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.

Debated PF for 3 years at Winston Churchill HS, currently a freshman at Princeton

TLDR:

Update for Princeton: it's been a hot minute since I've done any debate-related activities so it would better to treat me as a flay

Toss me on that email chain, email: robert.diaz@princeton.edu

If you have questions ask them before round

You know how to debate so debate. I'm probably your average ex-debater judge, preferences and stuff are below.

Expanded stuff:

1. Keep it under 210 wpm.

2. I don't pay attention to cross.

2a. Grand cross is a waste of time, if you want to use that time for a minute of prep just let me know.

3. World Star Rule is in effect. Refer to this link here.

4. Not a huge fan of progressive arguments, but if there is legitimate abuse read it. If you decide to read a K, you have to explain it very well. I would not trust myself to judge it properly though

5. Weigh

6. Collapse on like 2 arguments max and extend warrants

7. Frontline in second rebuttal.

7a. For rebuttal in general don't turn dump, if you read a turn weight it and warrant it

8. What's in final needs to be in summary.

9. Defense isn't sticky, you have a 3-minute summary.

10. Time yourselves, I'll keep track but its not going to be the most accurate thing in the world

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

extra speaker points if u can make me laugh.

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)

have fun!

If you're reading this, congrats! You're on your way to becoming a great debater ;)

It may not seem like it, but I've been doing PF for ~3 years, and the most important thing in a competition is to have fun and enjoy yourself!

That being said, please don't be rude at any time during the round, or else I will most likely vote for the other side and probably tank your speaks.

General Content:

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. at any point during the round, you will be autodropped.

Make my job easier. Weigh. Then weigh some more. And then weigh some more. The easier it is for me to vote, the better. Extend your impacts and links through FF, or else I'll just drop them.

Please signpost so I don't get lost!

I won't consider anything new that's brought up after first summary. First summary doesn’t need to extend defense. Second summary shouldn't include new cards or new points.

That being said, second rebuttal should frontline.

If you're going to be collapsing on a certain argument, make sure you address it in summary first, and then extend it through FF. If you don't extend, the round gets muddled and I have to do work. I don't like doing work.

Again, weigh in FF. It makes my job a lot easier and I won't have to weigh for you.

Signpost so I know where you are on the flow. If not, I get confused. I don't like getting confused.

No counterplans, please.

Speed:

I'm okay with fast speaking, as long as it's clear. Please don't spread, and if you do, at least share your cases with your opponents. Clear > fast.

CF:

Don't shout at each other. Don't be rude, or I'm going to dock your speaks.

Evidence:

If your card sounds insanely weird, I'm going to call it for myself. Otherwise, if your opponent calls it and you're unable to show them the card, depending on whether or not you decide to collapse on it (not really advised at that point tbh), I may or may not consider it when voting.

Speaks + Extra stuff:

I like it when people make me laugh :)

I also love Wintermelon Tea with 50% sugar, no ice, and less bubbles from KFT, or hot wintermelon oolong tea w/bubbles from Gong Cha. :)

Be confident, but don't scream/shout.

I usually give speaks from 27-29, but if you're actually a god I'll consider 30 :).

Have fun and good luck!

do whatever
just don't forget to weigh

I will not intervene against any argument that has a warrant and has an implication on how I should be writing my ballot. I feel most comfortable evaluating topical rounds. I will evaluate any arguments about why things other people do are unfair or are bad for debate. I typically look to the argument that is best weighed assuming a reasonable probability of it happening with rare exceptions that you should delineate in the round. Answer all offensive arguments in the rebuttal speeches and answer rebuilding arguments/ frontlines when extending defensive arguments. The earlier the better.

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 :(

bwdebate22@gmail.com

i vote on anything

ask questions before round

keep your own time

Hello I'm kristen, i debated PF for three-ish years

I am not a very technical judge. I have a working knowledge of prog arguments like Ks and theories and such but have little experience evaluating them. Feel free to run them if you want at your own discretion. I am also quite bad with speed -- if you start speaking at over 250 words per minute my flow will be weird. Debater jargon is fine but personally prefer not to have to hear fake words. Speaks never dip below 27 unless you're like racist or something.

Some things i like to see:

• warranting all the time
• weighing/comparative analysis in rebuttal responses
• timing your own prep and speeches

basically just follow basic norms and u'll be alright!

hey

debated @ Blair for 4 years

debate however you want