sup

pretty standard east coast circuit judge (4 yrs pf for stuyvesant hs).

i'll vote off of any offense (no preference for case offense vs turns), please weigh.

to that effect, i'm tabula rasa. run nuke war, run dedev, run what you want and if you warrant it, frontline and weigh we're good.

i'd like you to rebuild/frontline in second rebuttal. if you don't, i'll be disappointed and perhaps deduct from your speaks but will reluctantly evaluate frontlines in second sum (if you do this, i'll let your opponents backline in ff). turns, however, need to be answered in the next speech.

all offensive arguments should be in summary and final focus. no new arguments in ff except in response to new arguments made in the previous speech. i'm ambivalent with respect to new weighing in first ff. i'd prefer it in first summary, but if there's a reasonable doubt as to what your opponents are going for or it's an extremely close round, i'll feel ok evaluating it.

collapse. quality over quantity. if you do this as a novice and make other smart strategic choices i will be proud of you and give good speaks.

speed is ok. if your opponents clear you i expect you to slow down.

noninterventionist with one caveat. no isms, pretty please, i'll probably deduct from speaks and drop in extreme cases. however: i may not pick up on certain things, so to be absolutely sure make it clear to me why, for example, content warnings were necessary before a specific speech and what the implications of that are, or why i should drop a certain argument or team.

theory that i drop unconditionally: paraphrasing, disclosure, speaks. other shells are meh, but know that i'll gut check them. fundamentally, pf is about substance debate and theory is only educationally useful in edge cases. allowing theory to enter the average round destroys format diversity.

in this vein, if you spread or run progressive argumentation to exclude the other team, i'll dock speaks and maybe drop you, depending on the extent of the exclusion.

glhf

Hi I'm Ben

I participated in Public Forum Debate at Hackley for 4 years. I am now a junior at the University of Chicago. In general, I am a flow judge and you should treat me as one. If any of this is unclear or if you have any other questions, please ask me. I am happy to answer any specific questions about my preferences. Please read my paradigm so you can ask me specific questions though.

Above all, have fun. Debate is supposed to be fun. Make me enjoy watching the round. Make jokes. Put a smile on. I promise whether you do well or poorly you will still be happy if you genuinely enjoy debate, so enjoy debate.

For those of you who don't have much time or want a simple version of my paradigm the most important things know are:

-don't misrepresent evidence

-implicate your responses to your opponent's case

-defense is sticky (so you don't need to extend defense they don't respond to)

-Summary and Final Focus must be about the same content

-tell me where you want me to flow your responses (signpost)

-Weigh!!!! Weigh in comparison to your opponents weighing

-Collapse on one argument

Specific Preferences:

1. In second rebuttal, ideally all offense from the other side in the round should be covered. This means you should respond to their case, and any turns and disadvantages they put on your case in first rebuttal.

2. I like to hear weighing in rebuttal, it makes my life easier and the quality of debate higher.

3. I can handle speed, but a disclaimer: the faster you go, the higher the chance that I misunderstand what you are saying. Be reasonable with speed.

4. Please read the dates on any evidence you read.

5. If you misrepresent your evidence with paraphrasing intentionally, your speaks will suffer. Be warned.

6. I'll evaluate theory and k's but I won't like it. They don't really belong in Public Forum, but if you win them, I'll vote off of them.

7. Card dumping is great, but if you don't implicate your cards to their case I'm not going to evaluate them. This also means you have to warrant your cards.

8. Defense is sticky. If defense isn't responded to, you don't need to extend it.

9. Offense is not sticky. If you want me to evaluate offense, it must be in summary and final focus, and if you speak 2nd, in one of your first two speeches.

10. I will put my pen on the table during cross. If you think I am not paying attention during cross, it is because I am not paying attention. Cross is for the debaters to clarify stuff with each other, not to bring up new points or to grandstand for the judge.

11. That being said, don't be super rude or you will lose speaks. I am okay with wittiness/humor, I even appreciate it, but make sure you don't yell at your opponents or explicitly make fun of them, it is bad for the activity of debate and I will take away speaks.

12. Please signpost. If you don't tell me where on the flow you want me to write what you are saying, I will decide, and you might not like that. Even worse, if I can't figure out where to put it, I will just ignore it. You definitely won't like that.

13. Tech>Truth. I will evaluate the round entirely based on what's on my flow. I am not going to intervene. You tell me how to vote and why that means I vote for you, and I will evaluate the round.

14. Please weigh in summary and final focus. Not only that, comparatively weigh. This means you take your weighing and your opponents weighing and you explain why I should prefer your weighing in comparison with their weighing.

15. Collapse. If you go for your whole case, I am going to be really sad and the quality of the debate is just going to be worse. It also will make your weighing and extensions less clear.

16. Speaks: I think speaks are stupid and subjective and they don't promote the activity of debate, they promote the activity of public speaking. Thus, most of the way I am going to evaluate speaks is round strategy, vision, and cohesiveness in a team. Here is how that looks:

30- You collapsed on the right thing, and you weighed it with your opponent's case innovatively. All of the opponent's offense was responded to completely. You frontlined everything you went for. Final Focus built on, but was about the same content as summary. Both partners were on the same page the whole round.

29- You collapsed on the right thing, and you weighed it adequately with your opponent's case. You responded all of your opponent's offense, but you may have mishandled it somewhat. You frontlined everything you went for, but maybe it was a little rushed or done not well enough. Final Focus and Summary were about the same content. Both partners seemed pretty cohesive throughout the round.

28- You collapsed, but perhaps not on the right thing, and your weighing was not comparative. You may have dropped a turn, or a part of your opponent's case, but you at least weighed. You did not necessarily frontline all of your opponent's defense on what you went for, but the frontlining done was good. Final Focus felt a little bit disjointed from Summary, but they still were in the big picture covering the same thing. The partners seemed to be presenting slightly different worldviews at least, and may have interrupted each other in Grand Cross.

27-You probably went for everything, and your weighing was poor or nonexistent. Your defense was mishandled and you didn't respond to significant parts of your opponent's offense. There was nearly no frontlining even attempted, and the frontlining attempted was poor and didn't apply. Final Focus brought up new stuff and felt completely different than what was going on in Summary. The partners seemed very disjointed and probably interrupted each other in grand cross.

26 (This is nearly impossible to do)-You didn't even try to extend any offense and your speeches turned into just yelling nonsense at the wall. Defense? What's that? We don't need to talk about what our opponents said. Partners seemed to be close to a fistfight during prep time.

auto 26 (If you got a 26 this probably happened)- intentional misrepresentation of evidence or complete disrespect for the other team is a one way trip to a 26.

17. If you ask me to call for evidence, I will call for it after the round if my decision is contingent on it.

18. Extensions need to extend the warrant, link, and impact of an argument, and also frontline after you extend.

19. Oh yeah pls don't be racist, sexist, homophobic or any one of those kinda things i will give you lowest speaks possible!!! Don't be that guy or gal pls!

20. Trigger warnings and content warnings seem ideal when appropriate

Hi, I'm Nolan and I'm a third-year out at UW-Madison studying mechanical engineering and philosophy. I did PF for Scarsdale for four years on the nat circuit.

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round, just give me time to complete my ballot.

If you're in a rush before your round: Fast is ok, but unclear isn't. Don't be mean. Weigh please; tell me why you win the round.

Also no theory or K's, I am beginning to realize their cancerous spread into PF is inevitable but I will remain as a holdout against it for as long as possible.

Now if you actually care for some reason here are some more in-depth preferences.

- Don't be rude in cross. I understand the distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness, but aggressiveness will greatly lower your speaks.

- I do not flow author names, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- In terms of speaker points: I give pretty high speaks, possibly too high. You'll really only go below a 28 if you made a critical error and if that happens, I will tell you. Speaks can be lost for things like misconstruing evidence, being a dick in cross, or not giving me any impacts or weighing. Basically just things that make it more difficult for me to evaluate the round.

- Conversely, I will raise your speaks for things that make the round easier to judge and overall more enjoyable. This includes things like clear speaking, civility in cross, and good weighing.

BACKGROUND: I am a junior at Harvard College who competed for Regis High School with moderate success (some bids, a lot of elims) in PF for four years on the National Circuit.

PARADIGM: Be kind, be honest, be clear, tell me a story that makes sense, and engage specifically with your opponents' arguments. Try not to do anything that I would likely view as excessively progressive, technical, or inaccessible given that my understanding of debate remains normed to what this activity looked like when I was introduced to it roughly 5 years ago. Don't make ridiculous arguments or misrepresent evidence. I will almost certainly not vote for progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc.).

Most of the time, the team that does the smartest things analytically (great comparative weighing! response grouping! weighed resolution of clash!) wins. If you have to speak super fast, you're probably missing the point. I don't enjoy speed, but I can certainly flow it, short of spreading.

just have a good time and don't be a big meanie head. Jojo reference for 30.

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

Things I care about:

• WEIGHING
• Weighing is the most important thing because it tells me what I should care about and why I should vote for you
• Extend your cards through summary
• If you bring up a card in final focus that you haven’t mentioned since your case, I won’t count it
• If you want me to vote on a certain card, please bring it up then
• please have a cordial round
• Please don’t be petty, aggressive, or misogynistic. It won’t make me like you

Things I don’t care about:

• Speed
• Cross fire
• only important for speaker points for me
• I don’t flow it
• If you want me to care about a point made in cross, please bring it up in the next speech

Other things:

• Time yourself. But don’t abuse the privilege and go way over time.
• Don’t do an off time road map if there is no reason to do an off time road map

Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)

TLDR: I like smart narrative tech debates. But you do you!

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and my email is zarachapple (at) gmail.com. I debated PF for Dalton (C)Y from 2017-2020, ran Beyond Resolved, coached for PFA, and now I study Public Policy and Sociology.

Don't be bigoted, don't be mean, respect pronouns + use content warnings. If I make this round/tournament safer or more accessible, please reach out, and I'll do what I can!

.·:*¨༺ ༻¨*:·.

Debate is a game and that game is Jenga. Collapse!

Procedure: Preflow, track your prep, and don't skip cross. I'll disclose decisions/speaks/comments as the tournament allows and give feedback, but don't post-round me.

Getting Good Speaks: Signpost everything, especially weighing/off case args. Implicate weighing/responses to your opponent's case. Crossfire shows how well you know your own arguments. I strongly prefer analytical responses that go after the structure of your opponent's arguments to prep-outs and card dumps.

Speed: Check with all teams/judges. My limit is ~220 WPM and I won't flow arguments I didn't hear.

Evidence: Your evidence probably isn't as good as you make it, but I won't evaluate issues with things I'm not asked to look for. Good analytics >>> unwarranted evidence. I'm chill with paraphrasing when it explains something more efficiently.

Theory: I am familiar with and will evaluate theory. I have high standards for reasonability, and argumentation still matters. Please don't make me intervene on vibes because your theory arguments aren't extended, warranted, and/or implicated. Theory isn't an RVI unless you make args otherwise.

Ks/Progressive Arguments: I really believe most policymaking approaches are problematic, so I welcome these arguments, and I'm familiar with most authors read in PF. That said, I have more experience judging LARP rounds, and I see their educational value too. PF's structure isn't conducive to Ks so I understand if you just explain the role of your argument, but I would encourage you to focus on strong links and alternatives.

Misc: I'm a Cancer Sun, Scorpio Moon, Pisces Rising. I judge nothing like Ben.

Good luck, and have fun!

Heyo I debated for Stuyvesant High School for a little bit, if you have any questions feel free to ask!

I haven't judged in over a year so I'll probably be evaluating each round like a parent. That being said, a lot of the stuff below still applies.

General Stuff:

- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new frontlines in second summary.

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.

- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.

- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.

Things I Like:

-Weighing is super important for everyone and I'm no different. It helps me evaluate the round more easily and it prevents me from making a terrible decision which will probably make you unhappy. With that being said, you probably should meet these standards if you want me to buy your weighing.
A. It has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.

B. Please metaweigh. This makes my job much easier, since I definitely don't want to have to intervene when it comes to things like urgency versus magnitude. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.

C. It should be started as early as rebuttal. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).

- Consistency between summary and final focus (Ik this is kind of overused). A lot of teams like to use the extra minute of summary to do a lot of stuff but I'd prefer if summary collapses on the things that final focus would go for and spends most of the time on weighing instead of unnecessary frontlining or defense. (If you know what I mean)

Things I Don't Like:

- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round, but I will still evaluate them.
With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.

- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.

- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.

- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I'm extremely confused by all forms of progressive argumentation so I'm probably not the best person to read these arguments to. That being said, I am open to evaluating these kinds of arguments if they are explained very well. Although I'm open to these arguments, please don't read Theory on novices or those who are unfamiliar with it.

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive the lowest possible speaks and the L. If possible I will also talk to tab, as such behavior should not be permitted at any tournament.

Hey, I debated PF for four years at Princeton High School. 

Here's my email for an email chain: emilychoi19@gmail.com

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

VBI Specific:

Lol idk much about trains so extra warranting >>> 

Don't assume I know things; explain everything clearly, or else I'll have just as much reason to believe the opposite is true.

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

Progressive Args:

Avoid running tricks, theory, or Ks in PF --> not a big fan, especially if it is run poorly. 

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

PF Specific:

Don't run blippy arguments that are inherently untrue. 

Don't run run the 900 million card --> although it will make me laugh.

Don't card dump, legitimately implicate.

Make sure to collapse and extend properly in summary and ff --> parallel structure!!

Also, WEIGH!!

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

Speaks:

Don't be mean to your opponents.

- If you sing, like actually sing a speech in it's entirety, I'll be not sad: 30 speaks :D

- If you rap your speech, I'll not be sad: 30 speaks :D

- Please do not be rude to your opponents or else: 10 speaks

If you have any questions about my paradigm or in general, don't hesitate to ask me questions before the round.

For public forum, please speak slowly and clearly. I prefer well-structured arguments with fewer sources of evidence as opposed to an overwhelming number of sources that are not clearly linked to your argument. As you present your case, define terms and abbreviations as if the audience has little to no background in this area. The final focus, closing argument, is important as I develop the Reason for my Decision.

Third year out from Bronx Science debated all four years and was pretty successful (bids, broke at TOC). I don't know much about very tech argumentation (Ks, theory), but feel free to run them (just explain them well). I am very compelled by comparative and uniqueness weighing and detailed warranting!!! All offense should be responded to in the next speech and turns (esp if ur going for them) should be fully extended with warranting and weighing. I will not vote off blippy extensions.

I am a current debater on the national circuit for Poly Prep Country Day. Tech over truth, to a degree, void assertions dont mean anything. But a consistent narrative matters. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus, but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility. (extending both warrants and impacts at the minimum).

Hi all! 

I did in PF at Scarsdale for 4 years and do Mock Trial at Columbia now, so I have ~some experience~ with the cult that is debate. 

If I'm judging your round, I suggest you read below: 

I flow a round but I do not base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighting. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

Please be civil during crossfires. I love drama, but I like to watch it exclusively on the Real Housewives. If you start attacking the opposing team, I'll stop listening. 

Also, hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. 

Purposely miscontruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: although your cases/contentions are important, I think what distinguishes PF from other forms of debate is your ability to think on the spot, use coherent logic, and WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH.

Let's have fun children. 

A little bit about me: I debated at the Bronx High School of Science for 4 years, where I was one of the captains of the PF team and broke at Gold TOC in my junior year. I am now a junior at Princeton University on their debate team as well. I consider myself a relatively flow debater, and so I will also be judging on the flow.

TL; DR

I am a pretty standard flow judge; if you debate well, both in terms of the technical aspect and persuasion aspect, that will make me happy. To take from my partner Tenzin Dadak's paradigm, the only equation you need to know is: Warrant + Weigh = Win

For the email chain and any questions, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.

Extended:

The way I evaluate every round is pretty simple- I look to weighing/framing first, and whoever I think is winning the weighing, I look to their arguments first. Then, if I think that there is a plausible risk of offense on that argument, I vote for that team- I don't even look at the other side of the flow. It's that simple, so it should inform you on what to prioritize in the round to get my ballot.

More things to do to secure my ballot:

1. Collapse. Too many times teams spread themselves too thin by trying to argue that they are winning every argument in the round, which makes it even more difficult to just win one; towards the later speeches, please whittle the round down to one or two major pieces of offense/voters for me.

2. Extend offense and frontline in summary and final focus. Pretty simple- if you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument still holds true even after their rebuttal, the likelihood is that I will not vote on it.

3. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. Warranting, for me, is the most interesting part of debate because that is where your logical reasoning and understanding of the world comes into play- just asserting a statement to be true or just reading a statistic is nowhere near enough to make me believe your arguments. Please explain the reasoning behind each step of the argument- even though there are massive time constraints in final focus, please still include it in a condensed form.

4. WEIGH. This is probably one of the most under-appreciated aspects of debate, and to become a great debater, you need to be able to compare your arguments to your opponents and explain why yours are more important to consider in the round. Just saying "We outweigh on scope because we affect more people" is not fully fleshed out weighing; you need to give more reasoning and also compare the clashing weighing mechanisms in the round. Weighing makes my job easier, and will probably lead to you being more content with my decision.

Miscellaneous:

1. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION: Personally, I believe that a lot of progressive argumentation does not have a place in PF, and will always prefer topical arguments over Ks and theory UNLESS there is clear abuse. As for my position on some norms, I lean very strongly paraphrasing good, slightly lean towards disclosure not necessary, lean RVIs good, and default reasonability. I do not know much about this type of debate, so please slow down and explain it thoroughly if you do choose to run it in front of me, and I will treat it as any other argument. Trigger warnings are a necessity, and if I feel as though you are running this just to win an easy ballot against a team that obviously does not know how to respond, I will drop you- progressive argumentation is supposed to correct the flaws that are in this activity, NOT to be weaponized.

2. I base speaker points on your speaking skills and presentation AND on how technically sound you debate. Because of this, if the tournament allows me to, I will give a low-points win. I will start at 28.

3. Please don't be overly aggressive or mean in round; light-hearted humor is wonderful, but be wary of the line where it crosses over from being funny to disrespectful. Oh and also, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That will automatically make me drop you- I have no tolerance for people who make the round an unsafe space to debate.

4. I am tech>truth, but not entirely. I will vote on any argument if it is well-warranted and well-executed in round, but as the argument becomes more outlandish, my threshold for a good response goes down and I am more likely to believe simple logical responses.

5. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.

6. Please signpost- tell me which argument you are talking about, where in the argument you are, etc. This just makes it easier for me to flow the round.

7. Speed is fine, but don't go excessively fast (this means no spreading!!!)- if I need you to slow down then I will say "clear".

8. About crossfires- I fall in the category of people who really enjoy listening to cross, but anything important that comes out of cross that you think is necessary for me to take note of has to be put into a speech, else it will not affect my decision.

9. Please make the round enjoyable; then we can all have fun and that would make it a great time. This activity is meant to be both fun and competitive- please try to make it so.

10. ABOUT TURNS: Since everyone is turning to the idea of dumping turns on all arguments without any proper warranting, this section is now warranted. I despise blippy turns, so unless you spend >10 seconds on one turn AND extend an impact on that turn in that same speech OR weigh your turn in that very same speech that you read the turn in, I will think of it as blippy and I will be very sympathetic to the other team's responses. Other team, please point out that they are blowing up a blip. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR SECOND REBUTTAL TURNS. Tread lightly.

FOR NOVICES:

I do not expect too much from y'all; I remember when I was a novice myself I certainly would not oblige to what I have mentioned above. That being said, here is some of the clear stuff that would make the round better and make me happy:

1. Signpost in every speech- this is a good practice generally, and allows you to stay organized and me to understand what you're saying.

2. Give voters in the back half of the round- it is not enough to tell me why the opponents should not win; you need to explain why you win and why I should vote for you.

3. Warrant and Weigh- Give me the reasoning behind your evidence and why your arguments logically are sound, and then compare their importance to those of the opponents.

If y'all got through all of that, then y'all are some real ones. If you want any speaker point boosts, call the pro's contentions as PROtentions (+0.5 speaker points). Thank you for reading this- if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts, and I will be happy to answer them. If you want to reach me, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

My name is Jack Greenspan, I'm a Scarsdale High School alumni, and I currently attend Trinity College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland. I did Public Forum all four years in high school, and I know that it's a challenging event, so good for you for debating. The following is how I analyze each round:

Weighing

Weighing is an absolutely necessary part of each round. You need to do this by telling us which arguments outweigh which arguments, and WHY that's the case. The best cards to weigh on either have a high magnitude (effect) or high probability. I'll accept cards that speak in generalities when weighing, but I'll prioritize hard numbers. An examination of the two different worlds that would happen is a good way to help me visualize the impacts.

For Novice debate, rounds essentially come down to Weighing, Weighing, Weighing. If you do a good job weighing, you'll have won the round 95% of the time.

Collapsing

Upon the summary, the round should be focused on one or two points of contention, and your summaries and final focuses should address these. I will still flow through other arguments, but when considering the round, I'll be more favorable to the team that wins on these main points.

Rebuttals

Try to address every point that your opponent has made. If it is not addressed, then it will be flowed through on. your opponent's flow if your opponent simply mentions it in their next speech. Additionally, even if there's a point that seems obvious, if you haven't linked it into your argument, I can't just assume that it's there -- I need clear links.

If you can explain your arguments in a clear, logical manner, you'll make the most sense to me, and I'll be most likely to vote for you. Having stellar links between claims, evidence, and impacts are very important.

Cross Examination

I won't judge off of this, but it's good for you to ask clarifying points about your opponents case and to explore holes in their argument. Honestly, I'm fine with skipping cross if you all are. If you see me on my phone or doing homework during cross, don't take it personally.

Summary and Final Focus

To flow an argument through, I need it mentioned in either your case or your rebuttal AND either your summary and final focus. The sooner you bring up a point, the better, and key evidence should appear early in the round. If you opponent hasn't addressed the contention, just a mere mention ("My opponent has not addressed our ____ argument") will be sufficient enough for me. If it's an argument with more clash, I expect to see more time spent on it (see "Collapsing" above).

Presentation

As long as I can understand you, I don't care about the strength of your presentation (eye contact, body language, etc.), and will not be using it to create a decision.

Preferences

I don't need an off-time road map, but if you choose to give me one, that's fine. Please try to time yourselves. Additionally- and this is very important- SIGN POSTING is vital. This is where you reference specific arguments and cards before you address them. This makes it a lot easier for the judge, and if you make my job easier, I'll be more likely to vote for you.

I like to start rounds early, so try to be early if you can.

Finally, I do disclose and give feedback at the end of the round. Best of luck!

Hi,

I've been debating for 3 years and I am not a lay judge.

Don't forget to extend your arguments and impacts.

Please weigh impacts in summary and final focus! Even some weighing in rebuttal can be beneficial to your argument.

Explain why YOUR arguments are better than your opponent's arguments, not just why their arguments are bad.

Please signpost so I know what argument you're addressing.

Do not be disrespectful to opponents/me during cross.

please be reasonable. i debated in high school so i might know what i'm doing but honestly who knows. haven't read about the topic but i think i can understand quickly enough. i beg you not to go fast - i hate fast debate more than anything else.

Слава Україні

Speak slowly and clearly. If I cannot understand or hear a point or contention, it will not be counted.

I have been a parent judge on and off since 2013.

•analysis > evidence. not everything needs to be carded. I give higher speaks for solid analytical responses that show conceptual understanding of the topic. I rarely call for evidence.

•arguments that work in the real world preferred over gimmicky arguments (e.g. long, relatively implausible link chains to huge impacts).

•for virtual debate: set up a way to share evidence with the other team before the round.

•style: I prefer depth over breadth i.e. choose your 1 to 3 best responses rather than listing a bunch without explanation and a clear link chain.

•speed: I can not promise to keep up with rapid speed. Don't assume that I know every acronym related to topic.

•cross: I don't pay close attention to cross. Say it in a speech if it's important.

•theory/progressive debate: I don't like theory and I rarely vote on it.

I debated for four years in pf (and two tournaments in policy). Here's what you need to know about my judging:

Please preflow before getting to round.

Warrants > evidence, always

You are not going to win my ballot by saying your opponents dropped some random card. If your opponents drop a solid warrant that is another story.

I don't intervene

That being said, before you run some squirly argument:

- the less true an argument is the lower my threshold for a response and the higher my threshold for a frontline (For example MAD is enough of a response to most nuke war arguments in my book, and proving MAD wouldn't apply is a very high burden of proof)

- Regardless of the quality of the argument, I will not vote off an argument that I cannot explain back to you. If I don't understand your argument, that is not intervention, that is you not doing the necessary work as a debater.

I do not call for cards unless specifically asked to

- If your argument relies entirely on a piece of evidence, you obviously have not done enough warranting. I will default to the team that warrants the best if I need to.

- Make responses to the substance of their argument not their evidence.

- If their evidence is very badly cut or misleading you can tell me to call for it, but if their argument is well warranted I will still vote for it. If you want me to vote against them because of their evidence you have to tell me that. Otherwise you can evidence challenge.

I will pay limited attention in cross

- you have to say everything in a speech if you want me to consider it in my decision

I don't like sticky D: that being said I will consider it if the response was not frontlined in rebuttal. If it was frontlined, it has to be in summary for me to consider it.

- I'm also not going to buy any sneaky extensions through grand cross, if you drop your impact or link in summary, you lose.

Respond to turns in 2nd rebuttal

Please weigh, you should make my decision for me.

- Weighing in rebuttal will boost your speaks

Ask me questions, I love talking through arguments and helping debaters, but it becomes problematic when its less of "how can I get better" and more "you should have voted this way for this reason."

I am new to judging. I prefer that speakers present slowly and clearly.

I am an experienced Public Forum Debater (having competed for three years already), and I also do Extemporaneous Speaking.

Public Forum:

-Truth: This concept is extremely important. I don't care about debate camp technicalities. If you have a bullshit case (i.e. Catalonia's independence will lead to the melting of Earth's inner core, and consequently the end of life as we know it.) I will automatically vote against you. Your arguments should be grounded in reality.

-Weighing: Please weigh your arguments, at least in Final Focus, preferably also in Summary if you have time. Weighing means narrowing down important issues in the debate round, explaining the round's framework (or clash of framework), maintaining a consistent narrative for solving a problem (or not causing a different problem), explaining why your evidence and logic demonstrates impacts or proves your claims, and ultimately comparing your impacts with those of your opponents, and why yours are better (more important).

-Voting Issues: If you are still a Novice, just talk about them in Summary and Final Focus. Explain why you win on these issues. Voting issues can be restatements of your framework, contentions, or major points of clash in the round and saying why you win the points.

-Default Decision: If everyone's Summaries and Final Foci are absolute garbage, and I have nothing to weigh off of, I will flip a coin (Heads always Pro, Tails always Con).

-Speaking: I can easily follow fast speaking, but try to keep it under 800 words per minute.

-Timing: Everyone should time themselves. You should ideally speak for 4 minutes (Case, Rebuttal) or 2 minutes (Summary, Final Focus), give or take 5 seconds. I am lenient with grace periods, and I allow you to go over-time (I will only tell you to sit down after 10 minutes). Make sure your phone/stopwatch does not vibrate or make a noise after time runs out. Do not time your opponents (-2.5 speaker points if your phone/stopwatch goes off during an opponent's speech, cause that's just bad).

-Food: If you bring me food, I will give you 5 speaker points (that means your phone/stopwatch can go off during two of your opponents' speeches).

-Courtesy: Be nice to other debaters. Roasts, if clever and unoffensive, are acceptable.

-Dress Code: Don't wear bike shorts.

Public Forum Debate is meant to be an intelligent discussion held on a public platform. That means your speeches should be accessible to strangers on the street, not catered towards debate camp judges. That also means that I do not like spreading, card dumps, or any form of condescension.

Build a coherent narrative that is carried throughout the round. I will reward adept weighing supported by thoughtful, well-chosen evidence. Meta-weighing is cool (i.e. why probability outweighs magnitude, etc.) Collapsing is also fine, just make sure you state so in an obvious manner. Second rebuttal should frontline first rebuttal.

If you want me to look at evidence, tell me, but don't overdo it. Inaccurately represented evidence will cost you speaker points. If two pieces of evidence say opposing things, tell me why one source should be preferable over the other (this can be done effectively with logic).

Please refrain from using absurd apocalyptic arguments/meme cases. This is a waste of both my time and your time. If you're going to argue global nuclear warfare it better be excellently warranted and thoughtfully corroborated with a nuanced understanding of current events. If it's not, there's a high likelihood that I will vote against you.

Speaker Points Scale

<26: Even if you wanted, I couldn't give you one piece of constructive feedback. The best six minutes of speaking I've ever heard in my life. Perfect.

26-27.9: You have resolved ALL of the following major world problems: racism, sexism, ableism, absolutism, despotism, midgetism, meanism, fascism, hatredism, utilitarianism, monasticism, and antiromanticism.

27.9-29.5: You have profoundly advanced the limits of human knowledge and creativity, demonstrating your masterful understanding of the Theory of Everything and the works of great philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud.

29.5-29.9: You have established yourself as the greatest person to ever live, surpassing the likes of Socrates, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus Christ.

30: You have metaphysically transcended the temporal and spatial limitations of Being, solidifying your existence among the gods.

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | Umich '25

Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.

Before the round, tell me your favorite song and I will play it like a baseball walk up song before your speeches.

--- PF ----

I think I'm a pretty standard flow judge. I'll evaluate anything, and you should do whatever you do best in the round. That said, here are some preferences I have:

Speed is totally fine. I'll be able to flow mostly anything, unless you're spreading 3081 paraphrased blips per second. I will not flow off a speech doc, I can't read.

The second rebuttal should frontline the first, but I won't drop you for not doing it. If the second rebuttal doesn't frontline, then the first final focus should pull the defense from the first rebuttal. Don't go over defense that doesn't have a response in 1st summary that's wasting time.

More progressive things: Theory is fine but not encouraged. I do not want to evaluate a paraphrasing or disclosure round, it's just not very fun. If you win, you win, but don't expect good speaks. My bias is that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is good, but that won't impact the round. I'm probably one of the best K judges you will get in PF. Tricks are truly horrible things, but if you win it you win it.

Post-rounding is encouraged. Please ask questions during my RFD, it helps me focus feedback. If you think I made the wrong decision, feel free to tell me that and reason with me. I'm not very smart, so it's very possible I'm wrong. If you believe my decision was wrong, punch me in the face.

--- Policy ---

Note: Basically nothing in the PF Paradigm applies, don't read it.

I only started doing policy in college, and have watched single-digit high school policy rounds. You should treat me as if I know literally nothing about the topic (because I don't know very much about the topic). It'd also help me make a better decision if you went a little bit slower than top speed.

I'd be comfortable judging either a policy round or a K round, but I'd probably be better at evaluating policy rounds. I'll vote on absolutely anything so long as there are warrants and you are explaining things well.

Tech over truth within reason - it matters to me that you are making good arguments. Those arguments can be as bizarre as you please, so long as you're explaining and warranting things well.

Impact calculus that's somewhat specific to the impacts being read would probably be good. The less I use my brain, the happier you will be. (I'm not very smart)

All things considered, I'd rather the aff have a plan, but who am I to tell you how to debate. I'll be generally sympathetic to framework arguments but don't let my preferences impact your strategy too much.

Please face me during speeches, I feel really uncomfortable when teams don't do this.

Have fun with it and be nice to each other.

4 years experience competing PF at all levels, avoid being too unnecessarily technical but otherwise you do you, good luck.

I debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: jeremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

Policy

larrylin57@gmail.com : y'all should add this

past Lexington policy debater and 2N by heart

Be sure to time yourselves, kinda have a bad record of recording every bit of prep and whatever.

I hate theory. I also vaguely dislike process CPs because BORING. Politics DAs can be quite cool. Federalism is a meh. States is a meh. Interesting well explained Ks and K affs are cool. Agamben and cap do not fulfill such requirements. T can be cool.

Anyhow,

things I've run:

- federalism

- t classrooms

- families aff

- Zong

- Trickster Hermeneutics

- IRS DA

- Shutdown DA

- Baudrillard

- Baudrillard K affs

- Framework

- FARM BILL

- Parole CP

- States CP

- T LPR

- Presumption against K affs

- Midterms

- 2020

- Infrastructure

- Citizenship CP

- Cap

- psycho set col

- land based set col

- psycho

- storytelling

- turtle island CP

- 3 tier

- Schlag

- Time

- ASPEC

- T enact

Applies to all:

Debate is pretty cool. It has some characteristics that make it unique. It's a competitive game, it's like a sport in that respect. It's a speech game, it's where two teams of two perform in front of each other and in front of the judge. It's not just speech either, it's an interactive experience between two teams where one teams performance uniquely changes the performance and content of the next team's speech. Debate is also the ground to advocate for what YOU care about, or perhaps explore some arguments on the other side of the library you haven't debated before.

Debate's what you make of it.

GLHF, lmk if you have questions.

also lol im in pacific time so morning rounds are real rough.

PF:

1) have an email chain or otherwise send evidence in some manner, my email is : larrylin57@gmail.com

2) speak with confidence but not arrogance, I'm sentient, not stupid (probably)

3) do clear line by line so it's easy for me to track arguments throughout the debate

4) be respectful of people, no isms here. also be polite and not rude

5) summary and FF, tell me a story. have some flair, have some fun, and have a coherent story.

6) keep weird math and fudging evidence to a minimum. I guess if I don't catch you it's fine? But if I do I won't be pleased.

7) some of these tournaments and topics can get very . . . stale. if you can intrigue me with your arguments while still debating well, I will be very happy.

8) glhf! lmk if you have any questions. I'd be happy to answer them!

9) I've found on several occasions that teams don't really have much offense in their FFs. This seems odd. Have offense in your FF and probably frontload it.

Hi, I am Andrew. I have debated competitive PF for 4 years for Riverdale. I am basically a flow judge.

I do not care about speed. I will try to flow at any pace, but slower and comprehensible is better than fast and incomprehensible.

I understand debate terminology, so you can talk about as many link turns and non-uniques etc as you want.

Terminal defense is sticky. Turns are not. If you want me to vote on a turn, you need to mention it and warrant it again.

Second rebuttal needs to frontlinine.

If you want me to evaluate your argument, give me the link chain. Don't just say out first contention will save X amount of lives then move on.

Put me on the email chain. Evidence in PF is sometimes really bad. If you grossly misrepresented a card, I will vote for the other team. If you read cut cards in constructive, I will give you +.5. Let me know if you do.

Framework should be brought up in every speech and warranted. Do not just say equality is the most important thing and move on. I will hold you to your framework.

I will evaluate cards and logical responses as long as they are warranted.

I am not the best judge to evaluate progressive debate (Theory, Ts, and Ks), but I will vote on it if it is argued well.

Have fun!

I'm a lay judge. Please speak at a normal conversational speed. It would be helpful to me if you clearly signpost. Please explain the "why"s and not just the "what"s. Thank you.

Hello debaters!

I am a 4th year policy debater at Lexington High and the tldr is going to be: be clear, explain your arguments, and run whatever you're best at. I have been a traditional policy debaters for three years and is pretty much fine with everything except for Ks. If I think your spreading is too unclear I'll scream "clear" to signify that you need to slow down. I'm a believer of FW and procedural fairness. I will vote off of passion. (Treat me as a lay judge)

I've run all sorts of arguments in my years of policy debate, ranging from hard right affs and 10 off, to Baudrillard and ableism. However, I am NOT familiar with the majority of Ks (with me most familiar with cap, security, and baudrillard + other high theory) so you will need to explain your arguments to me clearly. As for policy debate, I love a good T debate and enjoy the new politics DA every tournament. Please note though that I do NOT have much topic knowledge so please explain everything. Now onto my notes on each argument.

Policy Affs

Hard right and soft left are both fine, though I've grown to like hard right affs more, but will vote on whatever you end up running. A 2AC add-on is fine though more than one is a little sketch in my opinion. If 2AR arguments are clearly new I will not vote on them, but that applies to any aff. I find small hard-right affs to be the most interesting but don't let that stop you from doing anything else. For soft-left affs, I want to see a good framing debate throughout the debate.

K Affs

I personally do prefer a policy aff, though I will still vote on K affs as I did run them for a short while. I am most familiar with Baudrillard, Afropess, Biopolitics, and then Cap and Security but once again don't let that stop you from running whatever you want.

For email chains: manna@bxscience.edu

Hii all! I am a pretty standard flow judge.

Warrant + weigh = win. (thank you Tenzin Dadak)

Please don't try to go for everything in the round.

I don't really care about cross, I might not pay attention during it.

Debate is supposed to be fun, enjoy it!

If you have any questions feel free to let me know :)

Ps. If it is the first round of the day I am probably a bit groggy so keep that in mind

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit. Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.
2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal; no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

I'll disclose at the end.

Please weigh! I cannot stress this enough, I've had so many rounds where no team gives me tangible impacts and then I have nothing left to judge off of (just saying the word "weighing" is not enough, I want numbers! Or at least logical and clear links that you can prove are good or bad)

You can ask me for speaker points after the round. I'll start at 26 and add from there.

No theory beyond absolute minimums, no spreading. If I can't understand you, I'm not considering your points.

Please signpost and be clear, but I don't need long off-time road maps. Be nice, relax, enjoy yourselves a little.

I'd like you to finish your cross question/answer, even if time expires (but please don't take it as an invitation to start testifying endlessly).

I trust you all to time your prep yourselves, so please do.

Ask me if you have any questions.

I have been judging PF for a little over two years now. I am a scientist at heart. So it should make sense that in order to evaluate your arguments I need to understand them. This is PF, not LD and that should mean something to you. I want to hear well-warranted arguments supported by evidence extended and explained in rebuttals.

You need to weigh with rationale and impacts. Everything in the final focus should be said in summary.

Be respectful to one another and to me. Be polite in the crossfire. You should learn something new in every round and remember to have fun.

As a side note, I am here to judge the resolution. I will not listen or judge side topics or arguments. Do not bring your own agenda into the round, specifically I am not judging your critique of debate theory.

I am not a flow judge.

Do not speak quickly.

Maintain loving eye contact with myself during cross. Blinking will result in a loss of speaker points.

Do not misconstrue evidence.

If you wish to lose the round immediately, please give me an off time roadmap.

Hello! I’m Ben and I debated for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. The biggest of shoutouts goes to Mr. Huth and the whole Bronx Science team. I am probably best viewed as a pretty traditional flow judge. If you want the details:

I don’t believe that defense needs to be in first summary to answer any argument that was not frontlined in second rebuttal. If it was frontlined, then you need to answer it in summary. Turns should be extended in first summary if you want me to evaluate them as offense. Don’t extend through ink.

You do NOT have to frontline defense in second rebuttal. I personally rarely did so and I often believe it is unstrategic to do so. That being said, take whatever strategy you believe is most strategic for your team in the round.

Weighing is very important to me. I think it is important to weigh early (preferably rebuttal but no later than summary) and have consistent weighing throughout the round. Try to explain your weighing instead of just repeating it. Saying you outweigh on scope, timeframe, magnitude, etc without explaining why doesn’t mean anything. I look to weighing first when I evaluate my ballot -- if you are winning the weighing I will look to your arguments first. I personally believe that probability is often the strongest form of weighing as no matter how large your impacts -- if you don’t win your links they can’t materialize. Focus on winning your links and explaining how you access them better than your opponents. I am a technical judge but I care a lot about truth value, and my threshold for a response to a high-magnitude low-probability argument is pretty low.

If you don’t weigh, I will be forced to intervene which is very sad.

I default to looking at impacts globally. I will drop America First framing in a heartbeat.

I care about your overall cohesion in your speeches. Having a single narrative that you defend over the course of the round is more persuasive to me than a set of many arguments that change with each speech.

I believe that theory is only justified in instances of significant abuse where there is no other mechanism to check back against the abuse. I will try my best to evaluate any argument presented to me on the flow, but I am not good at evaluating progressive argumentation including theory and Ks. I am inclined to believe that they are bad for Public Forum, but that’s just my opinion. I always want the round to be a safe space for all debaters.

I can handle speed. I debated fast and I can handle fast debate. That being said, don’t sacrifice quality for quantity and don’t speak so quickly that your words are not clear. Don’t spread.

I will only call for evidence if I believe it is both a) important to my overall decision in the round and b) was cast into doubt by the opposing team.

Don’t shake my hand. Virtually or in person. Yes, virtual handshakes are a thing.

You will get 30 speaker points if you find an earthworm (or any worm for that matter) and place it on the head of Adriana Kim at a tournament. Please show me photographic proof before the round.

Good luck :) Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round.

As of when I'm writing this, I am a first year out from Lexington, MA. My freshman year was policy, and my sophomore, junior, and senior years were in PF. Since I came from policy, I have a pretty lax view on PF and can probably handle speed (unless you truly suck at spreading or have a garbage mic). aadharsh2010@gmail.com (for email chains)

*Crypto Topic*: I know more than a decent bit about crypto. At the end of the day, I'm still tech, but my previous experience with crypto will affect my threshold for buying arguments and also means that if you don't weigh or engage with your opponent's argumentation, weird stuff might happen.

Evidence

I may call for evidence if it seems fishy or is debated on for a bunch of the round. Also if you call for evidence, I usually would like to see it too, be it via an email chain (aadharsh2010@gmail.com) or physically.

Round Stuff

I expect second rebuttal to have at least some frontlining in it, and it'd be best if anything that was round deciding be in both the summary and the final focus (If neither team extends properly, the decisions might actually be based on marginal amounts of offense which is never fun, because it gets very sketchy very quickly). Don't waste too much time on defense in first summary, please.

Comparative weighing is also hugely important for me, so the sooner you start it in round, the better. Signposting is always pretty nice, and your speaks will reflect this.

Techier Round Stuff

I'm okay with DA/theory/K stuff (will only vote if both teams seem to understand theory, running higher level arguments to block your opponent on their knowledge is super scummy and your speaks will definitely reflect that).

Speaks/Cross

I don't flow or weigh cross in my ballot decision, so it'd be pretty sweet if you could mention it in a speech when your opponent concedes something in cross. I also hold the belief that speaks are independent of wins, so if you have great speaks but lose, know that you have the speaking stuff down, but just have a less than amazing case or something along those lines. If we're at a super lay tournament, I'll be a speaks fairy unless you do some dumb crap in round, I'm probably going to start everybody on a 28 and go up and down in increments of .5 or .1 if the tournament lets me. It's also totally fine if you want to debate without your cameras on, this will not impact how I eval you (I'll defer to tournament rules if they contradict this)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game. I see judges talking about humor on their paradigms a bunch, but I've never had the guts to crack jokes in round. I like humor and stuff if it is vaguely tasteful, and your speaks may be bumped. I generally believe that I do a crap job of hiding the ways that I feel about an argument, so reading me is going to be to your advantage.

Feel free to ask questions or message me on Facebook. Also I will disclose for sure at tournaments that allow it! Also please read my comments, I really do try to make them super good instead of browsing reddit in round :P

Misc stuff (will disengage this at any competitor's request, no questions asked)

- References to the Robert Chen round will warrant a speaks boost.

- Funny contention names will grant a slight speaks boost

- Citing rap lyrics in round and being funny is the dopest thing you can do to make me like you.

A few notes on speaking:

- Off time road maps will result in -5000 speaker points

- If you sound like you're crying, you may be talking too fast

- The team "calling in the air" must call heads.

Thank you.

P.S. If you convince me that you've won effectively within a compelling framework, you win the round. It's that simple

I debated for 3 years and am pretty famous for my awesome career, so I'm sure you've heard of me.

Hey! I'm one of the captains of PF at Bronx Science. my email: reynoldsk@bxscience.edu

My preferences:

Be respectful to each other. If you are not I will drop you.

I'm a pretty standard flow judge, tech > truth.

I don't care what happens in crossfire as long as it's not offensive or abusive. I will be on my phone in crossfire, so if something important happens, bring it up in an actual speech or I won't know that it happened.

Weigh, pleaseeee! If you don't weigh your arguments it will be very difficult to win.

Obviously evidence is good, but I will always prefer clearly warranted arguments that are cleanly + consistently explained over a bunch of card names being thrown in my face with no explanation and being told it wins you the round. It won't. Warrant your arguments.

2nd rebuttal and 1st summary has to frontline. Any defense on your case that you don't respond to is true for the rest of the round.

For novices: If you have any time left at end of 1st rebuttal, please, PLEASE, do not tell me you are going to "go over your case again." I know your case! Try weighing your case's impacts against theirs instead! Don't reread it to me!

Summary and final focus should be very similar, although I think FF needs to weigh more.

Please please please do everything you can to avoid progressive arguments. I will never automatically drop a team for running theory, but I feel like I do not understand progressive debate enough to evaluate it, and if I am confused in round about your progressive arguments, I will not hesitate to resort to voting on substance. If you do feel like there was such a bad abuse within round that it is absolutely necessary to run, you must make it as clear as possible to me.

Do not spread.

If you want more specifics on how I will vote, go to Ayanava Ganguly's paradigm-- I am too lazy to copy and paste his and he is much more eloquent than I am.

And most of all please make this round fun and not a headache! Any way you can make me laugh is appreciated :)

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision I will ask for it. I care about logic and the strength of link chains. The quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate. A dropped argument will not hold. The speed arguments are delivered is only an issue when words become garbled and unintelligible. Thus, be very careful spreading if you chose that method. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you. It is easier for me to follow a debate when I can see the debaters. Have fun and respect the art of debate!

I am a first year out from high school debate so debate is still relatively fresh in my mind. I debate PF for four years on the national and local circuit in New Jersey.

I will almost certainly disclose at the end of round

I decide who wins on grand cross....just kidding the tldr for my paradigm is that I'm a former debater who will flow and did not like people that were passive aggressive, rude, or did abusive debate when I was in hs, and it's still an ick for me.

----------

Long paradigm:

I'm a flow judge with tech over truth, to a certain extent. I enjoy squirrely arguments but you need to have warrants and cards backing up your argument.

Case: I'm fine with speed but your case should not be over about 800 words

Rebuttal: SIGNPOST tell where you are on the flow or I'll probably put your response in the wrong place. Don't read 15 blippy responses on a contention because this is a really abusive move and I will be very sad :(. Instead, give me 3/4 good responses that are well explained and carded. Furthermore, I want WARRANTING. If you just name drop a card like, "delink this argument because the NYT says that my opponent's argument is wrong" and don't explain it I will not flow this response. I don't expect second rebuttal to frontline; however, I would highly recommend frontlining if you have time remaining.

Second Half: I was taught that if my judge doesn't flow rebuttal or case they should still be able to make an informed decision because you will re-explain your case(with warrants and cards), explain/refute your opponents responses, and read good responses to your opponents extensions. I will of course always flow case and rebuttal, but your skills as a debater should make it unnecessary for me to really look at the top half of my flow when I'm making my decision.

Summary: You need to frontline, extend responses to your opponent's case, re-explain your case, and weigh.

Final Focus: Should be very similar to summary but with more weighing. You need to tell me why I should vote for you and why your impacts are more important than your opponents

Crossfire: Don't be rude, Do NOT pull passive-aggressive moves like "can I talk/or you're not letting me talk" two seconds into your opponent's answer/question. I will not flow cross so if something important happens you need to tell me in your next speech so that I can flow it.

Speaks: I will not give below a 27.5 unless you do something really offensive. Your speaks will be considerably better if you mention The West Wing, bring me candy, give me a good meme on the topic, or have a really funny tagline somewhere. If you work The West Wing into one of your speeches and do it well, I will give you a 30 no questions asked.

Major Nonos:

Don't do really abusive things like saying "my opponents dropped an argument" if they didn't (I will know and I will drop this argument from the flow). Don't use really sketchy cards because if I hear something sketchy I will call for it. Don't belittle or insult your opponent. If you have any questions or need help with anything debate related you can reach out to me at yash.roy@yale.edu

For best debate experience, please read my paradigm in its entirety.

Debate as you feel comfortable doing.

I appreciate eye contact.

I care about cross-X, I won't flow but I will pay attention, and I expect you to address important things in Cross X in your speeches. Cross X will also affect your speaks.

Don't be abusive in Cross X, but don't let the other team walk all over you. If you ask a question, let the other person finish. But if the other team is babbling and stalling, don't let them do it.

I don't mind if you call for cards, I think this is good practice as long as it's not abusive.

Don't say "basic economics".

If you actually know what you're talking about, I will be happy.

I love weird cases, if you have one, run it. (I've run my fair share)

I don't like jargon, if you hit me with K, T shell, or any similar jargon I will not be happy. Explain all these things using regular English. :)

Bonus points for accurate pronunciation in Spanish or French. It's just nice to hear.

Be organized and signpost, it makes my life easy.

I will always disclose if allowed.

If the opposite team places a burden on you, you should contest it thoroughly and right away.

If you place a burden, you should be ready to defend it early and often.

I won't tolerate general abusive behavior.

Be friendly to each other.

I really appreciate using logic and analysis in conjunction with cards. However, refrain from using logic INSTEAD of cards. This usually ends up with both teams making weird analogies that no one understands - this does not make for fun rounds.

I believe I am a fair judge. That being said, if you have an issue with my decision, you can respectfully tell me that.

Hello,

I am Sebastian Sampere's sister-- most bids in PF debate history. I did LD for about 4 years starting in 6th grade and am extremely familiar with theory, kritiks, and PICS. I would prefer if you spreed as I am not used to people speaking normally. Spikes are cool and if you see me flipping a coin, it's because i'm deciding who should win the round.

:)

Cases

Speak well, clearly enough for me to understand you. Don't spread. I can tolerate fast reading, but within reason.

Cross

Be cordial, and allow for your opponent to fully answer or ask a question before you respond.

Rebuttal

Sign-posting helps me vote for you.

Summary

Collapse on voting points if necessary, and make sure to extend arguments in summary speeches, or else it will not be considered as I vote. Weigh if possible.

Final Focus

Clearly establish why you win based on the arguments mentioned in summary. No new arguments will be tolerated.

Charlotte Slovin (she/her/they/them)

If there’s an email chain I’d like to be on it (sasadebate@gmail.com). Absolutely no to PocketBox or whatever other document uploading site.

I did National Circuit Policy for 4 years at Oakwood. I am now a sophomore at Barnard College.

I’ll disclose after the round so please stick around for a verdict and comments.

Conflicts: Oakwood (CA)

Top-Level:

1. Debate is an educational activity but too many times made inaccessible or an unsafe space for students and participants. Please please PLEASE remember that your opponent is a person before they are a competitor. Don’t make this a space that breeds inconsiderate individuals. It is up to YOU to cultivate an activity where everyone can feel safe, have fun, and learn.

2. I generally have no preference for what you read (minus arguments that are offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.), as long as you understand what you’re reading and it clashes within the round.

3. It’s been a good minute since I’ve heard spreading so please be clear. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity.

4. More nuanced/contextualized debate on fewer positions >>>> your 12 blippy offcase and shadow extensions in the block.

5. LBL is important– doesn’t matter if you’re a traditional policy team or only run k and k affs. It’s incredibly frustrating if you go for a 4 minute overview and then blow through the line-by-line saying, “refer to the O/V”. The most interesting debate comes from clash and specificity of arguments within the context of the round.

Policy:

(a lot of this is stolen from Hannah Ji’s paradigm because we share most of the same brain)

Topicality: The way look at T debates is 1) does the aff meet the neg interp 2) If it doesn’t why should I vote for the neg’s interpretation. It’s not enough for a neg team to say, “aff doesn’t meet”. Tell me what debate looks like in the world of the Aff’s interp vs the world of the neg’s interp and why neg’s interp is better (actually articulate the impacts of the T violation/contextualize it to the world of the aff).

Theory: SLOW DOWN!! If you are giving rapid-fire theory args and not sending analytics, you better make sure that you are speaking with high clarity. Although a 5 minute 2ar on condo is really not my favorite debate, I’ll vote on it as long as you warrant out why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Policy Affs: Ran mostly soft-left policy affs throughout high school with a heavy emphasis on framework. In general, Aff teams should know their case inside and out. I LOVE case debate and think affirmative teams don’t use their case enough to their strategic advantage. Good case debate can be magical— it’s literally an entire 8 minutes of your speaking time so make it count.

Plan vs CP/DA strats: For affirmative teams, use your 1ac to gain strategic leverage against the negative. You should know your case better than anyone else to the point where the neg should be behind on specific solvency/link issues on the CP and DAs. For negative teams, I am sympathetic to teams that run generic politics/topic DAs. I was the only policy team at my high school and understand if your squad isn’t big enough to generate a bunch of new specific DAs for every plan on the topic. However, please try to form specific link and impact scenarios. Even if you don’t have a specific link card for every aff, you should be able to spin and create a persuasive story in the neg block.

On that note, please do impact calc. Like,,, PLEASE.

Plan vs K: This goes for teams on both sides– specificity and contextualization of your arguments will be most rewarded in the round. Affirmative teams need to substantively engage in the literature of the negative team and use their own case strategically to hedge back against the K. This should come in the form of both carded and analytical arguments.

Ks: Can be seriously rewarding and meaningful. That being said, don’t presume I know all the literature of your K and even if I do, I still put the onus on debaters to explain and contextualize the K. It can be incredibly frustrating to listen to high schoolers give shallow and butchered explanations of their lit, so please know what you are talking about (read your authors, please). Please do not throw around buzzwords and K tricks without explaining and warranting out arguments. I think its highly persuasive when neg teams not only flush out the theory of the K, but give empirical examples to prove the thesis of the K.

By the end of the round, as a judge, I should know a specific link story to the aff, not just to the squo. I am much less persuaded by generic USFG/state links and more persuaded by indicts to the aff itself. This goes the same for if you are going for the alt. While I don’t think an alt functions the same as a CP, I’m only going to vote on it if I have a clear understanding of how it works, and how it resolves the k’s links to the aff.

Don’t gloss over the fw debate. First, it sucks to lose to k tricks on fw but also will help you a lot on the alt debate for both neg and aff teams.

Nontraditional/Planless Affs: For the most part, I think these debates are incredibly educational if debated well. Although I never went for planless affs, I think well developed and strategically written affs are incredibly persuasive. That being said, I do think they generally should have some relation to the topic. I generally don’t think that the ballot should be viewed or used as a survival strategy for the team. The ballot should be about arguments, not people, and I think opening this up has more negative implications than people realize.

For T-USFG/FW: I went for this 9/10 in HS against planless affs. When going for it, please 1) engage with the aff and tailor your T blocks to the aff to garner offense on your model of debate. 2) Don’t go for too many impacts in the 2NR - just for one or two with strong internal links 3) Read a TVA 4) please get to the case debate and debate it substantively. Try to make your case arguments work cohesively with your T args.

For the aff team: warrant and flush out clear arguments rather than generic state bad, rez violent, etc. Your aff was probably written with specific strategic advantages in mind so use them! Also, provide a C/I and actually explain what your world of debate looks like in comparison to the neg.

LD:

Most of the Policy stuff applies but email if you have questions. The more Policy-like you make the round the more likely I am to follow. I have substantially less experience in LD but here are my preferences based on things I have witnessed:

- disclosure is good

- fairness is a voting issue

- contextualize!!!

- I will reward you for good and specific link chains

- tricks/spikes/blips/etc. hurt clash, and clash is good

PF:

I continue to be disappointed by the incredibly low standard of what is considered "evidence" in this activity. This is not to say that research is not being done (sometimes...hopefully), but that within a given round the "paraphrasing" of evidence that is accepted along with difficult access to the actual evidence is shameful. I am trying to come up with a system where debaters are held accountable for having their evidence accessible and while I know that this cannot be asked of every Public Forum debater I BEG of you to PLEASE have your evidence/PDFs on hand before the round starts. If it takes an egregious amount of time to find your ev I will run prep.

- Speed is fine but don’t do it just if you think it’s “cool” or you think you’ll get points with me. Incoherence because of speed makes debate a useless activity. Speak the way that is best for you and your strategy.

- The link chains in this form of debate are absolutely ridiculous in terms of how little evidence tends to back up arguments. If you articulate your scenarios and impact them out it will seriously benefit you.

- Please warrant and weigh your claims if you want me to evaluate them.

- Please signpost. It will help both of us.

- Theory is fine but I will take it very seriously. ONLY run it if there is serious and overt abuse but warrant it well if you want it to be a voting issue.

- When applicable please give an offtime roadmap/order

- Minus 0.1 speaks every time you pronounce nuclear as “nuke-you-lar” I am completely serious.

I will vote for the team that best explains their argument to me and that weighs their opponents with their own, telling me why their impacts matter more. If I don’t understand your argument, even if your opponents don’t refute it, I will not vote off of it. Also, if you are organized when you give me your speeches and tell me what issue you are referring to, I will be able to get your responses down better. I usually put the greatest weight on the arguments that are extended throughout round.

Best of luck!

Hi,

My name is Anna Tang. Ill be your judge today.

i want to let you know im not a lay judge so this is my paradigm ;)))))

Updates for Kentucky:

I have never used this online system so forgive me if I don't know what's going on with the technology.

If there's something wrong in terms of technology I'll be very lenient so don't worry about that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I'm judging you in LD, sorry in advance, I'm a PFer. With that being said, I just want to be entertained, so if you have the most fun running K's, theory, or tricks do so, I'll vote off anything if it's explained properly. If you take "I'll vote off anything" as me being clueless, you're probably right. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you but to have a good and clean debate.

Now into PF land (I'm a first-year out, 1 year of policy and 3 of PF in high school):

The crux of what I said above still holds true; I want to have fun and I want you to have fun too.

Some overarching things

- Please time everything yourself, I'll try to time everything, but sometimes I forget to press the button and am pretty lackadaisical on that front as a whole

- Don't speak to your partner during their speech or crossfire. They already have so much going on, another voice is just distracting and tends to produce worse results. Even if they're forgetting something important, I think it's better to let your partner be self-sufficient so they can learn for later debates.

- While eye contact is nice, don't bore holes into my skull. I'm probably too busy flowing or writing comments to notice anyways

Onto more speech by speech things

CASE:

- Clear link stories and quantified impacts make me a happy camper.

- I enjoy unique arguments, but I know that it's harder writing up really obscure cases, so don't worry about running stock arguments.

- Speak clearly. I can handle any speed below legitimate spreading so don't worry too much about that. If I can't understand you, I'll audibly say something once. If you don't heed that, then it's on you.

Rebuttal:

-SIGNPOST! I can generally figure out where you are when you speak, but I don't want to have to do that work.

- As much as I find card dumping hilarious, I don't think it's particularly effective so please don't just string off a hundred cards in a row.

- I like there to be some weighing in Rebuttal, even if it is just 15 seconds at the end of the speech.

- Rebuttal is for Rebutting. If you are just reiterating your case for no purpose other than reiterating your case, kudos to you for using your time, but it's really not necessary. This is not to say don't defend your case in the second rebuttal, but if you're not actually engaging in with the arguments your opponents have put down I don't know what you're doing.

Summary:

- Some people like to treat this as a second rebuttal, but it really should be boiling down the round to a few key issues.

- EXTEND YOUR OFFENSE! I don't know how you plan to win a round without offense, but if it's not mentioned in summary, I'm not letting it through to Final Focus.

- Don't give me a one-off sentence with just a claim. Try to do some explanation behind the argument.

- WEIGH! Just do it.

Final Focus:

- OFFENSE! Tell me why you are winning the round. Make it easy for me to write the RFD in your favor.

- WEIGH!

Some other things:

(Copied from Aadharsh Pannirselvam)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game, and that novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third.

(Now my own words)

I love humor. Debate is stuffy enough as it is, making me laugh will reflect well on your speaker points. I love meme cases, but if you want to run one, make sure your opponents are on board, debate is still supposed to be an educational activity and I don't want to see one team being deprived of that educational experience.

I'm known to inflate speaker points. If you got below a 28.5 then something really didn't go well.

If you want to run policy-esque K's or other unorthodox arguments, then I'm probably your best judge to do that on. However, if you are running theory or a K, then again, I would want you to at least warn your opponents as to what you are planning to do. I will legitimately vote off of anything, but that being said, you need to clearly explain things no matter what argument you try to extend.

Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth

^Make of this what you will

Bonus speaks for accurate and sensical application of chi-squared analysis.

If both teams want me to simulate a non-flow judge for whatever reason I can do that.

I plead the fifth

conwayxu93@gmail.com

I understand how stressful debate can be, so here are some tips and some of my preferences:

-I know it can be hard, but try to stay calm and speak loudly and clearly

-Use off-time roadmaps or sign-posting to keep your speeches organized

-Make sure you clearly explain your claims (I.E. always tell me a clear logical flow for why/how something happens)

-Be respectful to the opposing team, do not speak over them or interrupt during crossfire

Hello! When pref'ing, please keep in mind that this is my first judging experience ever. If you're trying to go for speed or any technical terms, don't pref me high. I want a clean and clear debate with strong logical weighing (don't just say "I outweigh on magnitude") with clear link chains in the last speeches as to who should win. Strong weighing ensures that my decision isn't so nebulous and possibly infuriating to one of you.

in any case, just have fun! I look forward to judging you.

- Please signpost in every speech

- I want to see offense in summary align with offense in ff (parallelism)

- I won't call for cards for you

- Don't simply say the word extend