Here are some general things about how I will judge, but feel free to ask me questions in round for clarification. (I have bolded the key parts of what you should know, so if you're on a time crunch just read those)

I am the first alternate to nationals in PF and third in the district in LD, please interpret that as you will. I will judge in a more technical style.

I will disclose after round after my ballots are submitted. I will not change my mind on my vote, but im happy to answer questions about it.

In terms of what I allow in round, it totally depends on your opponents. This means that, with opponent permission, the use of jargon, fast talking and whatever else is allowed unless I specifically say no. Note however, please no spreading if youre not in cx. I will not flow what I cannot understand, and I will not get on an email chain or a speech drop or whatever. In non-CX events its usually not standard practice to spread. Make sure your words have some sort of clarity basically and its not spreading. You can also ask me before round if your speed will be okay. I will also keep time, but please do not rely on me for it. Sometimes I forget, typically I do not. If your opponent goes over a speech or prep by five seconds, you can call out “time” to stop them. However, please use this only if you're sure they've gone over. If my timer isn't over then they'll be allowed to continue. Also, please do not call out how much time an opponent has used during their prep unless they've used all of it. They are probably very aware they used 3 of their 4 minutes, and calling that out is distracting.

Additionally, no progressive argumentation if youre not in policy. If you run a K I won't flow it, even if you try to disguise it. I also will not and will never buy disclosure theory, no matter the event.

For spectators, keep in mind that YOU are responsible for the spectators you bring into the round. Spectators should be quiet the entire round, including prep time, and should not leave when there is a speech or cross ex happening. If you bring in poorly behaved spectators it will reflect in your speaks. Additionally, if any spectators are doing something that makes you uncomfortable, feel free to ask them to stop. They are simply there to observe and should in no way interfere. I prefer they sit behind the competitors as to minimize distractions, and also ask permission of the opponent before entering.

Please also note that while it is okay to get aggressive in a round, rudeness and disrespect are generally easy ways to get low speaks/ lose the round. No matter the judge, it is REALLY HARD to side with a rude team. Do not yell, do not belittle, don't scoff, or anything else that is generally disrespectful.

More specifically on how I judge, ill prioritize voting issues like this:

1. Weighing: This will go to how well your arguments develop through the round. Having a good impact will be the way to win this one. Please do not be afraid to weigh and call out specifically what the most important arguments in the round are. Unless your opponent attacks this and tells me to prioritize other arguments, if this goes conceded ill rank the importance of arguments in that order.

2. What I actually buy: This is about how your argument actually stands in the round. A solid link chain and good responses to opponents will win you this. I can buy any argument if it has a good link chain, but its not all about who can get the nuclear war impacts first as well. Make sure it makes sense.

3. Argumentation: This is more the general skill of both debaters. Being able to effectively respond and structure your speeches, as well as efficient use of time is how you get this one.

4. Respectfulness: I severely dislike disrespect in the debate space. Debate is fun if you let it be fun. Ive already gone into this earlier though. Just generally be nice to your opponent.

I will give out speaker points starting at a 28.

To raise speaks) Effective use of time, respectfulness, being clear, having good link chains, effectively responding to arguments, good weighing, and good etiquette are all good ways to raise your speaks

To lower speaks) Basically the opposite of the raising speaks. Being disrespectful is almost an automatic 26 or 25.

PF specific stuff:

• The second rebuttal responds to the opponents case and also the first rebuttal. If not then the first speakers have every right to claim their responses as dropped.

• If you're doing the coin flip the other side calls. You need to flip where the other side can see it clearly. I prefer you flip in front of me, but if not its okay.

• Please try to stay on the same page as your partner, if I hear wildly different argumentation its hard to evaluate. Consistency is key.

• Please be respectful in grand cross. I know its easy to get carried away, but, if you're able to control it that reflects positively on you as a speaker

• First speaker gets first question

• Extensions are okay but not really necessary for me. I've already heard your case.
• Cross is listened to but will not count unless its brought up in your speeches.

LD specific stuff:

• I have only competed in one LD tournament, so I am not the absolute most familiar with everything. At least not like I am in PF.

• Value debate kind of defines everything for me. I will weigh arguments under whatever fw I buy the most.

• I really dont mind skipping cross if you dont know what to ask.

• Again, no progressive argumentation. I have dabbled in policy enough to know it when I see it. Even if you try to veil it.
  
  

Overall: Just have fun with it. I only judge novice and so please dont be afraid to ask me questions, ill never vote you down for it. Debate is supposed to be a really fun activity, so dont stress.

Hey, I am Aravind and I debate at Tompkins High School, primarily in World Schools Debate.

When it comes down to who wins the debate, I will always look for who has the best approach, structure, and logic to the round. Meaning, I do not want to see arguments thrown at random times during the debate, there has to be flow. This way I will be able to understand better and it will be more clear. I will vote for any argument delivered as long as it is flushed out and interacted with properly (ie well warranted and impacts provided). There also has to be a link to every single argument you present.

To evaluate how well you do in round (and as to who won the round) I will judge by the following.

1. Spreading - Try to limit the amount of times you spread, I should be able to understand what your are trying to flush out. I am chill with you talking fast, as long as I am able to understand what you are trying to say.
2. Round etiquette - Please be respectful to your opponents at ALL times. Jokes here and there are chill, but please do not disrespect your opponent. Attack the idea, not the individual.
3. Warranting - Please explain the arguments as to why should I care, why is it relevant, why is it important, etc. I would also like you to have sources, but don't solely base your cases off of sources. Sources are only there to back up what you are trying to say.
4. Impacts - I would say this is the aspect that I will heavily analyze on. You should be able to explain to me why your side provides the most impacts which are beneficial as whole.
5. Rhetoric - I won’t really care that much if you use it or not, but throw a few jokes here and there or some type of jargon to flow into your speech. I like to laugh.

Just some general tips: Don’t be nervous. I would rather you have good content but poor speaking skills over bad content and decent speaking skills. At the end of the day, knowing you have done your best will go a long way and provides and opportunity for you to learn from your experience.

Overall, just have fun and be yourself. That’s the best part about speech and debate, because allows you to express yourself in a safe environment. Don’t be afraid to ask questions, because we are all here to learn from it, including me! Also, I am open to any type of questions. You can ask me any questions before or after round.

Good luck!

tech judge

be loud

have fun ill give good feedback trust

pls add tharoon.eswar@gmail.com to the email chain

Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)

I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)

has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)

and attacks the opponents case the best

If the round has gotten messy, there’s two opposing claims and both sides haven’t cleared up which claim I should vote on, I’ll vote on turns and weighing.

i’m fahim

ill answer any questions about paradigm in round, as in depth as you need

i’ll vote on anything

if u win i’ll vote for u

2nd year debater at Seven Lakes

always extend args and remember to have comparative weighing if you want me to consider them

tech>truth

speed is ok with me, but if no one can understand you, set up an email chain or speech drop and send a doc

no prog args (theories and Ks)

give a shout-out to “Tvisha Talwar” to make me happy

speaks start at 27

junior at 7L || INFO & Extemp || sahara.k2025@gmail.com

extemp/impromptu - make sure to have 3 (2-3 is alright for impromptu) distinct points with evidence, dont rush through your words, emphasize effects/whats important! give a catchy AGD and vehicle that can be tied back to throughout/at the end of your speech.

OO/INFO - have evidence spread throughout your speech, putting your personality/humor into the speech is nice, varying tone of voice rather than droning, if a part of your speech needs emotion, put emotion! get my attention! hoping this is a topic youre interested in, so absolute formality (like some academic paper) in your speaking isnt a must. be passionate but respectful.

SLHS '25

3rd-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, broke at nationals in policy!

PFer

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask me questions before the round!

Debate:

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!

• Ev>presentation any day dawg - just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy.

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.

• Progressive debate:

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus

• No substantially new arguments in both

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides.

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

Speech/Interp:

I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool!

Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

Background Info: Hi there! I'm a varsity debater at Katy Taylor, thank you for checking out my paradigms! :)
>> I'm most familiar with LD and PF as I've previously competed in those events. However, I do have relative experience with other debate types such as Congress and Policy/CX but may not be as well caught up to their recent resolutions/topics.

My Paradigms:
[General]
>> I prefer debaters to not spread, unless in Policy. This does not mean I am completely against spreading, but if I can barely keep up with your arguments, spreading is not going to get you points from me. I value coherency and weighing arguments over how many arguments you can address. If you drop an argument from your opponent's case, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE. Don't stress, address what you can still address.
>> Please keep the debate respectful at all times. Personal attacking such as being disrespectful, calling your opponent underhanded comments like stupid in crossfire (yes it happened to me) will not appeal your case to me.
>> Being non-topical (or off-topic) in crossfire also will not get you points from me. I expect both sides of the debate to remain calm and educational to maximize the experience.
>> I do not mind whether you choose to stand or sit, your choice, whatever you feel more comfortable with.
>> If possible, please give off-the-clock roadmaps when you can. This helps me keep track of what's happening in the round when I am flowing.

[LD]
>> I judge based off how well you respond to your opponent's arguments and vice versa. Other important factors that I suggest you stress in voters is solvency and/or why your value-criterion is something I should prefer (as a judge) over your opponents.

[PF]
>> Do not spread. That is my #1 advice to all PF peeps out there. Don't do it, I definitely will not be giving you points for trying to bomboard your opponent with a list of arguments. Basic guidelines are the same as LD but will be focusing on delivery of speech and impact weighing.

Hi, I'm Kaidi (she/her)

Currently debating for Seven Lakes!

In general,

• Tech>Truth
• I'm good with speed, send a doc if spreading
• Weigh, collapse, and tell me why you're winning
• Signpost and be organized
• If you run anything progressive, explain it well. Probably won't understand tricks/dense phil and k's. Policy/larp is fine and theory if you're going slow.

Have fun debating and be respectful!!

Email chain: kaidicandy@gmail.com

email: rayaanmeghani13@gmail.com

PF

Tech >>> truth

For evidence comparisons: If you can't tell me why a postdate matters then it's not a response I'm evaluating. Do actual comparisons that tell me what makes your evidence better than theirs.

Prog: No theory except for Disclosure and paraphrasing or actual in-round abuse. Ks are cool but keep it low-lit like cap and stuff

Speed: Spreading is fine, be really clear, send doc.

Preferences: Weighing from 2nd rebuttal, responses shouldn't be blippy

Speaks: I'll give high speaks but good strategy and pretty speaking helps with it

Signpost!!!

Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)

I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)

has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)

and attacks the opponents case the best

If the round has gotten messy, there’s two opposing claims and both sides haven’t cleared up which claim I should vote on, I’ll vote on turns and weighing.

Hey! I'm Hayley Oentoro (she/her)

For emails - h4yo3n@gmail.com

Debate: I DONT DO DEBATE! IM BASICALLY A PARENT JUDGE

• Please don't spread! I won't be able to understand your arguments!!

• Don't say anything racist, homophobic, curse, etc

• Speak clearly

• I will judge you on pretty standard stuff (responding to arguments, impact, etc)

• Don't be rude to your opponents!! Especially in cross

Have fun!

I currently do PF/LD at SLHS

For email chains: courtney6129@gmail.com

Debate:

I understand prog/tech arguments but if your arguments are COMPLETELY improbable or just straight-up make no sense I'm probably not evaluating them.

I'm fine with spreading but please be clear. I flow.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!!!!!

Implicate so I know WHY I should care about what you're saying/the cards you're reading.

I love clash and when you're dominant in cx.

Speaker Points:

I start in the 28-30 range and as long as you weigh and implicate well you will get high speaks.

Speech:

I rank mostly on speaking ability and entertainment but pls don't lie abt sources during extemp :))))

Seven Lakes 2027 - aka a high school freshman

pronouns: She/her

Hi, I'm Sunny Pu, I'm a varsity LD debater for 1 year currently, but I have done PF for 2-3 years, and dabbled in some World Schools.

I was in your place about a year ago, so I'll try my best to make you feel comfortable! lf you're just genuinely confused about debate and how to get better at it I can help you because I jumped a lot from my middle school years to high school year lol.

Joke Paradigm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DC4mn0FULec24945OF4VZcbM73YlXJ-YEm1Kqrhkguk/edit

TLDR:

• have smart strategy- will both win you rounds and raise speaks
• be a decent person
• if youre going to spreading please disclose to me before round starts, I'm a tech > truth judge but i hate being jumpscared by spreading.
• WEIGH!!!WEIGH!!! Comparitive worlds, link weighing, impact weighing, only accept some evdience weighing if it's actually relevant - but when it is it's actually really really nice.
• If you care about the ballot, then please signpost, be safe than sorry. If I get lost, it will take my ~10 seconds to get back on track and I will not be flowing.
• anyways please read my entire paradigm please it actually helps you a lot on how i;m going to judge you
• + 1 speakerpoint if you give me any real and juicy gossip in your school after round.
• +0.5 speakerpoints if you give me a spin every time you read a turn :)

General

• Be respectful but assertive
• no racism/homophobia/ableism/transphobia/sexist - automatic down and lowest of points I can get you.
• I have very little patience for bad debate evidence: if a card is obviously miscut, your opponents are lying about evidence or intentionally misconstrued it. Feel free to stake the round on an evidence challenge, I will vote for it. If you think your evidence isnt cut properly, fix it before round or dont read it.
• I will disclose unless the round was really close - if it is, i'll go off of offense
• SPEAKS start out at 29, goes down by 0.1 on the scale
• PLEASE ask questions after round. If you leave it frustrated and confused, ask me about it because I will help explain things + list out things you couldve done against argument a or b.
• Disclosure:I will usually disclose after a round, but it might take time depending on the round.

Debate - general

• You are responisble for keeping time for both speeches and prep, and you validate your opp's prep and speech time
• tech> truth; you can say the most outlandish stuff but if it wins on flow and you convince me, I'll vote on it.
• Spreading:if you're spreading put your speech docs in email chain: default.sunny.pu@gmail.com
• Slow down on Analytics/taglines/author names- and make sure that your doc is actually comprehensible - minus speaker points if not
• Decent Flow Judge, not the best with speed tbh, if you think its going to be a problem then send me a doc, I would really appreciate it, but I don't really think they solve, err on the side of caution. Faster than 250wpms is fine if you slow down for important stuff.

- be well versed in your cards and KNOW what you're saying - aka if opponent asks for cards/ link/claim/internal link - please give full version/ summarize quickly

• I love love love weighing - weigh against opponent link/ impact CLEARLY during a round will make me very happy :). Debate is better with good clash and we love to see it :)!!!

- I listen to CX but i don't like flow it - but if you trap your opponents into admitting something they shouldnt, then extra speaker points because it's awesome.

• I appreciate voting on strategy and being smart, not doc botting 30 responses from the 600-page exclusive block file compiled from circuit connections.

  Ishan Dubey is cool, watched him debate in strake jesuit debate camp. his rounds were enjoyable to watch, not just because he was a good tech debater, but because he was strategic, he grouped responses, weighed to beat back timeskews, he framed ballots for the judges. Be like ISHAN, he cool.

• appreciate good strategy sooooo much. I’ll outline what I consider good strategy.

  1. Comparative Weighing is an absolute must for me, it should be smartly contextualized in round. Link level, impact level, meta-weighing, policy maker stuff, uniqueness weighing, actor analysis, SOMETHING.

  2. Evidence comparisons are a godsendand will break clash for me on the flow. If you have good evidence, lord it over your opponents, it makes the round so much easier to vote on.

  3. Easily differentiated warrants and implications for responding to your opponents, using evidence from constructive to frontline, nuanced case offense, and smart extensions that do more than just extend.

  4. Overviews are nice, they just get spammed a lot in Public Forum.

• Also: HIGH SPEAKER POINTS
• good strategy
• turns
• arguments that are claim; warrant; sometimes impact.
• smart cross ex

LD

On the current LD topic

- guys when discussing please use sensitive language and arguments, especially regarding any Israel- Palestine conflict contentions.

- I have debated this topic so i know pretty much most of the arguments

1. TRAD
2. LARP
3. Theory
4. Kritik - strike

• framework: I like explain why your world fullfills the framework on your opp and yours. Also why your framework is better, prereq etc.
• Go the extra step in offense and collpase on at least 2 - go extra step in extension/frontlining
• Aff solvency: This may seem kinda niche but i love good aff solvency cards. i feel like the solvency of "oh but if we don't do the resolution then it'll all be solved" is just not enough especially since because the negation is defending status quo), theres usually not a strong enough warrant to deter from status quo. Aff solvency cards just list out specifics and it's just really nice.

• Theory

- err on side of caution for theory - I'm very picky on accepting theory so unless your opponent violates somehting in the round I probably won't like theory too much, but I'll still flow it.

My threshold for responses against theory is directly proportional to how friv I think it is.

Don't attempt to skew your opponents out of the round by reading 5 god awful interps, if you actually care about norms then there should be sufficient time to actually debate them. If this happens, make it a response and I will vote on it.

• I default competing intercepts.

• Will default to no RVI’s unless contested.

• K v. Theory, I default to the K if the theory of power is conceded, either a. Contest the theory of power or b. Weigh the shell against the rotb/ToP and interact in the speech its introduced.

• In Theory v. Theory, please metaweigh, I have a low threshold for voters, I don’t believe not disclosing will collapse the activity. Compare the actual impacts to break clash.

PF

• I don't like spreading in PF that much
• It's pretty much everything in the General debate category, just NO progressive debate. i am purely trad in PF - but I can accept fast speaks.

- I don't know much about the topic - it's plastics isn't it lmfao - so treat me like I dont know much of it.

Hi!

I am Tanmay Rai, a sophomore at the Village High School in Houston Texas.

I have competed in Speech and Debate for 4 years now. I have placed on the National Circuit in Congress and Extemp (FX or IX if you're curious), but I am also familiar with LD, PF, Impromptu, World Schools, and most platform speaking events.

Here's my record if it means anything to you: I've made finals at state twice, scored elimination rounds across the national circuit, and made out rounds at tournaments like NIETOC, Harvard, NSDA Nationals, and TOC, and I am ranked T20 in Texas for Congress and ranked #1 for impromptu in the state.

All that is to say is that I've been around the block a few times.

Here's my paradigm for separate event categories:

Congress: (my main event)

In Congress, it's all about raw persuasion. Your ability to sway opinions matters most in this arena. It's crucial to strike a balance between your argumentation and presentation skills; winning is about convincing me of your stance. When speaking, try to avoid relying too heavily on notes or electronics; this platform is all about your voice and your ability to connect with the audience. Start strong with memorable intros and use rhetoric effectively to make your points resonate.

On that point, as far as your content goes, please keep in mind your role in the round. If you are early round, give me constructive. If you are mid-round, I need to hear a refutation. In the late round, I should be hearing lots of weighing. If you want my 1, do what you need to be doing at that point in the round and what the round needs and what's most strategic for your side.

Crafting strong arguments is key in Congress, but remember, cards are secondary to solid warrants. Don't shy away from clashes and weighing; they're the heart of the debate and a necessity for a robust discussion. If you are not the author, I need to see clash and preferably weighing. Adaptability and resourcefulness are highly valued in this format; I've been in your shoes, and I know what it takes to succeed.

For presiding officers (POs), efficiency and competence are key. Break through with your skills and ensure smooth proceedings.

Ultimately, be memorable, debate well, and you'll find yourself on my ballot.

Platform Speaking (Extemp, OO, Info, etc.)

In platform speaking events such as Extemp, OO, and Info, clarity and persuasiveness are paramount. Make sure to articulate your points clearly and back them up with credible sources to strengthen your arguments. Structure your speech in a logical manner to keep the audience engaged and convinced of your position. Remember, the ability to connect with your audience and effectively convey your message is crucial. Strive to keep them captivated from start to finish, and you'll leave a lasting impression.

If you leave me thinking and/or taught me something new, you'll rank on my ballot.

Debate: (LD, PF, Worlds, etc.)

I CAN UNDERSTAND HIGH SPEEDS BUT NOT SPREAD

Consider me a flay judge - I know how to flow (and will flow) and I know how it works, but I am otherwise lay and traditional. Clarity, logic, and thorough analysis are paramount. Present your arguments with precision, ensuring they're well-warranted and directly address the topic. Avoid relying solely on evidence cards; instead, focus on delivering concise and compelling points backed by insightful analysis. Respectful engagement during crossfire is essential, as is maintaining a civil demeanor throughout. I can tolerate high speeds, but heavily dislike it and cannot tolerate pure spread. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. Avoid overly technical arguments unless you can explain them in layman's terms. Present clear voting issues and weigh them effectively to demonstrate why you should win. When providing your RFD (Reasons for Decision), I will try to come to that decision as quickly as possible and give thorough reasons. If allowed, I'd be more than happy to offer verbal and written feedback (other than what is on your ballot). Evidence ethics are highly valued, so maintain integrity in your use of evidence. Additionally, speaker points are awarded based on civility, clarity, persuasiveness, and respectfulness. Remember, I will vote based on who wins on flow, so ensure your arguments are well-structured and impactful. Win the debate and show to me how you did it.

I am here to help - so please feel free to reach out before or after round if you have any questions about me, my paradigm, the round, debate, or life in general. I've been in your shoes and want to help. You can reach me at tanmayraiusa@gmail.com.

See ya'll around soon!

Cheers!

add me to the email chain- ameerahsuleman2008@gmail.com

I consider myself a flay judge. No new things in the final focus or 2nd summary. new stuff in 2nd summary is only allowed if you are responding to something in 1st summary.

You get a 10-second grace period if you go over time.

Analytics are kewl if you have warrants. No Ks or theories I still don't understand them despite doing PF for two years

Cross is binding. Tech> truth

I dislike prep stealing, when your opponents or teammate is sending cards/ a doc I don't want to see you prepping. Especially in online tourneys.

Spread at your own risk, there is a good chance that I won't understand what you're saying. If I don't flow it then it doesn't exist. Signposting is also important

I want you to basically sign the ballot for me and tell me why I should be judging for you. Good comparative weighing will get you my ballot

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc delete the cards you did not read

post rounding for clarification questions/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u should not.

speaks

If you're being a jerk to your opponents you WILL get downed for that.

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc

25 = You were a big jerk

27 = Below average speaking wise

28 = Average speaking

29 = Pretty good

30= Excellent, best speaking

I do pf.

Add me to the email chain: aarushi.thatola@gmail.com .

Don't be rude. If you're running anything progressive, just explain it really well and I'll vote on it. Don't forget to extend and explain your arguments. Weighing is very important. If you're spreading, send a doc but there's a chance I'll miss something.

Have fun! :D

Hi! I'm Kush, I'm an LD/Policy debater. None of this is steadfast, if both teams agree, I can judge in whatever way you want. kushvijapure13@gmail.com

Be funny, the activity is supposed to be fun, making me laugh = higher speaks

Debate:

Pref shortcut

1- LARP/Generic Ks (Academy, Baudrillard, Cap, Setcol, Security, Pess)
2- K-affs/Complex Ks
3- Phil (Kant,Hobbes, Butler) + Viable Shells (ie: OS, Contact Info, Disclo, Paraphrasing if its PF, etc..)
4- Friv Theory/ Trix
5/Strike- Dense Phil

General

I strongly believe debate is for the debaters, the shortcut above is how much I understand each argument, not my willingness to vote on it. I will try to evaluate anything put in front of me and will do my best to ensure a fair and equal round, that being said I do like certain things more than others so here are a couple of things that you might want to be wary of (X lies where I fall between the two).

Expressive (your face not mine) -X--------------------------------------- Stoic (your face not mine)

Policy--------------------X-------------------------Kritik

Trix------------------------------------------------X-Args with warrants

Tech-X---------------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards------------X-----------------------Reads every card

Conditionality good-------------------------X----Conditionality bad

States CP good------------X-----------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing---X---------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always util----------------------------------X-----Sometimes not util

UQ matters most---------------------------X-----Link matters most

Fairness is an impact------------X-------------------Fairness is not an impact

Presumption votes aff-----------------------X------- Presumption clearly neg

Try or die--------------X---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X----- Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity---X------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-------X-------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face----------------------X-------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev----------------------------X-------------More ev

"Insert this re highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

expressive [my face not yours]-X------------------------stoic (my face not yours)

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad------------------X------------------------Old affs bad

Aff on process competition-------X--------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X---Real arguments

Line by line--X-----------------------------------implied warrants/answer

Speaker Points:

I try to give good points. My general scale is as follows:

For LD:

30 --- Top speaker

29.6-29.9 --- Late elims

29.3-29.5--- Mid elims

29-29.3 --- Debating to clear

28.5-28.9--- Even

28.0-28.5 --- Below even

Below 28 --- Other

Below 27 --- Disrespectful/Horrible evidence ethics

For CX:

29.5+ — Top Speaker

29.3-29.4 — Top 5-10

29.1-29.2 — Top 20

28.9-29 — Top 25% maybe clearing on speaks

28.7-28.8 — Top 50% wouldn't clear on speaks

28.3-28.6 — Top 75%

28-28.2 — Top 90%

Hi! I'm Katherine Wu (she/her)

Currently do PF @ Seven Lakes

For email chains: katherinewu653@gmail.com

I debated this PF topic at TFA, so I'm pretty familiar with all the arguments

For LD I have a little background knowledge, but as long as you explain your arguments clearly I should be fine

General:

tech > truth Please weigh as early on as you can, tell me why you win, explain your arguments clearly, extend your arguments (that should be your uniqueness, link, and impact) and signpost please!!

PF:

• Second rebuttal must frontline.

• Answer your opponent's weighing. Do comparative weighing, not "we outweigh on timeframe because our impact happens earlier."

• Defense is not sticky. Do not extend arguments in summary that are completely dropped in second rebuttal.

• Collapse!! You can definitely go for less and explain what you go for better.

  Read offense like turns not just defense!

• I don't flow cross, but if there is a good argument made just bring it in the next speech

LD:

I don't have as much knowledge on LD as I do in PF, but you can cross-apply some of the things from PF to LD.

• Substance

• Speed is fine just send a doc

• Respond to framework. Make the framework debate reasonable and clear. Winning framework does not win you the round, it only gives you a weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing as soon as possible. 1NC weighing is good but don’t try to fit it in if you don’t have enough time. 1AR definitely has to weigh though.

don't be rude.

Speaks start at 28. Speak as clearly and fluently as you can, clarity > speed

I'll disclose after each round unless I'm not allowed to

Most importantly, debate as well as you can and have fun!

Hey guys, I'm Grace Xie (She/her)
I do LD at Seven Lakes High School and debated in middle school

For email chains: gracexe289@gmail.com

Debate should be fun, so don't be mean, racist, homophobic, etc. I will be upset :(

If this is your opponent's first or second tournament... I would reconsider running cps, Ks, etc. ????

Have fun and good luck!!

General:

-Tech>truth

-Speed is good, just send the doc and be clear

-Judge instruction! Weigh! Signpost! Warrant!

-I'm alright with progressive arguments, but make sure to explain it clearly (although maybe don't run Ks or dense phil in front of me... just saying)

-Speaks start at 28

-If you don't know what to do, it's always safe to treat me like a lay judge

LD:

1. Trad
2. Policy/LARP
3. Theory
4. Ks
5. Phil

-No tricks.

-I debated the WANA topic, so I think I'm pretty familiar with it!

-Evidence is not everything. Please have good warrants too

+0.5 speaks if you follow @katamookdraws on insta ????

Hi, Debate Kid :) (PF lol)

debate:

i prio coherency over speed. dont spread, ill give u low speaks. def weigh and frontline effectively & utilizing cross to either clarify or advance ur arguments. respect is very important throughout the debate. :) cross better not get nasty . . .

speech:

looking for a confident speaker that can clearly address the topic. eye contact, don't shift around . . . no fluency breaks (stutters etc. .) try to talk to the whole room (PROJECT UR VOICE!!)

Hi! I'm Flora (she/her)

I currently do PF @ Seven Lakes HS!

Add me to the email chain: ghermione890@gmail.com

General:

tech > truth!!!

presume neg.

Please:

• weigh as early on as you can
• tell me why you win + explain your arguments clearly
• extend your arguments (that should be your uniqueness, link, and impact)

• make sure to collapse - voting on args quality > quantity, and no sticky defense
• if you're going for a specific arg do not change your mind, and everything said in FF should be said in summary!
• turns are considered offense + only extend your best/main arguments and NOT the entire rebuttal speech in the summary! Please.
• FW needs to be responded to (or can say that you link in) else I'm voting under the FW that is conceded.

SIGNPOST PLEASE!!

Time your own speeches! I will be timing (maybe) but don't rely on me to time.

Do not be rude.

Speaks start at 28. Speak as clearly and fluently as you can, clarity > speed, send doc if you're going to spread/read super fast but I can mostly handle speed. Make sure to match your opponent's speed.

+1 speaks if you mention a Taylor Swift song during crossfire!

I'm fine with you reading any type of argument as long as it is substance, so no Theory, K's, etc.

Most importantly, debate as well as you can and have fun, and learn!