Hi! I'm Navin and hopefully, I'll be judging you today!

Some things you should keep in mind:

1) Please weigh your arguments, preferably as early as rebuttal. Weighing must be comparative (don't just state how big your impact is. Actually make a comparison against the other team's impacts).

2) Have a clear narrative from the beginning. From second rebuttal onward, it should be clear what arguments you are going for. I don't like shifty strategies where teams go for arguments that they only spent 10 seconds on in a previous speech.

3) Warrant your responses. I will not be compelled to believe a piece of evidence if you just say "x author says this therefore it is true." I need a justification behind the claim. If you want me to consider responses and/or arguments, warrants and links need to be extended in every speech.

4) Speed is not an issue for me. Just send a speech doc.

5) Evidence quality is important but it is the other team's responsibility to call out bad evidence ethics, not mine. I'm not going to drop you if you misrepresent evidence but I will be less compelled to believe your argument.

6) Civility in the debate space is extremely important to me. Do not be rude or make any offensive comments. Some snarky behavior I can handle. Repeated disrespectful comments and behavior will affect your speaker points and maybe even results.

7) Progressive arguments are not my cup of tea. However, as far as I see it, they function like any other argument, so as long as you structure it like a regular arg, I should be able to understand and flow.

8) Debate shouldn't be as stressful of an activity as it is. Too many people treat it as a competition at the expense of the enjoyment of the activity and the opportunity to share your beliefs. Persuasion and appeal are core parts of debate and will help you in the real world. So remember, have fun! :)

Good luck!

Questions before round? Contact me at navindurbhakula@college.harvard.edu or Navin Durbhakula on Facebook.

flay

Hi! I debated for 3 years on the circuit for Churchill (MD) and am now a sophomore at Penn.

tl;dr

I haven't seen a PF round in 2+ years and am not updated on the norms/trends, so you should probably treat me as a flay judge.

Here are some key points:

• Please be clear, signpost, and warrant well
• Collapse and weigh comparatively in the second half
• I'm probably worse at flowing than the average flow judge, so don't go too fast or you'll lose me
• Don't extend through ink
• Be nice
• I'm really not a fan of theory/Ks and don't understand them at all, so I'd strongly prefer if you stick to substance and will probably be biased against you if you run it for no reason. Like below, if there's a real violation, just explain it plainly

Feel free to read the rest of my old paradigm if you want, but the above points are the most relevant. If you do all of that I'll try to be generous with speaks. Let me know if you have any questions before round, and have fun!

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

I'd consider myself a normal flow judge, so just debate how you like.

General

- I like well-warranted and well-explained arguments. It makes it easier for me to understand and thus vote on.

- Please weigh your arguments comparatively! If you don't weigh (or its not comparative), I will have to do my own weighing, which might not turn out how you like.

- Tech > Truth, but the more ridiculous the argument the lower the threshold I have for acceptable responses to it.

- Collapse pls

- If you want me to vote on it, you should be extending it, not just saying "extend X, extend Y"

Speed

- I kinda suck at flowing, so try not to go tooooo fast. Generally, I can keep up, as long as you remain clear. If I think you're going too fast, I'll say "clear".

In Round

- Don't make new arguments in final focus.

- You should extend arguments that you want me to vote on in summary and final focus.

- Signpost

- I think it's strategic if second rebuttal frontlines responses in first rebuttal (but it's not necessary if you aren't comfortable with it)

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless its frontlined in second rebuttal), but if it's important you should still extend it in summary

- "They don't provide a warrant/the impact isn't contextualized" is a sufficient response for me.

Evidence

- I think paraphrasing is okay, as long as you have a card to back it up.

- I won't call for evidence unless I think it's important to the outcome of the round or unless I am explicitly told to.

Progressive Arguments (K, Theory, etc.)

- I don't think progressive arguments are good for the direction of the PF, and I would discourage you from running one in front of me. With that being said, if you choose to read a progressive argument,

1. You should explain it very well

2. I never had much experience with it in high school, so I will probably make a decision that reflects my lack of knowledge

- If you think there is a real violation in round, I think you should just explain and warrant it like any other argument (paragraph theory), and I will be inclined to vote on it.

Finally,

don't be rude, sexist, abelist, racist, etc.

Good luck and have fun!

Ask me during round if you have any questions

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.

This paradigm will be displayed publicly on the main Tabroom site, and will also be linked off pref/strike sheets for tournaments.

Please bear in mind that paradigms are public, geared to an educational audience, and have your name attached. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in your paradigm being removed. We might also lock or delete your Tabroom account.

In other words, be mature, and good people.

About Me:

- HS senior, started debate December 2017

- I flow (probably on excel) and I'd consider myself tech>truth 95% of the time

- I won't intervene but will pull cards if asked to or if it's important for decision

- I like funny things in rounds and I don't like rounds with lots of tension ;-;

- Email speech docs to awesomehenrysun@gmail.com (best email address ever :D)

Major Paradigmatic Issues:

- Feel free to read theory/Ks if it's justified; always make it clear + accessible for everyone

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal (at least turns and hopefully the contention you're going for)

- 1st speaking team does not have to extend defense if 2nd rebuttal does not frontline, otherwise, extend defense/weigh in both summaries

- Obviously, anything I vote on has to be in both back half speeches and hopefully rebuttal. Collapsing earlier is usually good because it means a more well-developed debate

- You must explicitly concede defense in the speech following if you don't want the other team to extend turns, I will buy the offense even if theory is not read

- I tend to be more lenient towards what I perceive to be more probable arguments, but I will do my best to be unbiased. However, if your argument doesn't fit this criteria and you don't read weighing that's probably gonna hurt

Stylistic Preferences:

Pet Peeves:

- People who put the apostrophe after the year (ex. 19')

- "Uniqueness controls the direction of the link"

- "Judge" you can call me henry, hen or herny works too

- Debate math on your evidence

- Reading CBA in case, reexplaining your case in rebuttal, or not weighing

- Screaming in crossfire or being mean to someone else

Preferably:

- Speak however fast you can if everyone is okay with it (speed with great analysis + clarity is in my opinion the best version of debate)

- Ask if I have topic-specific preferences

- Clash instead of reading off case disadvantages, especially in 2nd rebuttal

- Write my ballot for me in the back half - you can/should call them out for being idiots but refrain from personal attacks

- (Outdated as the Shao has been freed) Sign this petition for a +1 speaks: https://www.change.org/p/elisa-chen-allow-danny-shao-to-judge-at-local-es-ms-tournaments

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.

I debated for Thomas S. Wootton and I'm currently studying Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech. I use he/him pronouns.

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, have questions, or think I'm missing something, ask me before the round. I'm hesitant to answer things once the round has started.

- Don't extend through ink. If your opponents read defensive responses to your argument, you should probably respond to them if you want to go for that argument. If they read an offensive response, you need to respond to it or explain why your link/impact outweighs their turn. 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to offense or I will consider it conceded.

- Collapse. The fewer arguments for me to evaluate the better. I'd rather have each side making 2 weighed arguments vs 4 unweighed ones. Also, spend your extra time explaining your argument very clearly for me and walk me through your link chain. If I can't listen to your final focus alone and understand what your argument is, I will have a harder time voting for it.

- Extension: Offensive arguments need to be in both summary and final focus for me to vote on it. Weighing must be in final focus to be evaluated but should come out earlier in the round.

- Weigh. This is the easiest way to win the round. Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponents and I will vote for you. This means your weighing has to be comparative, don't just state "We outweigh on magnitude because we impact to x people." You should also try to implicate why your weighing is important; if you state that you outweigh on clarity of impact or a more obscure weighing mechanism, tell me why I should care about how clear an impact is.

- Probability Weighing. I, 1. Think that this is generally just a way to make new responses later in the round and 2. Probability weighing generally clashes with my belief in debate that if you win your argument, you win probability that it's happening. The latter applies to claims such as "there is 100% probability x happens!!" Well, if you are winning your argument, yes; if you're not, no.

- Analysis vs Evidence. I haven't read your evidence before and likely your opponents haven't either. Unless your evidence is stating a fact, you need to be able to defend the warrants of your evidence instead of stating "thats what our card says." Uncarded analysis can be just as good as carded. I believe that debaters should be able to respond to arguments logically as well as reading down their block file.

- Speed. My partner and I generally went pretty quickly and I'm okay with moderate-fast speed if it is clear (I'll be flowing on my computer). That said, using speed as a way to make debate inaccessible or "spread out" your opponents is not okay. If you're going to be going at a speed that people can't understand you at, you should give a speech doc (I don't think PF should need speech docs). Do not sacrifice clarity for speed, it is less about me being able to write things down quickly and more about debaters being able to maintain clarity while speaking clearly. You should also be cognizant of the fact that online debate creates a myriad of clarity issues that could involve microphone quality or internet strength.

- Defense. If second rebuttal chooses not to frontline defense, first summary may extend it from rebuttal to final focus. However, I think frontlining in second rebuttal is strategic and key to developing a cohesive narrative through the round. All up to you. Otherwise, defense should be in both summary and final focus.

- Roadmaps/Signposting. Unless you're doing something crazy, a roadmap doesn't need to be anything more than where you are starting. Signposting is an absolute must. If you don't signpost I will be confused and probably cry. If you don't want me to be confused, you need to tell me when you're moving on the flow such as: numbering your responses, stating what contention you're on, if you start responding to their impact, etc.

- Theory/Ks. My role as a judge is simply to evaluate the arguments in the round. As such, I'm willing to evaluate and vote on theory and Ks in rounds; however, I don't particularly like the use of these arguments to pick up ballots on opponents inexperienced with this type of debate — e.g. shoe theory or something intentionally frivolous.

- Evidence. I will call for evidence if a team asks me to call for it and I believe it changes the way I evaluate the round. Let me know if I forget to call for something before I have made my decision.

- Intervention: I hope the round is clean and doesn't require any intervention, however, sloppy debating inevitably forces judges to intervene. If there is no weighing, I'll default to magnitude. If both sides completely take out each other's offense, I will default neg (I'm willing to hear default 1st argumentation). You don't want me to intervene on either of these things; for your own sake please weigh and make risk of offense/mitigatory analysis for me.

- Speaker Points. I give good speaks to debaters that can make good arguments, are fluid and convincing, and do well on the flow. Bad speaks are given to debaters who say problematic and offensive things and can result in me dropping them. If you make me laugh too I will help your speaks :)))).

- Postrounding. As an educational activity, I believe it is my responsibility to pay full attention to the round and thus am willing to answer questions regarding my decision. This means I'm willing to further justify my decision beyond my RFD if you have any questions AS LONG as its purpose is to further your learning and progress in this activity. If you use post rounding as a means of undermining your opponent's success you are a sore loser and I will hurt your speaks and end the post-round discussion. To add to this, I've never seen a situation where a coach asking questions to a judge had any purpose but to belittle the judge. (If the delineation of productive vs unproductive post rounding is unclear to you, ask me before the round for examples)

He/Him - UC Berkeley 24

PF Paradigm (I haven't debated much APDA yet, so I'm still figuring out how to navigate it. That said, I'm the most reliable judging rounds under a utilitarian lens because that was the PF standard -- anything else will probably require more explanation for me to vote on. Other than that, I think most of the things in my PF paradigm follow closely in the way I adjudicate APDA rounds as well.)

ahahahaha

ok so...

200 wpm is best speed where i can flow majority of what is said

weigh weigh weigh PLEASE WEIGH

explain the logic/warrant behind things (so they make sense)

extend your argument each speech if you want me to vote on it

if you're first summary, you don't need to extend defense unless they frontline it.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline turns or else they are considered dropped.

i like clarity of impact weighing... probability is a bit more sus but if you argue it well I'll vote on it

also judging isnt as fun as debating so sometimes i wont be like 100% in it, so if you think im flow, debate flay ya dig?

as for progressive arguments -- theory and kritiks especially -- I'm not too comfortable with them so please don't trust me to make the right decision

And here is a link to my ex-partners paradigm; he and I have very similar debate ideologies so anything I didnt cover here I'll likely defer to what is written on his.

http://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Carter&search_last=Tegen

General:

- make warrants. an argument is not an argument without a warrant, and I will only vote on arguments. dropped ink only goes through for me if that ink is actually an argument.

- comparative warrants/weighing pls

- collapse

- tech over truth (caveat: "tech" != blippy)

Specific:

- I'm not experienced with evaluating theory/kritiks; read at your own discretion

- frontlining in second rebuttal: I require you to frontline offense but defense is up to you

- defense is not sticky

- I will call for evidence if I'm curious/if the other team asked me to/if the debate's otherwise irresolvable.

- warrant + evidence > warrant > evidence

- goes without saying but I will not tolerate sexism, racism, ableism, or any other form of discrimination. I will tank your speaks or drop you