I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

For LD debate I care about organization and argumentation: debaters should clearly state their value, criterion, contentions, sub-points etc. I expect debaters to flow their own and their opponent's arguments and to find points of clash. I will consider both the logic and evidence presented. Debaters should avoid rapid delivery or shouting in their speech: if someone is incoherent or taking deep breaths between clauses and sentences while speaking, I may not follow or miss what is said. I am generally not a fan of policy debate intruding into LD debate: I will not be amenable to Kritiks, counterplans, etc. Of course, I expect debaters to be polite to their opponents and to the judge: i.e., I'm not impressed by arrogance or rudeness. This (along with delivery, pacing) will affect speaker points. Debaters should provide voter issues in their concluding rebuttals: they should crystalize why they should win. I will decide based on who coherently provided the best arguments for supporting their value, criterion, and contentions against their opponent's.

I'm currently a university student who's been away from debate for around 2 years. I did PF throughout high school at Durham Academy and was a fairly lay debater. I'm able to keep up with some amount of tech and a certain amount of speed, but I will generally be voting for the team that made more logical arguments from my perspective. It shouldn't feel like a stretch to buy your argument. Of course, I will pay attention to impacts, turns, delinks, weighing, and the like, but it's your job to make your opponent's mistakes very evident to me, explaining how it impacts the round.

I also have no topic knowledge, so please don't assume you can skimp on explaining a complex argument. Assume I've never heard your argument before. I much prefer an over-explanation to an under-explanation.

I don't know what theory is and it scares me. If you'd like to run it, please make it very clear why it belongs in this round, and I'm down... just skeptical.

In terms of summaries, please collapse on things and weigh! As long as there are no un-frontlined turns, I won't evaluate a dropped contention. I also won't evaluate turns unless they are clearly extended in summary and final focus ("clearly" as in the warrant and reasoning for why an argument functions as a turn must be fully re-explained in summary). The round is so much easier if the debaters go in depth into two to three arguments as opposed to four to six. For me to evaluate the argument, the link and impact must be fully extended. Think of it as a quick re-explanation of your entire argument along with some frontlines if necessary.

Any weighing should be put in summary (though you could put some in rebuttal if you're woke), and must be in final focus to be evaluated. The weighing has to be comparative, i.e. you must compare your impacts directly to theirs, and tell me why I should prefer yours. If you both weigh, tell me why you're weighing is better.

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending McGill. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.

Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!

Also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3

Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc

Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.

Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:

1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case (People seem to forget to do this often). Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.

2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.

Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters

Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)

If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing

3. SIGNPOST

i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.

4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.

As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.

5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.

Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)

6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat

IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation

You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?

ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS

I believe that prog args are a way to change the debate space and make it a better place for us. This means a) I'm really uncomfortable voting off "friv theory", especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so if it feels like your theory is an EZ path to the ballot to trip up an opponent, I'll usually try not to evaluate it as much as other arguments. basically, the more friv the theory is, the more u need to make sure ur opponents are ok with it. i know that sounds super objective, i'm sorry, but rounds where high level varsity teams who have the privilege of going to camp and resources run theory on teams who don't have those resources are unfair and make me uncomfortable. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID - b) if there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of something u think is important and you explain that in your theory, progressive args are fine with me. I never ran Ks/ theory as a debater, but I get how they work and can evaluate them, just explain them well ofc. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.

i dont like tricks much

I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them, but u have to warrant why im evaluating them ofc. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.

Other notes

I think every debater should watch this video.

If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.

Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.

I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise

Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.

Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.

Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.

I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.

I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.

I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.

calling me "judge" is annoying

Please send me a speech doc @ esmeslongley@gmail.com if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.

I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.

Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!

Fun stuff

I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you

- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")

- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)

- Reference Beyond Resolved

- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.

- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh decently with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal

- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine

- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ kate bush (I LOVE HERRRR)

- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.

- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case

- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.

I will take off speaks (-.1) for

- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)

- If our star signs are incompatible

- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.

I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!

I am currently a freshman at UNCW, and I competed in speech and debate for three years at Apex Friendship High School. I mainly competed in Public Forum debate, but I do have some experience in Congress, OO, and Impromptu. If you're reading this paradigm, I do have it split up by event with an important note at the bottom for all events. Feel free to browse only the content relevant to you and your event. If you have any questions about my paradigm or anything left out of it, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

--------

PF:

I've competed as both a first and second speaker in my PF, so I am familiar with all speeches and your constraints. I am a flow judge, and you can appeal to me as though I have your arguments and extensions on my paper, but please condense as the round goes on and understand that my flow is only as extensive as your clarity which can be influenced by your speed. I want a narrative, so make sure you and your partner are on the same page.

Also note that I am a college judge who is not currently competing. I don't judge very frequently, therefore, I may not be very familiar with the topic you are debating. Feel free to ask your opponents if you can give a brief description of the topic before the round if you feel that clarity is needed outside of timed speeches. This must be a completely unbiased explanation of the topic as this is not part of the round. For example, "The Belt and Road Initiative - or BRI - is the known as the new Silk Road in China. This is a plan for expansion of trade and infrastructure." For more self-explanatory topics such as UBI, this is not necessary.

Rebuttal: You don't need to frontline in first rebuttal, but you are welcome to if time permits. Just remember, speed is always a factor and I look at quality over quantity. I don't need you to ramble off 7 responses to their C1 subpoint A when you can give me 2 responses with reasoning to back them up. Frontlining in second rebuttal is not required, but heavily suggested. I love a line-by-line, but at the very least you must signpost so I can follow you on my flow. For example, "Starting at the top of my opponents' case" or "we have x responses to their first contention" will let me know where you are.

Summary: I will not flow any new arguments at this point in the round. Reading new cards to existing arguments is fine, but if your partner dropped an argument in rebuttal it's too late to bring it up now. Your summary should be an extension of your partner's rebuttal in terms of your arguments and the cohesiveness of your narrative. I want to see you begin to weigh here, especially in second summary. This is when you need to begin to condense and collapse.

Final Focus: Your final focus should be an extension of your partner's summary, I want to see the cohesiveness. Give me voters and continue to weigh. It's too late to respond to an argument you've dropped, I will not flow it to you. If an argument goes cold dropped by both sides it's a wash for me, so focus on the main points throughout the round and explain to me your links into your impacts on those arguments. Make your weighing and voters thorough, this is where my vote is determined. If you don't weigh and don't give me voters I'm forced to intervene and weigh myself based on the evidence presented and that is when you may get a ballot you don't like.

My main things are just signposting, clarity, condensing, and weighing. I will flow everything except cross, so anything important should be brought back up in a speech. I want debate in crossfire, but there is a line between persistent and aggressive, find the balance. I don't dock speaks if I don't like your contentions or responses, it's up to your opponents to call your evidence if it seems sketchy or misleading. Don't tell me what to call at the end of a round, that's up to me based on the evidence and argumentation you have presented.

----------

Speech:

I competed in OO and Impromptu a few times, and understand that speech events are much more commonly subject to unfair subjective judging. I do my best to focus most on the presentation of a speech, and not as much on content - specifically in events such as Dec where you did not write your speech. Yet, I do look for engagement and passion in your presentation regardless of your topic. Even in events such as Extemp, I expect a speech to be a performance of sorts, expressions and body language go a long way in terms of emphasis of your points.

I do have to be particular in some nitpicky ways, specifically in finals rounds, yet I do my best to not judge you on small stumbles or wavering gestures. Make sure you project and enunciate. Fluctuate your tone and energy for emphasis on the points you deem most important. Use large gestures rather than small ones when you are making an important point, and make sure your gestures have meaning. If you gesture without control or do things such as fidget with your glasses, hair, etc you will seem nervous and unsure. My best advice to you is to pause with purpose if you need a moment to recall your next point, if you can make a pause seem purposeful there is a very good chance I will never know you forgot a line and your performance won't appear stunted.

-----------

All events:

Any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise discriminatory commentary as well as any personal attacks will drop your speaks to minimum and may be brought up to your coach if extreme. Any negative comments against your opponents/competitors are unacceptable. While we are competing this is a community in which all competitors should support each other, and any unsportsmanlike conduct will be brought to your coaches. I expect a civilized round, and none of the previous are acceptable. Good luck competing! :)

Hi! I'm Emily (she/her) and I'm a junior at Durham Academy. This is my second year in debate, and I've competed on both the local and national circuit in PF.

First and most importantly, debate should be open and inclusive to everyone. I will not tolerate any sort of sexism, racism, homophobia, or other discrimination during or outside of round, and I will drop you and dock your speaks if I see it. Respect your opponents and everyone else in the room.

I consider myself a flay judge, in that I will flow all your speeches and will definitely evaluate the flow, but I also care about narrative and extended impacts. I want you all to debate in whatever way you feel most comfortable, but that being said, I do have a few preferences:

1. EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS. This is the MOST important thing in debate! I can't, and won't, vote off an argument that I don't understand. This means warranting all of your arguments in case, but also extending explanations of your arguments into later speeches. Don't just repeat card names or tagline, but actually tell me how your argument triggers your impact. This goes with implication–please tell me why your arguments/impacts matter in the round. Also, I haven't actually debated the UBI topic, so while I'm familiar with some arguments, warranting is especially important at this tournament!

2. SPEED. I can flow pretty fast, but please don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I'd much prefer that you have one or two really well explained responses instead of 6 blippy ones. If you spread, please send me a speech doc before round (enorry03@gmail.com) and include your opponents.

3. SIGNPOST. If you give a "brief off-time roadmap," please make it brief. I don't really want you to layout your entire speech before you give it; it's much more important that during your speech, you tell me where you are on the flow so I can follow along.

4. WEIGH. This is really important! Don't just tell me that your arguments/impacts matter, tell me why they matter MORE than your opponents' do. Remember that weighing also needs a warrant–you can't just tell me that you outweigh on timeframe, but you have to explain why your impact happens before your opponents' impact. Weighing should be consistent between summary and final focus (and rebuttal if you really want to impress me!).

5. EVIDENCE. I will generally only call for cards if I'm told to, unless something seems really sketchy. Paraphrasing is fine, but please use good evidence ethics. If your opponents are misconstruing what a card says, call them on it in the next speech and explain to me why I shouldn't weigh that piece of evidence in the debate.

6. THEORY. I'm not super experienced with this. If you feel super confident with theory, go ahead and run it, but you might be unhappy with how I evaluate the round.

A few other things: second rebuttal should try to frontline, at least any turns. I don't like voting off of things that were in final focus but not in summary, so please keep those speeches consistent. Collapsing is great–don't feel the need to go for everything, and if something is dropped, point it out and then move on (unless you gain offense from it). Finally, I will bump up your speaks .5 points every time you make me laugh during round :)

At the end of the day, I evaluate arguments based on how well they were explained/debated in each speech, regardless of my personal views. Also, if you have any questions at all, please ask me before round; I'd be happy to answer them!

I did 2.5 years of debate (1.5 of PF, 1 of Congress), so I value content over presentation, but if I can't understand your content then it's going to be harder for me to flow. Tabula Rasa and all that.

If you weigh, you will do great, and if you weigh the weighing, then you'll do amazing.

Speaker score is going to be based on what DSDL asks us to rate you:

30 - Best Speaker; Should Win the Tournament

29 - Excellent Speaker; Should be in the Top 6

28 - Good; Should have a winning record

27 - Average

26 - Below Average

25 - Far Below Average

24 & below - Offensive, rude

Half points may be used - Low Point Wins Okay, if Justified.

I am a judge for Chapel Hill, North Carolina. I debated in high school and I have been judging for the past two years. To begin with I can flow at an average speed, not particularly fast. Therefore anyone presenting an argument should not worry about speaking to quickly as long as they are clear and articulate about their contentions. The two most important factors for me, as with most judges in determining a winner are your evidence and impacts. First, evidence should be cited to make it clear where it derives and the validity of it. I will be skeptical of all pieces of evidence, so please make it clear where it comes from. Furthermore evidence must be made clear in how it relates to the argument, do not just throw random numbers at me. Second, please be clear in your impacts, telling me why your points matter and are more valid than the opposing points. I know that it is very basic, but impacts are going to be the meat of your argument, and thus they should reflect that with significant focus. Other than that, I am a pretty standard judge. Please just give me clear arguments and a strong debate.

Looks like I'm your judge for this round, huh?

I've been a Varsity PF Debater for 3 years now, and have competed in Regional, State, and National level tournaments. That's the end of my bragging.

All of that is just to say I am a flow judge, so have no fear that I will catch all your arguments. I'm cool with speed (trust me, I know how difficult it is to fit a case into 4 minutes,) but if you start spreading, I will stop flowing. Public Forum is meant for spectators - hence the "Public" - so if you're going fast enough that your opponents and I would need a Speech Doc, you're defeating the purpose of this event.

As a first speaker, I love unique and well written constructives, and I especially love when those unique and well written constructives are delivered well. That's not to say that I don't want you to run stock arguments, (They're stock arguments because they're good,) but if you do run them, it better be clear and well presented.

Now, lets get into the nitty-gritty stuff.

1. Explain your Arguments, Blocks, and Frontlines. This is incredibly important, and a large part of my decision (And your speaker points) will rely on this. I want it to be clear in the round that you understand everything you're arguing, and I want you to let me in on that understanding. That means not only effectively warranting and explaining your claims the first time you introduce them, but also extending them through later rounds.

2. Signpost. Off-time road maps are fine, but if you give one, I expect you to stick to it. However, do not use your road map as a supplement for signposting the warrants, evidence, or impacts you are addressing. If you don't signpost what you're addressing, I won't weigh it. Additionally, if you are responding to a specific piece of evidence, DO NOT signpost using the name of the publication, author, or person. I don't record those on my flow, and thus won't be able to follow it. Instead, briefly describe the evidence or quote you are referencing.

3. Weighing. Weighing is as important as explaining your arguments. If you don't weigh your arguments, the whole round doesn't matter, as you're not explaining why you should win the round. Weighing should start in Summary, and be extended through Final Focus. If you don't extend your weighing like this, I won't either :)

4. Comedy. Let's be honest - PF can get boring sometimes. Especially in the later rounds. Comedic analogies and/or general jokes help alleviate this and make the round more interesting. On top of this, they also indicate a deeper understanding of the topic. Thus, bonus speaker points will be granted for the successful introduction of comedy into the round. However, if the jokes are forced or too plentiful, you are just wasting time you could be making an effective argument. Note that this will only affect your speaks, and will not factor into my decision whatsoever.

5. Crossfire. Unless something is conceded or I deem important enough to enter into the round, I do not flow Crossfire. Thus, you must extend any arguments, A2s, or reasoning that you bring up in crossfire in later rounds. Grand Cross is too late to add new responses to arguments, but extending previous arguments is totally fine.

I look forward to judging your round!

Hello everyone! Just to be clear, I'm currently a senior who absolutely sucks from Cary High. I've been doing PF for the last 3 years, and have gone to a variety of local and national tournaments in that time. That means that I'm completely fine with speed, and I'll be flowing everything except for cross. If something important happens in cross, make sure to mention it in an actual speech.

PLEASE SIGNPOST - An off-road is fine, but keep it short. I will cut you off if you use it to bring up warrants, evidence, or impacts. Make sure your speeches are organized as it makes it easier on the flow and I'm less likely to get lost.

PLEASE WEIGH - Please don't just yell magnitude or timeframe or scope at me, make sure to bring up warrants the prove why your impacts mean more.

TECH OVER TRUTH - I have done a lot of prep on this topic, but the second I step in the room, I will forget everything I know. I don't care how wild your arguments are as long as you manage to support them properly.

EVIDENCE - I'll only call for evidence if it becomes a sticking point in the round. Otherwise I'll believe pretty much everything you say.

Please nothing racist, sexist, or homophobic, or you will lose and get speaks you won't enjoy.

Hello! I'm your judge! I was a former PF Debater, a current sophmore at Duke who's studying engineering. In my time debating, I did a mix of both lay and tech debate, and also was both first and second speaker at some point, but mainly second. For the current topic, I've haven't looked at it much, so break things down for me.

A couple of notes on preferences, I'm fine with speed, but might drop some things if you go too fast, especially in a virtual setting. When it comes to arguments like theory and kritiks, but I'm not familiar with them, so breaking down the very basics of such arguments it's important. Just make sure whatever abuse you are addressing is clear and important enough for me to drop the other team. Misrepresenting evidence is at least grounds to dock speak, if not drop round.

A couple of things that make me happy:

1. Responsiveness Being a second speaker, clash makes me happy. Make sure that all arguments are responsive. Specifically, rebuttal should tell me explicitly why their defense takes out the argument. I'll be extra happy and boost speaks if you can give me a comparative analysis between links and cards. If your opponent has a card saying that x is true, and you have a card saying x is not true, you need to tell me why your card is better (better warranting, postdating, etc). Or else it just turns into a 50/50 in which card I believe.

2. Cohesion Just make a consistent story or consistent extensions. If you focus on one topic, in summary, don't switch to another in the final focus. That doesn't mean repeat stuff without addressing arguments, just try to stick to the same topics. If something new comes up in summary or final focus by your opponents, just address it in the next speech possible, or call it out if you think it's too late in the round to bring up new points.

3. Signposting My flow tends to be pretty messy because I scribble, but I do try to keep it organized. If you tell me where you are, it will make it really easy for me to follow along.

4. Collapsing Please collapse in your summary and win an argument cleanly, along with the weight to go along with it. For summary, defense is sticky for first summary, but still would like it to be reemphasized. Second rebuttal does not need to frontline, but is strategic.

Have fun!