Debated pf for two years and did ld for two years

add me to the email chain: rishi.ajmera11@gmail.com

PF:

go whatever speed u want, I'm fine with it if you spread just send a doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline everything or the other team gains offense that can't be touched on in second summary.

I will call for cards at the end of a round if they matter for my decision.

Don't post-round, if you do I will dock your speaks significantly.

if you have any questions, ask me before round

Email: william.bacdayan@gmail.com **Put me on the chain please** Here are a few things about me that might be helpful.

1. Generally, tech>truth

If an argument is blatantly offensive or misconstrued, I won't vote for it. Don't bring in anything new in second summary or onward. Please extend case warrants in the second half. Front line in second rebuttal.

2. Logic analytics good

I like to see debaters use their brains once in a while. I'll take analytics as long as it makes sense but don't rely solely on them in rebuttal, please.

3. Prog

Really have to sell a violation for me to vote for theory. Please no K's. Not well-versed on prog so bear with me.

4. Respect

Try to be as respectful as possible. I understand everyone wants to make a point in CX, but please don't start yelling at each other.

5. Please weigh

If you don't tell me why you're argument matters more than your opponents, I can't vote on it. Weigh, I beg you.

Best of luck, and have some fun.

Varsity PF at Millard North

Mostly tech > truth unless you run an outrageous arg; I'm a flow judge too

I like clash with your opponent's args and please weigh

I don't mind speed but keep in mind that I will only flow what I can hear clearly

Make sure to warrant and extend

Good luck!

i am lay judge

more yapping

Notes for novices:

Don't worry about terms you don't know on my paradigm just try your best. Ask if you have any questions.

***

TLDR: Basic tech>truth. Weigh and Extend cases. Anything warranted is fair game.

No spreading, spreading leads to blippy arguments and incoherent logic and reason. You can read at a fast pace but read in a clear manner.

No racism, sexism, or anything of the sort. I'll drop you. Also, leave me to decide what is racist, sexist, or inappropriate in a round. You do not need to point out that your opponent said something that is inappropriate.

Interps, Theory, and Kritiks are great as long as they are thorough and warranted. Reading frivolous theory and Kritiks to simply take advantage of unskilled debaters is not going to win my vote.

2nd summary onwards cannot extend any new arguments. 2nd final focus should not introduce any new weighing.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH... I will literally drop you if you do not weigh. I want you to write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you and not the other team. Extend these weighing mechanisms through summary and final focus. 2nd rebuttal should try to start weighing. Give me a good comparative.

During rebuttals: Please implicate responses. Do not read blippy arguments that waste time.

Summary: Don't extend through ink.

DAs/Disads must be implicated and weighed. I won't buy a DA without an impact. That being said I actually enjoy DAs as long as they are implicated and coherent. If you do read DAs try to impact it on their case. A disad does not have to be long to be better. The structure and link have to be good.

Speaks:

I'll give you a 29 or higher as long as you weigh and do all the above things.

Get up and spin every time you read a turn and I'll give you a 30.

Have fun!!

if you drop a pogchamp randomly during round you get 30 speaker points. Normal stuff make sure to frontline and weigh and extend and stuff if you run friv theory then you get 30 speakers and automatic win thanks for coming to my presentation. In all seriousness, I think the educational value of debate comes from rudeness and arguing for example if you ever have road rage you need good rude debate skills as a result i will make rudeness a voter so if you scream louder than theh opponent during cross I will vote for you. jkjk

Hey y'all. I'm Danielle (she/her). I'm a first-year out who primarily competed/coached PF at a small public HS in NJ (Freehold Township), but I had a couple of WSD stints with my state's team from 2019-2022. 

TLDR: Run whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to do mental gymnastics to vote for you. Collapse in the later speeches, be organized, weigh, have a clear narrative, and don't be insufferable in the process. 

I'm willing to evaluate whatever you want me to, but I mostly have experience with trad debate.

Speed is fine as long as you slow down on the taglines and send a speech doc.

I don't tolerate toxic energy in the debate space. If you're being exclusionary or problematic, I'll drop you no matter what. 

More niche preferences: 

I'm not the biggest evidence ethics purist. I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as it doesn't completely deviate from the article's original intent. 

I don't care too much about extending card names as much as I care about you extending the analysis. I'd much rather see a detailed, implicated, analytical response than hear "Extend the Smith'17 card." 

If you're mavving, I'll give you 5 mins of prep.

Shadow Extensions aren't real

I don't care what happens in cross. If you want it to impact my ballot, extend it into a real speech. 

Best of luck! I know these tournaments can be super stressful, but please remember to drink water, eat, and have fun. :)

he/they

please include me on any email chains: trq.ebdavidson@gmail.com

Graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas and currently enrolled at Texas Tech University Master's program

Competed in and judged most debate events including LD and Policy but I have the most experience in Congress and Public Forum

Speed is not a problem for me however make sure you are still speaking clearly. I will not flow anything that is not verbally understood

All arguments must have a foundation of a claim, warrant, and impact otherwise you are free to structure your argument in anyway you feel is most appropriate

Debate is supposed to be fun and informative so everyone should aim to have a great time and be respectful. Morally/ethically inappropriate arguments will earn you the lowest speaker points possible.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself when it is not your turn to speak

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I will try to evaluate the flow as technically as I can. I care more about the debating that took place than what I think about the ultimate truth of your arguments or relative quality of your cards. I do think you should try to match your opponents cards with better cards, but you first have to convince me that your opponents have dropped crucial warrants and explain why those matter. For example, maybe none of the aff's advantages about space-based solar power come to grips with this one implementation problem; you have cards that speak to that issue, they do not. I'd rather you explain to me these comparative points than present dueling taglines and leave it up for me to wade through.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project, or explain why you shouldn't have one. This doesn't have to be state-based but I think you need to describe how your advocacy would, if adopted more widely, change things that happen outside of debate. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

Hey, I'm a first year Data Science student UC Davis. I competed in Public Forum throughout high school with a bit of Impromptu here and there.

• any refutations or defense flows through
• tech>truth if you convince me with enough logic I'll buy it
• weigh!!!
• engage with clash
• I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to and it's a) essential to adjudicate the round and b) sounds misconstrued
• assume I have no topical knowledge, explain it all to me

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is David Jia.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args

-I prefer to see traditional style debate, i am very new

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

Goodluck and have fun!

emaill: davidjia39@gmail.com

For Yale:

Email: sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Did LD In HS for 4 years at montville. Been removed from debate a bit now, so def go on the slower speed. Send speech docs before round and set up a email chain. Good with Policy args, theory and stock Ks (cap, security, etc..). Will vote on spikes, but probably dont read a nailbomb AC. Probably not great for phil and pomo. Since i've been out for a while Im probably rusty so better to overexplain args especially complicated perms, link chains,etc..

Flow

Include me on the email chain

I'm a former national/toc pf competitor for four years. I'll be able to keep up with speed so feel free to spread. These are my main points:

Generally tech>truth

I'm a flow judge and I want to see you actually debate. It doesn't matter what I think. However if an argument is blatantly offensive or blatantly misconstrued, it will be dropped. Also, anything new brought up in second summary and onward will not be factored into my decision. Case warrants need to be extended. Defense front lined in second rebuttal.I will pay attention to crossx but I don't flow it, so please remain respectful throughout cross. I'll vote on anything, including prog that isn't harmful towards the debate space.

Logic Analytics

I will flow logic arguments. I don't need a card for everything, but if your argument requires evidence, you obviously have to have a tag.

Prog

Theory should be used to check abuse. The bar to respond to frivolous theory is low. I generally support disclosure and the reading of cut cards (these are the shells I have experience reading), although this doesn't mean I'm a hack for disclosure/para shells. I would rather not watch you read theory against a local circuit team or a team you are clearly technically superior to.

I don't think public forum is the ideal format for Kritiks because speech times are too short. I'll still do my best to evaluate them.

Weighing

In close rounds, weighing is what will win you the debate. If you don't tell me why you're argument matters more than your opponents, I can't vote on it.

Technicalities

I will vote for the team with the best link into the best-weighed impact.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.

Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.

Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one link, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.

Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.

Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.

update for bellevue: I will be a lay, won’t flow, be slow and put thought into how you phrase and present your arguments!

ask questions before round if you have any

LD Specific

Framework and contentions: I care about both the framework-level and contention-level arguments of the debate. Please don't drop your opponent's value or criterion. Relate your contentions back to your framework.

All Debate Events

Style and delivery: I can follow a very quick pace. You can spread as long as you can speak intelligibly. However, some debaters who spread are not intelligible. Please be careful to state your contention and sub-point taglines more slowly and clearly.

Cross-examination: Be respectful but assertive. Don't get into a conversational argument during cross-ex: it's for asking and answering questions.

Timing: Feel free to time yourself to help pace your speaking. If you want time signals, please tell me.

Notes: Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc as well as personal attacks on your opponent will result in an automatic loss. Please have author names and publication years of your evidence readily available.

Value/Criterion:

I listen closely for a well-organized case and rebuttal. Be sure to clearly state how your Value and Criterion (V/C) are relative to your cards and contentions. During the rebuttal, don’t lose the V/C argument, relate back to yours or your opponent’s V/C and how your arguments best accomplish the V/C(s) that is the focus of the round.

Solvency & Topicality:

These two are crucial in your cases and rebuttals. Reiterate your burden of solvency and stay on topic. Make sure your plan, evidence, and burden of solvency relate to the resolution.

Speaking:

Please make sure to articulate yourself, speak clearly.

Voters:

Be sure to include voters. Be careful and try not to completely drop a voting issue.

Overall: Be prepared, be organized, be professional and respectful, and be confident in your arguments and rebuttals.

Tech > truth

The most important thing is to have fun. Debate is a learning experience and everything you learn from it is valuable. I will give as much constructive feedback as possible to help you out for the rest of your debate rounds.

Make sure to compare arguments and collapse (pick 1-2 arguments to mainly focus on in the second half of the round).

For any specifics, just ask me before the round starts!

I am an experienced varsity PF debater, and I do flow each round that I judge. Here are my main preferences:

1. Tech>Truth - I judge based on how you argue your points

2. Signpost - only do this in your constructive speech, since it makes the key points of your arg clearer

3. Final Focus - do not bring up args in final focus that you did not extend in summary

4. Crossfire - I do not flow cross, so explain important cross points in your speeches if needed

5. Speaking Pace - talking at a fast pace is fine with me, but make sure you speak as clearly as possible

6. Evidence - I will be reading all cards that are provided during the round

Overall, don't be rude or offensive, and have fun.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Debate experience:

I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a policy debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD). Haven't judged too many CX rounds recently, but am comfortable with both trad and kritik argumentation.

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

15 Bids in LD

Won Emory, Texas, and TFA State. Broke at TOC 3x.

2 Gold Bids in PF

nwei24@mail.strakejesuit.org

Read mostly pseudo-topical Asian K affs, Set Col, Theory, Phil, Impact Turns, and Process CPs.

I reward innovative strategies and positions.

I consider myself to be a flex debater.

K debaters should pref me if they are highly technical.

Probably a quarter of my K Aff rounds ended up being a 1AR restart.

In policy debates, risk starts at 0 and goes up. My bar for warrants are high.

Comfortable with advanced counterplan competition.

No such thing as friv theory.

Tech

Vandy '27

I don't want to write a lot, I did silver TOC twice and know debate pretty well.

My brother won Yale this year :D

text me: 706-392-6665 for any questions

thanks

Hi!

I used to do PF at Northview High but I was maverick most of the time, and not that good... Unlucky. (Northview XZ)

I lowkey miss pre-covid debating. Judged a couple of online debates here and there outside of Tab, but it is what it is.

Alright, but I might do college pf, I'll see, but here's this:

TECH > truth

I don't flow crossfires, BUT they do go into your speaks.

not extended/weighed in summary? can't be in final focus. sorry.

I will disclose and give reasoning.

tl;dr don't be annoying and you should be fine.

email: emilyxzhang11@gmail.com