Hi! I debated for Winston Churchill in Maryland last year.

I'd consider myself a normal flow judge, so you should just debate how you like, nothing super special.

General

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

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

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

- *Important for middle school*: While it may be tempting to try and win on every argument, try to collapse onto 1-2 key arguments by the end of the round and explain them very well.

Speed

-Generally, I can keep up, as long as you remain clear. If you plan on spreading, send me a speech doc before.

In Round

- Don't make new arguments in final focus.

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

- Signpost

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

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless its frontlined in second rebuttal.

Evidence

- I think paraphrasing is okay, as long as you have a card to back it up, and the evidence says the same thing you are paraphrasing.

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

Progressive Arguments

- I don't think progressive arguments are good for the direction of the PF, and I would much rather listen to a stock substance debate. With that being said, if you choose to read a progressive argument,

1. You should explain it very well

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

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

Finally,

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

Good luck and have fun!

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

tl;dr

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

Here are some key points:

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

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

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

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

General

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

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

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

- Collapse pls

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

Speed

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

In Round

- Don't make new arguments in final focus.

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

- Signpost

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

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

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

Evidence

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

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

Progressive Arguments (K, Theory, etc.)

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

1. You should explain it very well

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

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

Finally,

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

Good luck and have fun!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He/Him - UC Berkeley 24

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

ahahahaha

ok so...

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

weigh weigh weigh PLEASE WEIGH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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