Hi there! I debated PF for Harker for 4 years and currently am a junior at Columbia.

1) I'd prefer if you speak slowly, but I'm ok with some speed if you enunciate well. That said, spreading in PF decreases the format's accessibility to lay judges and novice debaters in my opinion.

2) Please understand (or at least make me think you understand) your warrants. I will almost never call for evidence unless there's blatant abuse/misuse of it; it's your responsibility to effectively weigh your warrants.

3) I don't flow cross-x, but I'll listen to it (and hopefully be entertained).

4) Signpost! Tell me where you are going down the flow.

5) I have a very rudimentary understanding of theory, but if you run it you must be explicit in how I should evaluate it.

6) Weigh your arguments in summary/FF (heck, you can even start in rebuttal sometimes). Don't just repeat the warrants of offensive arguments; tell me why your arguments (or their warrants/link-chains) outweigh the opponents' on timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc. In final focus, extend necessary defense and give me your offensive voters/weigh them.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round!

update for toc: i haven't done much research on the topic, so please don't use assume I know anything.

harker 20 ->wellesley 24 and did pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: amandakcheung@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Voting:

- everything extended in final focus must be in summary

- weigh impacts: i don't want to do the work for you cuz it probably won't work out in your favor

- tech > truth

- COLLAPSE!!! (if u don't collapse starting in second summary (though preferably you start first summary), i give you a max of 28 speaks)

- implicate turns

- if you read something progressive, tell me the role it should play in my ballot (if its like Theory or a K explain it really clearly and expect me to evaluate it as a parent judge would)

- if its like disclosure theory and your opponents seem confused/ don't know how to debate it, i think its extremely uneducational for the round and will not vote for it/ drop u

General Preferences:

- i will give u < 25 if you are condescending, rude, or making the round unsafe (misgendering anyone's pronouns, being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist etc)

- speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear (i will stop flowing if you are too unclear). if you think you might be too fast or unclear (zoom quality etc) send a speech doc before your speech or ill just go off of whatever i could understand which will probably hurt you

- second rebuttal should frontline defense from the argument(s) that you are collapsing on and all offense

- second flight should preflow before the round

- ill give u up to a minute to look for evidence (more flexible if there's a lot called) and after that, it comes out of ur prep. also please send CUT CARDS not paraphrases or links to articles

- if you read a TW, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for your opponents and anyone in the room. if you don't do this, i will say that i feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument and make you read something else.

most importantly, debate's a safe space; if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, pls lmk!!

feel free to pm me with any questions u have on fb or amandakcheung@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and I have judged few tournaments.

I will be judging on the framework and team spirit.

Have fun debating!

I know a lot about the topic and since I have been judging for the past almost two years, I do flow properly. Also, I believe that during cross-ex is when each side reveals their weaknesses and how well they have an understanding of the topic. So, I do closely look at cross fire.

Also, be nice and respectful to your opponents if you want high speaks from me.

In your summary, there can be new evidence but not any new arguments. In your final focus, there should not be any new arguments nor any new evidence.

Lastly, have fun!!

Email me at soccerlado@gmail.com if you have any questions. Before the round starts, I will give you some time to ask me any questions.

My experience: I have competed in 3 years of Varsity Public forum and 4 years of Varsity Congress.

What I am looking for:

-I will be flowing, so please respond to all your opponent's arguments. I would prefer that by the end of the debate, all arguments have been touched.

- I will be fact checking, do not lie

-Quality over quantity

-During Cross Ex, I expect respect from both speakers. I want argumentative questions. Keep your questions and answers relatively short. Please do not read off your case while answering a question.

-Please make your arguments very clear. Make it easy for me to flow.

- Show impacts!

Speaking preferences: Your speaking will influence my decision.

- You can speak as fast as you want, as long as you enunciate each word. Please speak loudly and clearly!

- I want to see confidence!

- I will allow a 10 second grace period, if you consistently go over this grace period, this will impact your speaker points.

- Do not prep during dead time!

Look forward to a good debate.

Hi! I debated PF for ~4 years at Harker, and now I'm a student at Columbia University.

Pronouns: she/they

Email: ellenguo6@gmail.com

tldr: tech>truth but I never get enough sleep so treat me like a flay judge :))))

For online tournaments: please set up the email chain/Google Doc before the round starts, and share me on it too! My email is above.

Voting

- If it's not in both summary and final focus I won't be considering it at the end of the round.

- WEIGH. I'm lazy, so please do the weighing for me, and be strategic about it. Know when you are losing arguments and instead of just repeating the same non-responsive thing over and over again, tell me why their argument is insignificant (in the context of the round) even if they win it. If you don't weigh, I'll have to weigh for myself and it's probably not going to be in your favor (it also tends to be more truth>tech).

- COLLAPSE. If second summary (and any speeches afterward) are line-by-lines I will cry on the inside.

Technical Details

- Second rebuttal and first summary need to frontline all offense that you plan to collapse on and respond to any turns; frontlining in second summary is way too late. And by frontlining I mean that you actually need to interact with their rebuttals, not just repeat your case back at me.

- Defense is sticky through summary (if it isn't responded to), but if it's on a main voter please reiterate the defense in final focus.

- No offensive overviews in second rebuttal.

- If you're going to run a framework, make sure it actually gives you offense in the round (I don't care for net benefit or util frameworks, since that's basically the default in PF already). Also, responses to opponents' frameworks need to happen in rebuttal, or else I'm flowing them through and evaluating the round under them.

- I'm grudgingly open to theories and Ks, but I have very little experience with them so a) my threshold is rather high and b) you're going to have to explain them to me very well. As a side note, if your opponent is actually being abusive, you don't need theory to point that out.

- I don't flow or vote on anything that happens in cross, though I will listen. If you want it to be important in the debate, you need to bring it up again in a speech.

- Don't extend through ink; give me warrants not just author names.

Speaks

- Don't be rude. I am b e g g i n g you

- If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, xenophobic or generally bigoted/discriminatory/hateful statements, I'll drop your speaks to 25 and you'll most likely not win the round. Same goes for repeated misgendering absent apology (especially if it's pointed out).

Miscellaneous

- I will be disclosing and giving an RFD unless the tournament explicitly bans it.

- If your opponent calls for ev and you can't find it after ~2 minutes, I'm striking it.

- Speed is okay as long it's clear; if you're going to spread, email me the speech doc (ellenguo6@gmail.com). However, I've noticed that moving online has caused a vast majority of debaters to become less clear (re: audio quality, internet inconsistencies, etc.), so please err on the side of caution—go slower, or send a speech doc even if you aren't quite spreading; otherwise, I'll only flow what I hear, and it probably won't be in your favor :(

- If you're reading cases about sensitive topics, please do include a trigger warning and some forum through which someone could anonymously disclose that they don't want to engage in such a topic (Google Forms comes to mind). If you don't provide the latter, I will always ask that you read an alternative case.

- lol this is probably obsolete now because of online tournaments buT if you're flight 2 and both teams are waiting outside the room, please do the coin toss and tell me the results when you come in.

In general, if the round is fun, educational, and cooperative, that'll work out in everyone's favor :) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask before the round!

add me to the email chain: arnavj214@gmail.com

FOR PF

tech > truth

Everything in ff must be in summary

weigh

turns must be responded to in second rebuttal

all offense not responded to in rebuttal is conceded

cross won't affect my decision so bring up anything important that happens in cross in a speech

collapse plssss

--

“If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

--

About me

Harker ’19

Debated for Harker for 4 years as a 2N, primarily went for policy arguments

Georgetown ’23 (no longer debating)

Coaching for Harker

Add me to the email chain – anusha.kuppahally@gmail.com

Please add info about the round in the subject of the email chain!

TL;DR
You do you, clear judge instruction makes me happy, don’t be rude, tech>truth, and have fun!

I flow on paper, and if you want me to catch more of your arguments, don’t sacrifice clarity for speed and slow down a little.

I fail to see the strategic utility of proliferating bad, generic offcase instead of having a clear, specific strategy. If you would never go for an argument, don’t put it in your 1NC. Quality>quantity.

I will yell clear once but after that, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing.

Planless Affs

Strongly neg leaning on T against these types of affs. If you read a planless aff, it will be an uphill battle for me to vote on it. That being said, the aff needs to win that engaging the resolution or being forced to do so is intrinsically bad, and the neg has to win that aff offense isn’t intrinsic to the resolution, and neg offense is. I believe fairness can be an impact, and I find impacts based on the value of clash/engagement with the resolution more compelling than standards based on arbitrary decision making/topic education impacts.

Ks

I’m familiar with generic K’s like security or cap, but less familiar with high theory/identity debates. If I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, so make sure to clearly explain your arguments. Links should be based on the action of the plan, have a clear impact, and have a reason why the alt resolves the link. Line by line > long overviews. Death is bad, don’t try to say otherwise.

DAs

Absolutely love specific DAs that interact directly with the aff, and politics is fine too. Make sure to do impact calc and explain how the impact implicates the case debate. Turns case is underutilized so please do it! Framing pages aren’t my favorite, and are often generic/waste of time.

CPs

I default to judge kick. I’m also neg leaning on theory, especially conditionality. I haven’t found a clear and identifiable impact based on conditionality and I find numerical limitations to be arbitrary. Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, anything else is a reason to reject the argument. I love smart PICs and using aff evidence as solvency advocates for counterplans. If you have to read a bunch of definitions to prove that your counterplan is competitive, it will be an uphill battle to convince me to vote for it. However, if you want to read these counterplans or go for theory against these types of counterplans, standards on theory should be effectively compared and impacted out. Please slow down on standards, I flow on paper and will miss what you say if you speed through them.

T

I don’t have much topic knowledge, so be sure to explain acronyms and affs that they would justify. Whoever has the best vision of what the topic should look like will win the debate. Be sure to impact out standards and why your interpretation of the resolution is better for debate. Evidence matters, and if you read more cards about why the aff doesn’t meet your interpretation and why that’s bad, you’re more likely to win.

Misc.

I default to tournament rules for clipping. Please don’t do this, it makes me sad.

If you make the debate unsafe by being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you automatically lose and get a 0. No exceptions.

LD

My debate experience is mostly in policy, so while I understand the differences in LD, most of what I said above still applies.

Conditionality bad is more winnable in LD to me, and my other opinions on theory still apply.

If your strategy relies on tricks, phil, or frivolous theory, please don’t pref me. I don’t enjoy these debates, don’t know what these things are, and don’t know how to adjudicate them, so both of us will be very unhappy at the end of the debate.

Hi I'm Rohan. I debated PF at Harker in high school. If you have an email chain please add me (rohan.v.rashingkar@vanderbilt.edu) but I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to.

--

If you have 10 minutes, I highly recommend watching this video on learning how to give summary speeches. I'd also recommend the rest of the videos on their channel for learning other PF skills.

--

Here's how I judge a round

1. I see who's winning the weighing debate
2. If that team is also winning their case, they win the round
3. If they aren't winning their case, I evaluate the other team's case. If the other team wins their case, they win the round.
4. If neither team clearly wins their case, I have to personally intervene to choose a winner (This will probably not go your way)

--

Things I like to see

• Weighing (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)
• Signposting (Tell me where on the flow you are; numbering your responses; ex: "We have 3 responses to our opponent's 2nd contention. First, ...")
• Extending your arguments in summary, making sure to not only focus on your own argument but also to address your opponent's responses to that argument (frontlining)
• Frontlining in second rebuttal (This isn't necessary, but it would be to your advantage especially if there were turns read on your case in first rebuttal)
• Not stealing prep (Don't prep outside of prep time like when your opponents are pulling up evidence)
• Not running Kritiks, theory, or other progressive arguments unless it's absolutely necessary
• Speaking at a conversational pace or slightly faster but nothing more than that, otherwise I may not be able to flow your arguments.
• Extra: I'll listen to cross but it's mostly for speaker points and won't affect my decision unless you bring up concessions in a speech.

--

“Victory comes from finding opportunities in problems” - Sun Tzu, Art of War

Policy
Be sure to add me to the email chain: beerud@gmail.com
Affirmative - Have a good impact calc but don't always have the same impact of nuclear war, nuclear war, extinction, nuclear war because when judging I'll probably have some skepticism around there. Make sure you clearly know your aff so you don't get stumped by "what does your ___ evidence say" it's one thing to ask bad questions, it's another thing to answer bad questions badly.
K Affs - Only go for it if you know what you're doing - I hate it when you poorly execute a K, so be sure to properly know the advocacy and what it entails. I'd be glad to judge performance affs but make sure you know what you're doing.
FW versus K Affs - If you go against a K aff be sure to do this, framework should be your go to argument against any K-affs. Some of the best policy debates were super contextualized framework args against kritikal teams with flushed out impact arguments.
Topicality - I wouldn't exactly advise you going for T in the 2nr but if that's your thing, go for it. Don't just spit out interns and counterinterps at each other without knowing what you're doing. Make it extremely clear why the plan is bad for debate.
Ks - I definitely like k args, so I'm down to vote for a k. This doesn't mean I'm just going to vote for a team that proposes to read a k in front of me. Although I will vote for generic links that are nearly dropped by the other team, I will reward you if your link is specific to the aff. Make your decisions at your own risk when it comes to the 2nr. It is also especially important to have multiple framing arguments and perm arguments (if necessary). In order to get my vote, I need to have a clear understanding of the alt and what it does for us.
DA/CP - The more specific they are to the aff the easier it is for me to vote for them. I'm not exactly a fan of a politics DA, but if that's your thing, go for it. The link for the DA and the solvency/net benefits for the CP will be important, so make sure you take that into consideration.

PF
Speed - When it comes to Pofo I'm not exactly a fan of speed. If you still choose to speak fast, make sure you are clear and not just blurting out arguments. If that's the case, I'm not inclined to vote for you.
Extension Args - Be clear as to what specific cards/arguments you want me to extend in the Summary/FF. Make sure you signpost before your speech so I know where you are at any given time in the speech. I prefer logical warrants over cards, so make sure you don't say "I have a card so it's true" because then you won't exactly get my vote.
Evidence - I might call for evidence after the round is over if necessary. Make sure you present evidence when asked to and not to refuse. DO NOT PARAPHRASE ANY NEW CARDS OR YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY D/Qed. Don't make me vote for the opposing team just because you want to save time.
Case Specifics - Don't pile card after card on me without any logical reason why to prefer that card. Don't have seven different contentions of thirty seconds each because it'll get all messy on the flow. Make sure to tell me why your impact outweighs theirs and do a decent impact calc. Don't drop impact.
Framework - Be sure to provide a framework for me and stick with it till the FF telling me why to vote for your framework and why you win on that framework. Don't argue each other's framework if you're using the same one. I once judged a round in which one team was proposing util and the other was proposing CBA and they KEPT ARGUING WHY TO PREFER THEIR FW. Don't do that. If neither teams propose a framework I'll go default to CBA.
Crossfire - Don't be too rude in cross - it's okay to a certain extent but don't be talking forever and ever to the extent where your opponent has to ask you to stop. I won't flow useless arguments in cross, but I will flow concessions or cross arguments brought up in later speeches.

Congress - Many of my rules for presentation and content still apply here. Keep your speeches within the alloted time and don't ignore the PO when they're gaveling you down. I reward debaters who advance debate rather than merely reiterating previously discussed points. If you speak late in cycle, either do the most to bring up unique points, respond to previous speakers, or do a summary/crystallization speech on the major voters in the round. Critiquing loopholes in a bill or the way a resolution is written will win extra points from me. Same goes for amendments, provided they're germaine and substantive. Keep your questions tactful and strategic- I know what softballs and gotchas look like. As in PF, don't be rude in cross-ex.

Otherwise, be sure to have fun and have a great time debating.

• all offense in final focus must be in summary
• with the 3 minute summaries, both summaries have to collapse on and extend defense
• 2nd rebuttal should split
• Weigh - try to establish weighing early in the round, no new weighing in 2nd FF unless there was no weighing at all in the round; if both teams weigh, weigh weighing mechanisms
• speed - don’t go too fast, be understandable, but i’m generally ok with speed
• please signpost in the 2nd half of the round
• anything from crossfire has to be in speech for me to evaluate it
• be nice in cross
• i’ll probably evaluate any argument in the round unless it’s racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
• i’ll call for evidence usually only if someone tells me to call for it
• don’t run theory