me to drop a debater for miscut evidence, read theory."

Speaks.

1. I'll generally just gut-check how good you are. That includes how well you speak and how smart the things you say are. If you concede defense/a contention and then spin it to work for you, I'll be super duper impressed.

2. ***If you get really passionate and curse in a speech, I'll probably laugh and boost your speaks. If you curse at someone, I will probably frown and tank your speaks.

3. ***I like sass and humor. Don't be rude.

4. ***Me and my old partner used to turn our team name (Montgomery Blair JK) into a joke at the end of our cases. We'd say "Judge, we may be Montgomery Blair JK but we're not just kidding when we tell you that.." Anything less cringy than this is appreciated.

Other Important Things

1. Wear what you want. Be comfortable, whether that's dressed up or dressed down. Just make sure you wear something.

Fun Stuff.

1. Worldstar rules apply. See them here (bottom of the paradigm, speaker ceiling doesn't apply): https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53657

2. At the request of both members of both teams (agree before the round), we can debate an entirely different topic (previous NSDA topic or otherwise, hell if y'all have prep for pancakes v. waffles, I'm down).

3. AJR Lyrics boost speaks, unless they're poorly inserted. If I don't catch em, oops.

That's it.

^This paradigm is heavily influenced by David Kinane, whom you can check out here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=40974.

hi! i debated for richard montgomery in pf (won nsda nationals 2021) and for usa debate in worlds. 

general stuff 

1. i make the decision that requires the least amount of intervention. 
2. i will vote off of any arg as long as it's extended, frontlined, and weighed (given that it's not problematic ofc).
3. i won't call for evidence unless it's contested in round. 
4. i'm down to evaluate Ks and theory, but i left the circuit before they got more mainstream so do so at your own risk. 
5. i presume neg. 
6. extensions need to be warranted. 
7. i'm a fan of analytical arguments as long as they are actually logical. 
8. i'm fine with speed but if you go above 250wpm, i will be so sad :( 
9. collapse pls <3 
10. also pls preflow before round

speeches

1. second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense. 
2. everything in final focus must have been said in summary. 

this isn't super detailed but here is a paradigm of a teammate who has a super similar paradigm to me. 

If you can make a good topical joke during CX, I might bump your speaker points slightly :)

Speed: I'm ok with fast or slow speed, as long as what you're saying is enunciated and emphasized properly. Measure your speed based on your own comfortability, but make sure you are clear and understandable.

Clash: I like seeing a lot of clash. Be sure to emphasize how your arguments interact with your opponents, it makes it a lot easier for me to judge the round. I prefer offtime roadmaps and going down the flow.

During speeches, make sure to signpost and warrant extensively! Lastly, please be sure to weigh and collapse as clearly as you can! The burden rests on your shoulders to assure to me why you should win the round, so be very clear about it!

Remember debate is a fun activity, so don't get too discouraged by some of your results, make sure you're rnjoying the experience!

Hello!

So glad to see everyone on campus this weekend!

I am a sophomore at Harvard competing primarily in APDA. I did a significant amount of PF in high school (Richard Montgomery HS) and won the tournament in 2022.

I'm ready to evaluate any arguments you'd like to run. That being said, please

1. Weigh
2. Warrant
3. Have high-quality evidence
4. Consider theory sparingly. I am relatively unfamiliar with evaluating these arguments at a technical level.

Most of all, take it easy. I hope that good argumentation and the best debates are exciting and fun for all involved.

Flow judge who will adapt to the debaters. Debate in a way that you enjoy & makes everyone comfortable!

howdy! i'm lawrence (any pronouns) and i did pf at montgomery blair. i now study environmental studies at yale where i do a bit of coaching. if anything here doesn't make sense/if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, contact me at lawrence.tang@yale.edu!

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

im a bit detached from the debate community. i will still draw cool extension arrows but you shouldn't assume i know anything about the topic or ur uber-cool groundbreaking meta-strategy.

general thingies

i will evaluate any argument as long as it isn't violent, exclusionary or compromises anyone's safety (be it bigoted arguments or lack of warning)*. include content warnings and an anonymous opt-in process. all participants in a round (including judges) need to opt-in. here's an example of an opt-in form!

i can handle most pf speeds but i'm also a bit rusty. don't use speed as an exclusionary tool.

no big emphasis on evidence -- how you spin your evidence matters more. i encourage cards though. i'll avoid calling evidence unless it's impossible to resolve the round otherwise.

i have a pretty bad poker face.

i view debate as a game of probabilities with every round having some uncertainty left up to the judge (weighing impacts, evaluating defense, etc). you should minimize that uncertainty and maximize the probability that i vote for you. assume that i'll make some mistake -- i'm not a robot!

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

• signpost and respond to arguments in the order they're made

• err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, many args I've seen have been super blippy/unwarranted and have left me pretty confused

general rule: the later an argument is made, the less weight i'll give to it. defense is sticky for first summary. don't read defense on your own offensive. concede defense immediately after the speech it was read in.

tempted to say probability weighing doesn't exist. if both teams give me weighing that's cool but i don't know how to resolve that so please interact with the weighing already read.

everything you want me to vote off has to be in final focus even if it's conceded. you don't have to do as much work but please at least breathe on them.

if i can't resolve the round without intervening, i'll presume whoever lost the flip.

progressive stuff: above-average understanding, but don't be exclusive

my defaults are:

• disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, but theory on these is iffier

• fairness is not a voter, rvis bad, CI > reasonability, drop the argument over debater

Phil/FW - some background knowledge but not much. make sure you're not just regurgitating weird academic language and actually explain ideas in normal english.

T - tbh i don't think i've run across a pf situation that needed a t shell. you're fine just saying something is non-topical. i also disagree with the nebel t.

Theory - most shells in pf are fluff. absent legitimate abuse in round, i'll vote on theory but i won't like it. disclosure and paraphrasing are more valid but still iffy.

Kritiks - i wrote a cap k once. familiar with some lit (biopower, orientalism, setcol) but not from debate pov. your strategy can't rely on background knowledge or me reading your evidence. iffy on arguments that weaponize identity or structural violence for the sole sake of a ballot. if you're reading these arguments, be genuine.

other things

• ask as many questions as you want. postround me. i'm always learning and would love feedback!

• always looking for more music, book (literally any type of media) recommendations, so if you have any hidden bangers please lmk!

*given my positionality, i recognize that i'm not neutral and cannot operate under a veil of objectivity. i don't trust my judgment in determining what is violent. however, i fail to see a better alternative :(

full paradigm