Edgemont PF Intersquad Novice RR
2018 — Scarsdale, NY/US
Jack Friedman Paradigm
Jacob Kang Paradigm
I wrote this kinda in a rush so don't pay too much attention to minor errors
I'm a flow judge
speed is fine as long as you are clear
1st summary doesn't need to extend defense except frontlines
weighing would be super nice -- otherwise I default on strength of link, impacts by themselves, etc
idc about cross -- if something happens then bring it up in speech for me to weigh it :)
Iris Lin Paradigm
Nikhil Malik Paradigm
Alex Mandadjiev Paradigm
Sid Nair Paradigm
Sammy Richter Paradigm
Ibby Salimi Paradigm
Weigh for me
Collapse on arguments
Don’t be mean in cross, if you talk over others and don’t let your opponents respond, you’ll speaks will drop
Please signpost, if you know that you aren’t the best at signposting, just give me an off time roadmap
Most definitions are unnecessary, please don’t make me listen to debates like ones over the definition of the word should, I know what the word means and you are probably both right and those debate aren’t fun to listen too
Be conscious of the implications of what you argue for. Don’t say something that is offense to people
Yukiho Semimoto Paradigm
have fun (or be serious whatever floats ur boat)!! /but/ don't be an asshole to be funny/silly
I do not think clarity of link weighing is actual weighing.
- I like to choose the path of least resistance for my ballot. I don't like intervening and allowing my own biases to affect the round so I'll vote on whatever arg that was most comfortable and easiest to vote on w/out intervening. treat me like a flow judge, win the round, and you will be fine.
- please keep your own time, if you prefer me to time the round just let me know, will be happy to do so
- I have zero-tolerance for rudeness or debaters that are racist/sexist/ ableist/ discriminatory in any way. If I find behavior to be severely problematic, I'm not afraid to drop the team and/ or give low speaks.
- I also really really really hate falsified evidence and miscut evidence. Don't do it.
- I'm all for comfort if you don't want to wear your heels or whatever in round do it because same. If there is anything else I can do to make the round more comfortable, please let me know.
even more specific preferences
Don't worry too much about adapting to me specifically
If you want to adapt to me, this is (probably) everything you need to know that will be relevant in my decision making. If you have any questions abt any of this or anything other than this just ask!
I don't like reading long paradigms either but I figured it doesn't hurt to put it here
- summary extensions: With the exception of defense in first summary, weighing, and responses to new analysis made in summary, everything else in FF must be in summary for me to evaluate it. Even with 3 minute summaries, I am okay with extending non responded defense from first rebuttal to first final focus.
For first speaking teams: If you don't extend a turn in summary (if you don't talk about a response to their case that you read in rebuttal that garners offense in summary) but your opponents don't respond to it in both second rebuttal and second summary, and you extend it in first final focus, I will count this as defense not offense. I.e. I'll count it as a reason to not vote for your opponent's argument, but I won't vote off of this argument.
- K's? Theory?: I don't have much experience w/ K's and Theory but I'm willing to vote on them especially if it's to check back on abuse in round.
I also really like this new trend of PFers using debate rounds as a platform for things that matter so I'm really willing to change the role of a ballot as a judge.
However, I believe that PF should be an inclusive activity first and foremost. So I will be receptive to progressive args that really don't use much debate jargon. Run these args like any other argument in PF, treat me and your opponents like a lay judge. Please please please don't spam debate jargon and run K's and Theory just to make your opponents confused.
As a side note, I will never reject any argument on face and will evaluate every round fairly but you probably have to do more to win
- Offensive overviews in rebuttal: (I have not made up my mind on this one considering 3 minute summaries but this is what I wrote before the switch)
Very much not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal especially if it doesn't interact w/ ur opponents cases w/ anything other than a "we outweigh", in my eyes that's another contention in second rebuttal . I don't think first summary has enough time to respond to a new case in second rebuttal. I won't reject it on face but I'll be fine w/ first summary frontlining it by saying: hi! this is abusive and ~bad~ for debate because it skews the round and there's probably no way for summary to ever frontline a disguised contention efficiently so drop the argument to unskew the round / drop the debater to set norms.
- Crossfire: I'm not the best at listening to crossfires. Just in case, make sure any new and important argument made in CX is in the speeches.
This is a pretty common one so don't roll your eyes at me but: Tell me why your argument is more important! (weigh!) At the end of the round, both teams are probably going to be winning at least one argument and if neither teams explain which argument is more important, I'll prob have to intervene and make my own comparative analysis and you don't want me doing that.
I am receptive to morality arguments but be sure to warrant out why it matters more than your opponents argument.
- I default squo only if you tell me to default squo. If both teams are winning 0 args, you can make the arg to stick w/ the current world because that's how real policy works in the real world... you don't pass a policy if there's not enough of a reason to. A lot of judges default to the status quo when they don't really have a place to vote in the round, but I've kind of been convinced by my partner that that's just like not the best way to vote. I'll vote for the team that lost the coin flip because they're the first team that was at a disadvantage due to random chance-- and thus it makes sense that the team that lost the coin flip probably had to do more work to get the round to an even playing field in which neither team won any arguments. thanks @kelly for convincing me.
If there is no coin flip -- I resort first speaking team.
- speed: I'm terrible with too much speed probably trades off with content on my flow.
- feel free to ask questions if you're confused about my rfd. If I don't have time to give my RFD don't hesitate to find me after round, I would be more than happy to talk about the round with you.
I call for evidence only if :
- a team tells me to and it is relevant to my decision
- I need to evaluate a piece of evidence as a last resort-- I can't make a decision in the round without it. I will do my best to NOT resort to this option.
If I call for evidence for these reasons and I find that it is miscut/ falsified, I'll pretend the evidence didn't exist and drop speaks for the team that miscut/ falsified.
speaks will be a balance of how smart I think your strategic decisions in round/ how good your coverage/ the arguments in round was plus your persuasion. you are free to curse in round as long as it is not derogatory or aimed at ur opponents/ me/ someone!!!!
yes you can ask me what speaks I gave you if you're curious and stressed about screws.
I don't thrive on days I have to judge a lot so if you want me to be a lay judge I'm down :)
Shyla Singh Paradigm
be a nice debater
don't be annoying
Stanley Yang Paradigm
I am currently debating on the VPF circuit. This is also a generic flow judge paradigm.
Medium speed. Tech over truth. Don't need defense in 1st summary but if you want to extend turns or offensive overviews you need them in summary. Extend and frontline. Collapse. Weigh. You'll probably win if you do.
Most important of all: Have fun.
Don't speak too fast.
I've never had any experience with theory
Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy anything just about anything.
Warrant everything. I won't extend any card that isn't warranted. Good warranting can also beat carded evidence.
Signposting and structure is really important. I like roadmaps and numbered responses.
Read terminalized impacts. Don't tell there's a 3% decrease in the GDP, tell me 30,000 jobs will be lost or 3,500 fall below the poverty line each year.
I'm a HUGE fan of turns.
I'm a pretty expressive judge. I nod when I like what I'm hearing.
I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.
Overviews: If you want to extend an overview to FF as either defense or offense, it needs to be in summary, even if it is 1st summary.
I'm fine with a 1-3 split in rebuttal, but there needs to be time spent frontlining in second rebuttal. 2-2 split is preferable.
No new in the 2. I'll stop flowing if it's new in the 2. That means no new responses/arguments/evidence (Unless you're using them to frontline in summary) in summary/FF.
Parallelism: I won't evaluate things that are in FF that aren't in summary. I should be able to draw a straight arrow from your summary to your FF.
Turns: Extend them. Frontline them. I love them. You have been warned.
Summary: Frontline. Don't just talk about an argument, make sure to extend carded links/impacts. Don't extend every single argument. If you want to extend turns, they need to be in both summary and FF.
1st Summary: Don't need defense. 1-2 responses on each contention is good, but not necessary.
2nd Summary: Defense needs to be in here. Don't try to read it in FF if it's not in summary.
Weighing: Comparative weighing is really important. Interact with your opponent's impacts at the end of the day and give me clear cut comparison on why your impact matters more. I'm usually compelled by good probability analysis. If both teams don't give me enough comparative weighing, then I just weigh the impacts myself.
I don't flow or listen to cross. What this basically means is you're not going to be able to make new points during crossfire or grand cross to save yourself. The best use of your time during cross is to ask clarifying questions.
Usually based on flow content.
Being funny will raise up your speaks by 1 point.
Anything offensive will drop your speaks down to a 0 immediately.
If you want me to call for a card, you can quickly bring it up during a speech.
If the card is not cited correctly, I'm going to have no choice but to drop it. If it's slightly misconstrued, I'll have to drop it and your speaks by 5 points. If you completely misconstrue it, I'll drop your speaks to 0, and depending on how important to the my decision it was, I might drop you if it was played any part in deciding.
That's the end of this unnecessarily long paradigm. Remember to have fun and don't stress. I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. I personally have enjoyed debating on the circuit a ton and I hope you'll have fun too.