Debated PF for several years at Horace Mann. Preferences should be fairly standard. A few notes:

1) Please don't spread. I won't vote on something that's not on my flow.

2) If there's a dispute on evidence at the end of the round, feel free to ask me to look at a card. (But no postrounding!)

3) If something isn't responded to in the next speech, it's dropped.

4) On Theory: I don't know the jargon and I'm not a huge fan of most theory args (disclosure, paraphrase, etc.) BUT if you think your opponent is being abusive in some major way then I am open to it (ex: I am open to voting on Trigger Warning theory). I just don't want theory to eclipse a substance debate.

5) On Speaks: avg is probably like 28.5 and you'll get boosted speaks (0.5-1 depending on quality) for Avatar: The Last Airbender references (make it funny pls).

As always, it's better to ask about any of my preferences before round starts if you're unsure.

Hello,

I'm currently a senior debater at Horace Mann. Please keep track of your own time and do not be abusive; I will dock your speaker points if you take extra time such that it gives you an unfair advantage. Please be respectful at all times and allow everyone to speak in cross. Also, it's sometimes difficult to hear over Zoom, so if I ask, please send me a speech doc.

Good warrants + cards > uncarded analytics > unwarranted evidence. Please collapse and weigh!

- This goes without saying, but don't be offensive or disrespectful.

- TKO is in play

- Good luck and have fun!!

I like both fun and funny things! Soooooooooooo:

+.25 speaks (and my eternal love) for every TikTok dance you do during a speech (or cross) or honestly doing anything mildly ridiculous in any speech/time you make me laugh that doesn't impact your debating ability

Look at these cute emoticons on tab!!! :

So that Sam doesn't kill me, many parts of this paradigm were written by the coolest gal on the block (who also wrote Annabelle Xing's paradigm... he does actually like TikToks and laughing a lot tho so ur chilling)

first yr out

-assume I don't know anything about the topic

-tech>truth, but the more crazy your argument gets, the less likely I am going to buy it

-I'm more likely to buy uncarded logical warranting to carded, unfleshed out stat dumps.

-I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round

-signposting > off-time road maps (just tell me where you're starting)

-Weigh! Don't make me weigh for you or else you might not be pleased with my decision!

-This goes without saying, but sexism/racism/classism/general offensiveness are automatic 20s and probably an L.

-9 times out of 10 I will vote against theory. use at your own risk

Debater for National University of Mongolia '26 (he/him)

Racism, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny will result in an L.

Standard flow judge, tech>truth.

Weigh, collapse, make me not bored, be respectful, sign post, frontline in second rebuttal.

I don’t care about cross as long as you aren’t disrespectful.

Keep your own time. Collapse and extend offense through summary and FF or I will be sad :(

If you run theory you're probably going to get dropped. (Unless you run disclosure, but don't disclose. If you do that you're getting picked up.)

Have good impact and good link.

If you pronounce my last name correctly I will give you 29 speaks. If you call me "Lord Emperor Supreme Judge Karpf", while also pronouncing my last name correctly I will give you 30 speaks.

I would greatly appreciate it if you start speeches with "3...2...1... BLASTOFF", and end speeches with "3...2...1... LANDING INITIATED." Thanks in advance.

Lastly, I agree with everything in Chuck Stubbins' Paradigm. Please read to fully understand my judging preferences.

Hi y'all!

My name is Sam Korff (he/him/his) and I debate at Horace Mann. I have debated on the national circuit since my freshman year.

First, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (Any behavior or comments of this nature will make you automatically lose the round and get the lowest speaker points possible)

Here is a link to my paradigm. Enjoy the memes. Please ask me if you have any questions. If you have time, please read the whole thing. Sorry it's a little long.

Any references to Harry Potter, Marvel, New York sports teams, or generally good pop culture references will earn you +.2 speaker points.

I debated for Horace Mann in NYC and was the president of my team senior year.

Treat me like a flay judge only in the sense that I prefer slower, well-warranted rounds over the current weird tech meta of dumping as many arguments as possible and making rounds incredibly messy. This doesn't mean that I don't know what's happening on the flow (i.e. don't drop turns or responses because you're debating as you would in front of a lay judge) – just slow down, speak like you would to a normal person, and extend well/provide warrants for everything you say (especially including frontlines and weighing). The more you explain something, the more I'm likely to vote for it.

If you want me to call for a card, tell me to in a speech. Don't read progressive arguments in front of me. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc so just speak at a reasonable pace. If you have any other questions about my preferences, feel free to ask me before the round.

Hello! I'm Henry (He/Him), and I look forward to judging your round. I debated PF for four years on the national circuit.

• I'm a pretty standard flow judge.

• I'm a sucker for really good weighing that is comparative and well-implicated. Blippy, non-comparative weighing, on the other hand, won't score you any points with me. Start weighing as early in the round as possible.

• Please signpost.

• Please extend stuff in summary + FF. I'm not a stickler for super detailed extensions, just be sure to re-explain the argument.

• Turns/1st rebuttal offense should be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

• I don’t care about cross.

• I'm generally pretty nice with speaks, especially if you make me laugh.

• I have some experience debating/judging theory rounds, but not much experience with other kinds of prog args.

• Be respectful!

If you have questions about my paradigm or anything else, I'll be happy to answer them before the round starts. Good luck, and I'm excited for a great round!

ZOOM FOR APRIL 6th:

Alex Nagin is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Alex Nagin's Personal Meeting Room

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/3514777362?pwd=RWEyb3gxS2dFWG96VDFVOVR6d3I4dz09

Meeting ID: 351 477 7362

Passcode: 1jW4Iu

National University of Mongolia '26

Rhodes Scholar, Harvard Dentistry graduate, Deputy National Security advisor.

Before I get into any part of this paradigm, if you are sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, ableist, or anything else that targets someone's identity, you will be dropped, no questions asked.

I'm down for weird/niche arguments, anything can win if you weigh it well. Also, I think theory/K's are fine as long as they are used to actually advance and develop our understanding of why certain aspects of debate/the resolution are flawed and not because you think it's an easier path to my ballot.

Please signpost clearly so I know where you are on the flow. Extend, and do comparative weighing/analysis too. It's not helpful to me if you just say that you're winning the round because you impact to more people.

Be careful about frontlining every turn that the other teams read, if its a really messy round that neither team is really winning I may be inclined to vote on a turn/de-link that was dropped in summary.

truth>tech. Not many judges have this philosophy (maybe some parent ones do) but I believe strongly in it. Debate should be an educational activity that assesses world topics on a realistic level. NSDA selects resolutions that have true arguments on both sides that can win you the round. Evaluating rounds on simply tech is bad for education and leads debaters down rabbit holes that aren't constructive to building an intellectual understanding of the resolution at hand.

Please note that I really hate when debaters go too hard on perceptual dominance in CX. Just have a fair and civil discussion about why you think their arguments are flawed.

Default speaks 28.5

Bubble tea references IN SPEECH +0.5 speaker points.

Mongolia references are an instant 30. No I'm not kidding. I am fascinated with the country and I would like you to incorporate it into your speech. However, I will only give you a 30 if I feel this is the case. I'm not afraid of low point wins.

Don't:

- Scream

- Postround

- Be annoying

- Talk over people

- Say "game over"

Also I agree with everything in Chuck Stubbins' Paradigm:

"I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE HIGH FALUTIN' THINGS Y'ALL TALKIN' ABOUT BUT I CAN TELL YOU I AM GREATLY CONCERNED WITH HOW THESE THINGS IMPACT THE BUS ROUTE I GOTTA DRIVE AT 4:45AM EVERY MORNIN' TO GET THESE KIDS TO SCHOOL

LOT OF KIDS TALK ABOUT TEA, WHICH IS FINE WITH ME AS LONG AS YOU BOILED IT TO LET ALL THE SUGAR GET IN THERE OR ELSE I DON'T WANT IT

I HAVEN'T HAD A PERM SINCE KENNY LOGGINS SANG DANGER ZONE AT MY WEDDING, SO I AM UNFAMILIAR AT BEST

I AM OPEN TO CRITIQUE, BUT I MUST SAY THERE IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN HELPIN' A MAN AND LEAVIN' HIM TO FEND FOR HIS LIFE AGAINST A PACK OF FERAL HOGS WITHOUT PROPER ASSISTANCE *RIP BARTHOLOMEW "SCOOTER" JENKINS* AS SUCH MY TOLERANCE FOR ANY RABBLE ROUSIN' WITH THE CRITICISMS IS QUITE LOW OUT OF RESPECT TO THE JENKINS FAMILY, LORD BLESS

MY BUS HAS A GOVERNOR ON IT LIMITING ME TO A ROBUST SPEED OF 55 MILES AN HOUR, IF YOU'RE READING SO FAST AS TO GET THROUGH THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE I CAN MAKE IT THROUGH A LOOP IN THE BUS DROP OFF, YOU'RE GOING TOO FAST.

NO LOLLYGAGGIN', DILLYDALLYIN', BUMBLESCOOTIN', KNICKER-KNOTTIN', EGG-SUCKIN', DILL-PICKLIN', GOOSE-GETTIN', HOT DOGGIN' OR HATE SPEECHIN' OF ANY KIND. WORLD FULL OF PLENTY OF RASCALS AND DEMONS, YA AIN'T GOTTA BE ONE OF 'EM GOD BLESS.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESTIGE OF LEARNING HOW YOUR ARGUMENTS IMPACT MY WORLD OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND WISH YOU THE MOST HIGHEST OF PRAISE UNDER THE SUN.

Y'ALL STAY FINER THAN A FROG'S HAIR SPLIT THREE WAYS NOW."

For the NSD tournament: If you run theory on kappa or lambda, I'm dropping you.

I'm a first year out, so I can pretty much adapt to any in round practices you're used to. A few preferences:

- tech > truth

- Clear signposting (I vote off the flow so I need to know where to write what)

- Case extensions in summary and final focus

- It has to be in summary to be in final focus

- If it's not in summary, I won't vote on it (...ok revisiting this a year later... I reserve the right to maybe vote on it)

- I don't flow crossfire

- I will go to extreme lengths to avoid voting on presumption.

- Time yourselves (esp crossfire)

- Any speed is fine

- Add me to the email chain please: gnpaulson@college.harvard.edu

Two critical notes:

1. I don't believe in speech docs. Debate is about speaking, so I refuse to read your speech off a document as you read so quickly you're basically just making sounds instead of saying words. Please speak as fast as you'd like and clarity will rely on your annunciation rather than a google doc.

2. I do not like theory; I've found that most times teams run it for a competitive advantage rather than for the sake of benefiting debate. That said I'll still evaluate and vote on it, but I think it's fair for you to know my preferences.

I would like to be entertained!

I once quoted Bon Jovi in the middle of a final paper, that's the energy i'm looking for

If you do a 180 in the middle of your speech you'll get a 30

I love ridiculous args - tell me that the world's going to end because of the sand mafia or beetles

In general just be funny and chill

Don't be sneaky

Biggest power move in the history of debate is asking your opponents what color they want you to flow them in

If you bring me food I will love you

Also shameless plug but listen to my podcast, Excelsior, on Spotify, Apple, and YouTube!

email is jordan.a.wasserberger@gmail.com

Check out this doc for my paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x4c435WCtxezsvpnnxdkNSCkKqq-dtcp_qK8dfVf4Bs/edit