Hey, my name is Mikaila (she/her), I'm a senior at the Waring School, and I've been debating for 3 years in PF.

I will come into the round with the expectation that you will abide by and follow NSDA code of honor -humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service- and if you don't, your speaker points will probably be effected, and I may consider this in my RFD.

This means: don't be disrespectful to your opponents during prep, or their speeches, don't laugh at something you hear your opponent say, and definitely don't mansplain.

Other things to be aware of:

Weighing is a big part of how I vote, you should do this for me, tell me why you win, but don't say stuff like "Judge you NEED to vote pro for x reason", saying I "should" vote for you is fine, but "need to" is annoying.I also vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning. Please remember to carry through your reasoning as well as your impacts to the later speeches in the round. I will not consider new evidence that is brought up in grand cross or final focus.

Don't spread, I can try to understand you, but it won't be pretty, and I won't catch everything, if you want a win speak clearly.

Don't run K's or Theory, this isn't policy, PF should be substance based, and not corrupted by these strategies.

I believe that a good debate has both tech and truth. Debate is about a balance of the two. A strong debater can effectively use rhetoric, evidence, and strategy in a round.

Off time roadmaps are appreciated, and if you're not going to give one, please signpost before saying something so I know what you're responding to.

Try to make eye contact with me while speaking in order to be compelling, if you can don't just read straight off your computer.

I don't need to be added to evidence exchanges, unless it comes down to a point of contention (pun intended) in a round. That being said, my email is mikailab@waringschool.org.

When you call a card, any time you spend looking at it comes out of your own prep, your opponent has one minute to come up with the card, or I will consider that they do not have evidence to support.

Remember that debate is about having fun, and learning, and that everyone there is literally just a bunch teenagers dressed up in suits on a Saturday, and that in the grand scheme of things, your High School debate record doesn't matter that much, so don't stress :)

Hey! My name is Zey and I am a freshman in college. I have debated at Newton South for three years, so I’m a flow judge. Don’t say anything problematic and be nice and we should be fine. Failure to do so = report to tab and instant L. I don't know much about this topic so please signpost it makes it easier to flow. Weighing earlier is always good, however, one good weighing > 3 different weighing mechs that you had 5 seconds to explain.

MORE INFO: Case: Tech > Truth, I'll vote for anything if its warranted well Cross: I don't care abt cross, won’t vote on it, if u wanna bring up anything do it in a speech Ev: Paraphrasing is meh, do it if you have too. I'll call an important evidence at the end of the round if its a big deal Rebuttal: Please warrant out every response and signpost clearly, 2nd Rebuttal should frontline completely Summary: Extend everything you want the round to revolve around, if you read a turn, weigh it or it's not going to be offense, please don't extend ur entire case + 4 turns with 0 weighings, makes the round messy. Final: Should mirror summary, don't include new things in your final speech, don't bring up new weighing or responses. Please don't run Theory or K.

I debate for Newton South.

Be nice. Send a speech doc if you want to be speedy.

Warranting is appreciated. I don't vote off of cross lol. No new stuff in final. I don't have much knowledge about progressive arguments so...

Ethan (he/him) - etc.ethancheng@gmail.com.

Generally speaking, I love debate, and I think debating about things is good. If you do anything to make me not like debate (being any sort of -ist or preventing your opponents from engaging in the round ) it's an auto 20L.

If you want my thoughts/advice on anything debate related, feel free to ask. On another note, if you have any paradigm questions, come early to ask or email me.

Debate however you want stylistically, I enjoy all kinds of debate. But here's a general guide to how I will evaluate rounds.

Tech > Truth: As a self-proclaimed lay demon, truer arguments are simpler to explain and do resonate more with most judges. However, what is considered true in a round I'm evaluating is dictated by the more technical side of things.

Second rebuttal needs to frontline. My threshold for finessing frontlines in the backhalf is fairly high so it needs to be in 2nd.

Evidence: I care about evidence quality, y'all should know what blatant exploitation looks like. I also like good analytics! No matter how much evidence someone has, there's always more than enough room for logical responses and I prefer hearing them when done well.

If you want me to check back against evidence abuses, tell me to call for it in-round.

Weighing wins you rounds: If arguments aren't weighed, I can't evaluate the argument without intervening.

Cross concessions matter, but only if you bring them up. I will not flow cross nor pay attention to it.

I will disclose who I voted for unless there's a rule against it. If you don't want a verbal RFD, I get it - there will always be at least some explanation on the ball.

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

Hi! I debate PF at Newton South High School!

If u have any questions feel free to msg me on facebook messenger or email me @drormia@gmail.com

creds to janani ganesh <33

general stuff

a. i think weighing is like THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a round pls weigh and give a strong narrative

b. tech ----------------x-------------------------------------- truth

speed/speech:

- u can speak fast but not like extremely fast, try to go like conversational speed

- if u have a speaking disability (ex. stuttering) lemme know before round or msg me but if you dont feel comfortable telling me im not gonna tank anyone speaks for stuttering [the same applies for any other like disablity, i want to make debate as inclusive as possible]

- if ur opponents tell u to slow down, pls slow down there are many factors why ur opponents may ask u that

however if u r spreading send me and ur opponents a speech doc

content

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. DO VOTERS (ex. "there are 3 places ur voting for us in this round") i want to spend as little time after the round deciding who won (unless if theres clash ofc which is rly good) and i rly dont want to intervene

- weighing is so crucial. if there is not weighing i will default whoever's narrative is stronger.

- i hate theory so pls try not to run it. try to treat me like a lay with theory. if ur rly pressed about running theory/k's ask ur opponents first if they are comfortable cus not everyone has the resources to learn about these kinds of things

- make sure to point out which arguments are conceded/dropped but don't lie or i will be sad

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

- make sure ur not just asking clarifying questions but attacking their stance as well

- if both of yall run out of things to say just ask ur opponents how their day was

- dont be rude but be assertive pls i wanna see confidence!!

Debate should be a safe and inclusive environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before or during round pls feel free to reach out to me at my email: drormia@gmail.com

I'm excited to judge all of you! Let’s make every round a fun round!

Hi everyone! I'm Bella, a public forum debater at Newton South.

Some general things to know before round.

*Please be respectful.

*Comparative weighing and analysis is really important for voting.

*I can do speed, but I prefer a general pace.

*Make it clear where I should be voting in the round and when something is conceded.

*I'm not gonna vote off what you say in cross, so if its important please bring it up in speech.

*I do not like Theory.

If you have any questions, just ask me.

I debated 4 years (2019-2023) for BergenTech and got 10+ gold bids to the TOC

Email Chain: samgrindebate@gmail.com and sam.grinberg@emory.edu

TLDR

Tech > Truth

Debate is a game

I am comfortable w/ <250 wpm. Faster is fine but if I miss a warrant its on you

I expect docs for case and rebuttal, but I only flow what I hear

Big fan of post-rounding (ask in-round or email me)

Specific Stuff:

1AC/1NC:

This is your place to show off! I usually read 3-4 contentions +/- a couple subpoints in hs

If you have a wacky case you want to read in a tournament and are waiting for the right time to read it, do it! Creativity goes a long way in an event where 95% of teams read a grand total of 2 unique args per topic

If you plan to go for framing in the back half, it should be introduced the front half of the round. Stop reading "framing" in second summary. That being said, frameworks debates have started to grow on me and (if executed well) will make me happy

I refuse to flow off a doc, so if I don't hear it it's not on my flow. That being said, I would still like if you sent a doc (with all evidence) so we can speed up the round and not waste time calling every card

2AC/2NC:

Best speech in pf!

Tell me if you are starting on the aff or neg off-time

2nd rebuttal must answer all offense (or it's conceded) + any defense on an argument you plan to go for

"Sandbagging DAs" in second rebuttal is fine. The whole point of first rebuttal is to time crunch second rebuttal, so if you have time to read DAs then do it

1AR/1NR:

i am judging you

link missed in summary

now you lost the round

COLLAPSE! 1 min of weighing will get you a lot further than 1 min of extensions

My RFD sounds like this in 90% of rounds: Team 1 wins the weighing debate with X piece of weighing. I look to their case first. Despite some link muddling and mitigation read by Team 2, I vote for Team 1 on any chance of their case triggering.

2AR/2NR:

Final should mirror summary

Slow down! If you extended and weighed properly in summary you shouldnt have to go super fast

Evidence

Email Chain!!!!!!!

Bad evidence ethics = bad speaks and prob a loss

ZERO TOLERANCE if you are from a big school / are a top 50 team and are still doing this! FOR IVY RR; if I think you are miscutting/clipping cards you are getting an L and 20s. You are the teams that are responsible for shaping community norms.

You can paraphrase evidence if you want (I did all of freshman and sophmore year) but checking back abuse is really hard and I tend to agree with the idea of paraphrased evidence being analyzed as analytics so be warned

"DEBATER MATH" is my biggest fear. I wake up sweating in the middle of the night simply because it exists. If I call your impact evidence and I see a bunch of multiplication instead, I am multiplying your speaks by 0.5

Prog

Please feel free to reach out to me (email me, pass me a note, ask in round) about my understanding of a specific strategy you want to go for in round. I tried to make this section as specific as possible, but its impossible for you to understand my exact views without asking me. I will never punish you for trying something creative out, and I love hearing new things in round (as long as you do your best to explain it)

That being said, I really enjoy prog debate and messed around with it a bunch during my junior/senior year. In my career, I have read (and am pretty experinced with): T, Disclo, Para, TW, IVIs (usually evidence related), Academy, Cap, Set Col, and some metaphysics literature.

I would rank my understanding like this:

Theory > Reps Ks > Friv Theory > Identity Ks > Tricks

what is theory [----------------------------o-------] average college policy debater

what is a kritik [-----------------o------------------] average college policy debater

what are tricks [-------o----------------------------] average college policy debater

Theory Specifics:

Default RVIs, reasonability, and drop the argument. Dont kick a shell w/o winning no RVIs

K Specifics:

Discourse is a really bad alt (its not 2020 PF has evolved)

Perms dont really make sense in PF (since counterplans are banned) but if your opponents alt is a plan (which they usually are) (wait isnt that also not allowed?!?!?!) then I guess its fine? Everyone is just reading policy lit anyway so I am open to hearing perms and plan-ish alts as long as no one is giving me a reason I shouldnt.

Trick Specifics:

I wont vote for "the roto is lose" but if you drop in a silly warrant why I can only evaluate the aff or the first speaking team or something, thats fine.

If you win my ballot on tricks its a LPW

Speaks:

+ if you bring me crunch, sour patch (watermelon), twix, or peach snapple (is this legal?)

+ if you sneak in the phrase "no debate" in a speech

- if your name is Akil Kasubhai

Have Fun!

https://findtheinvisiblecow.com/

coaching on the debatedrills club team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding mjp’s and conflicts.

use https://speechdrop.net/

tldr -

• disclosure is good.
• don't be offensive and arguments must have warrants to meet a threshold for evaluation. saying "no neg analytics, cuz of the 7-4, 6-3 time skew isn't sufficient" you need to justify why no neg analytics compensates for the time skew. won't vote on conceded claims.
• time yourselves.
• do impact calculus.
• be clear please

Hi, I'm Natalie! I'm a freshman at Harvard, and I debated PF for four years at Newton South. I am a flow judge, but sometimes I flow in my head.

Preferences

• I won’t vote for theory
• No spreading (I won’t read speech docs, I only flow what I hear and understand)
• I like clearly explained warrants and thorough comparative analysis
• I don’t like blippy arguments and evidence or statistics that are not clearly explained

Speaks

• +0.5 speaker points if you work in a Taylor Swift reference
• -0.5 speaker points each time you're disrespectful in cross

Good luck and good debating! Let me know before the round begins if you have any questions or need any accommodations.

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Indiana University.

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I am not that familiar with progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.) so I might have a bit more trouble understanding them. If there is an abuse in round, you can just call it out in speech; it doesn't have to be formatted as a shell.

• I default to the first speaking team.

• A lot of times (I did it too) debaters will see that their judge is a past debater and just spread random cards without warrants. Understand that I still know the topic a lot less than you do. You still have to read warrants and explicate them for me to understand what your argument is.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate in my opinion.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

• Disads/offensive overviews are yucky, especially in second rebuttal. It gives insecure energy, like "I don't know how to respond to an argument so you're just reading another piece of offense to crowd it out on the flow". My threshold for responses to these are low.

• I do not like new responses in final focus that are disguised as “JuSt WeiGhiNg.” I will notice and it will not be on my flow.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

I am pretty lenient with speaks but there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

• I was pretty aggressive in crossfire so I am fine with that as well but just be conscious of your opponents. This means letting them respond to your questions, ask their own questions, and overall just have an equal opportunity to talk.

• Talking over someone never won a debate and I can assure you that winning perceptually doesn't really win my ballot.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue (honestly quit debate, too <3)

This paradigm doesn't cover everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Have fun!

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Andy (he/him) - email etc: tzurkang@gmail.com

If you have any questions or if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible and fun for you.

I like debate and I think debating about things is good. If you do anything to make me dislike debating (being any sort of -ist) I will not be happy and your speaks will reflect that

For novices, feel free to ask me any questions you have about debate rounds/what I want to see. I want to make the round as educational as possible, and if that means a quick reminder on a specific part of debate I'd be happy to help.

On that note post-round as much as you want – I never want the reason for my decision to be unclear.

Speaks start at 28 and depending on how good the strategic decisions you make are or if you make people happy I will go higher or lower. IVE or SVT references might also boost your speaks.

My name is Eliza Loring (she/her), and I am a senior at the Waring School in Beverly. I am in Varsity PF. So I come into the round with a guarantee I've done research on the topic and an understanding of the in and outs of Public Forum Debate.

> If you are offensive in any way, even if it's a "joke." I will report you to tabroom and you will lose the round.

> Respect Public Forum in it's essence. What I mean by this is that PF is supposed to be accessible and should be understood by any person from off the street. Therefore if you spread (talking so fast that your words blend together), I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but just know you've lost some of my respect (and speaker points). Additionally, don't overuse debate jargon, because you are actively making debate less accessible.

> Please signpost, I'm begging you. What I mean is that tell me what you are saying. If you are responding to a contention please tell me that so I can flow it.

> In terms of tech over truth. I've begun to evaluate tech more. However I think debate should be a balance of both evidence and rhetoric not one or the other.

> Refrain from running Theory of Kritiks. I will listen to them but just know I very much dislike them. I think they are a cop-out for actually debating the resolved and I will think less of you. If you love Theory or K you should join Policy or Big Questions, because that's not what PF is about (PF actually emerged as a response to this!).

> Evidence ethics are important. Don't make up information, you should always have evidence.

>Don't mansplain and let your opponent answer in cross please. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When someone asks a question in cross and then proceeds to answer it themselves rather than letting the opponent actually answer. Just be respectful and kind, it's not too much to ask.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or about the results of the round please ask me.

Add me to evidence exchanges: elizal@waringschool.org

Have fun!

Hey, my name's Alex McEttrick. I'm a 3rd year varsity debater from Milton High School. A couple things for my judging:

• Heavily tech over truth; if you cover your flow and are generally coherent, I'm going to weigh technicals over 'convincing' or morally correct arguments in my RFD.
• I'm a strong believer in not docking points for being 'too aggressive'. As long as you're not intentionally being rude or offensive, I won't reflect aggressive speaking style or lack thereof in speech points.
• I do time speeches and adjust speech points if you're very over or under time, but I won't cut you off/let you know that you're over.
• No flows for crosses, if you want me to weigh something from one then make sure to mention it in an actual speech.
• Generally try to be organized (do your flips before round, make sure to put in choices, not too much downtime between speeches, etc).
• Time spent reading cards comes off your prep, which I'll time. (This doesn't count time your opponent spends to get you the card).

I'm not too strict with rules or formalities, so just try to debate decently and have a good time!

Especially in this technological time of tweets and social media, effective communication becomes so much more vital. Events in public speaking are a valuable tool for developing a critical mind and a well-expressed person. I have never seen a person who did not need to be able to express themselves coherently in some fashion; now is the best time to develop those skills.

More experience equals more confidence. I would encourage all of you to attend as many tournaments as you can; get that experience level up. There no worthless experiences; if one event doesn't pan out, try another, we have plenty from which to choose. And never feel embarrassed to reach out for assistance. Quite often the greatest mistake people suffer are right after they decided not to ask for help.

To quote Thomas Edison: “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time.”

Speech:

Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance.

In interpretive events, make sure your characters, narration, and transitions are crisp and clear. I shouldn't have to interpret your technique to discern the success of your interpretation of the literature. If you introduce physicality by moving across the floor, make sure it is within the rules and is not distracting. Physicality should not get in the way of delivery. There are some who use noises to signify a transition, we shouldn't need a sound cue to do so. In the end, I should be able to at least discern the gist of the piece as a whole, either your particular cutting or the work in toto.

Oratorical events, such as Original Oratory or Extemporaneous Speaking, must first and foremost have a central concept or theme. In extemp, that is not difficult as there is but one topic; the ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question addresses the speaker's poise and understanding of the topic question. For OO, your topic is yours to determine, but the end is still the same: clear communication. I want to know what you plan to talk about, how you are going to explain it, then tell me what we did, basic speech structure, at minimum. Fluency and ease of delivery are key; those are traits that will only flourish with time and practice. If you're going to do "the walk", make it fluid and not scripted. A good speaker flows from point to point, both verbally and physically.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look to rank the competitors. Being able to make an in-depth analysis of a topic in a short time is impressive when done at all, extra points!

Student Congress:

In general, this is my favorite event in competitive forensics. This combines so many different elements and requires a well-rounded speaker with personality and charisma. I truly believe this is one of the more difficult and rewarding events offered.

As a Parliamentarian:

I am looking for any and all actions that promote the business of the house. Not allowing dilatory motions is not only the job of the Presiding Officer, but also the house, as well. Every member of the house should make an effort to observe the business in the house and be ready to make a Point of Order if needed. I also wish to promote and reinforce courtesy and decorum in the house. Proper address is rewarded. The business of the house is to advance debate and legislation, not just to make sure someone gets a speech in. Being aware of the business of the house will inform the members that it may be time to end debate on a bill, so make sure the proper motion is used.

For the coaches, the speeches are tracked by speech number: Bill number/topic-side in my comments. This is to ensure that they are aware of the place and time of the speeches by the students.

As a Judge:

I will be looking for clarity in argumentation and a clear reason for or against the motion on the floor. Delivery is rewarded more than reading; speak up and out to the house. After an authorship speech, these become debate rebuttals; speeches should refer to the bill, the author’s speech, or previous speakers, all in the goal of advancing the business of the house and debate. As debate advances, we should see new points or aspects for or against the legislation; rehash means that the topic is done. An effective member of Congress combines persuasive speaking and evidentiary substance.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I am at first, a flow judge, meaning that I want to see a debate run from beginning to end. Leaving large holes on the flow makes judging the round much easier. After that, I look to the actual caseloads. Core Values and Value Criteria must not only be presented, but supported by the contentions. Strategic use of an opponent's value, criterion, or contentions to uphold their own is risky, but a winner when done correctly. In the end, I wish to be convinced.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into L-D. This is a philosophical event "we should", not a policy debate "here are all of the solutions". Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the debater points. Also, if a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977". Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in L-D. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

Be courteous to your opponent. Allow them to answer questions, do not cut them off. Turn off all noisemakers, including your timers. Please do not make unnecessary noise and distractions during the opponent's speeches. If you require 14 different pens to flow speeches, change pens silently.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of debaters. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

Policy Debate:

Nope.

Public Forum:

Public Forum Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects the assigned resolution. The focus of the debate is a clash of ideas in a persuasive manner that can be understood by a “lay” judge. Good debaters should display logic and analysis. They should use evidence when needed. They should win their case and refute that of their opponents. They should communicate effectively, using the fundamentals of good speaking. The format keeps a team on its toes. This is an event that should be able to be judged by a lay person, making a convincing case is critical. Therefore, abstract concepts and debate-specific jargon doesn't make a strong case per se.

I judge the quality of a debate first on maintaining a consistent debate. If, for some reason, both teams decided that there is one major voting topic, that is fine; sometimes the round evolves into more argumentation on fewer points. Next is on the quality of the debate. While I look to evaluating caseloads as a policy or conceptual level, a weak caseload is more difficult to defend from a good opponent. Next is the quality of the crossfire periods. While minor, if I hear a good question, there's an extra point right there. Last is speaking quality. I do like to hear a well-spoken case.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into PF. Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the team points. If a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977" Give us a source that is relevant to the topic and topical (recent). Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in PF. Debate the topic, not the debaters. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of teams. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I competed for four years in high school (James Wood and Sherando High Schools, VA 1992-6), three in college (Laurel Ridge Community College, 1996-9). I did almost every speech event offered at the time (Duo Interpretation, Prose/Poetry, Humorous/Dramatic Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu); placed at Virginia High School League in Extemporaneous for three years at state, regional, and district levels, qualified to NCFL Nationals in Duo, Phi Rho Pi member, Eastern Seaboard champion in Impromptu and Duo. Also competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate and Student Congress. Judged at three NCFL national tournaments in speech, LD, PF, and serves as parliamentarian. A 2023 graduate of the University of Virginia with a Bachelor's Degree in History & Politics, my intent for the near future is to teach high school history and government; currently enrolled at UVa seeking a Master's Degree in Curriculum & Instruction.

If you have any post-round questions or future judging opportunities, you may contact me at solo_falcon@hotmail.com

I am a student debater that has been debating Varsity Public Forum for 4 years. I am also head of the Public Forum at my school.

What I expect:

• Respect throughout the entire round.
• Fluent talking, I can flow at all speech levels but believe smooth talking is the best way to debate.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Hello :)

My name is Dimitry and I am a senior at Newton South High School; this is my 3rd year of debate.

I am a flow judge but:

1. Pretty please do not run a k or theory, unless it's funny.

2. Don't talk so fast that you sound like a Looney Tunes character.

Remember that weighing is very important because it lets me know why I should vote for your side, and it's just a way to make all the points you made come together. Moreover, although I said I am a flow I do value truth a lot too, so if someone runs some bogus argument it's important for you to tell me why it's improbable or whatnot.

I do not flow cross so make sure to bring it up in other speeches if your opponent concedes something important.

Lastly, it's oK to loosen up and try to have as much fun as you can.

Hi! I'm Claire. I'm a senior at Newton South and I do PF.

for speeches:

- tech > truth

- if you spread send everyone a speech doc

- extend/warrant your entire link chain, extend your impact. I love good narrative

- please collapse

- please weigh, and explain your weighing; don’t j say “we outweigh on probability,” tell me WHY you outweigh

-try to make summary/ff structure somewhat parallel each other. If there is no weighing I default to whatever arg I think has the clearest path to the ballot

for cross:

- I don't flow cross, I'll occasionally listen; if there's an important point bring it up in the ensuing speech or I won't evaluate it

- be assertive, don't be rude

- I'll be typing up comments/feedback on my rfd during cross

other things:

- I have not evaluated prog before but I am def willing to

- if you run a sensitive arg (anything that would need a TW), send an anonymous opt-out form before round that everyone can fill out

- if you guess my favorite band i'll be happy

- if you have any questions or need to add me to the email chain: claireruan123456@gmail.com

good luck!

paradigm

Yes I want to be on the email chain--feel free to email regarding decisions or any random debate questions or thoughts--I love talking about debate because I'm a nerd and this is my life.

Please add this email to the chain and send any questions here: Jack.A.Seraph@gmail.com

I am a third year George Mason University, a Varsity Debater. I've been a 2A and a 2N. Cleared at two nationals. Still debating. I go for framework and read a plan, but will vote for whatever(no seriously I'll vote for almost anything).

TL;DR: Spreading is literally preferred just don't gargle marbles. I'll vote on anything. Tech over truth. Framework vs. K affs is either way but maybe 55% neg on the question.

Spreading: Not only do I think spreading is fine, I think it's one of the best things to happen to debate. It's a very useful communicative and competitive tool. That being said, don't take this as a green light to be unintelligible. Yes I can flow a clear 450 wpm. NO I will not be able to flow 300 words per minute that sounds like you're brushing your teeth and gargling water.

Policy vs. K:

A few thoughts.

1. My understanding of K debate and respective critical theorization comes from the perspective of answering the K from a policy perspective. This means that what I look for in deciding these debates is assessing what each team needs to win in the context of the strategies that were deployed, and whether those arguments were won by each team.

2. Framework is the most important part of these debates hands down. Many judges usually say something like 'the aff gets the plan and the neg gets the K.' I take objection to this because usually neither team gives this as an option for me to resolve the debate. The logical conclusion to an aff team saying 'weigh the plan's consequences' and a neg team saying something like 'the 1AC is a narrative or scholarship etc.' being debated out nearly equally is not for me to contrive some sort of compromise. Also how can the aff team 'get the plan' and the neg 'get the K' it literally makes no sense and is totally amorphous. If the debate were about a DA vs. Case, I'd interpret risk and competing claims on a sliding scale, whether I should consider the plan's consequences MUST be a yes/no dichotomous choice though. Most important part. It's much harder for me to conclude that a nuclear war or extinction doesn't outweigh something about the status quo being messed up or some of their assumptions being problematic than otherwise. On the other hand, if the neg is killing the aff on framework, I'll vote on a non-unique reps link.

3. This is also about framework but it deserves its own number -- I think if the neg says 'the aff should defend their reps' or 'the aff is a research project' the aff should make an argument that if they win the plan is a good idea and their impacts outweigh, their research project is net beneficial so who cares about these link args that don't turn the case.

4. The neg should make args about how the links turn the case

5. The neg should criticize the aff's framing of extinction or big stick impacts very heavily. Make this plus framework basically most of your position.

6. I can be convinced of anything so long as it has a warrant. That means death can be good.

Framework vs. K affs:

1. I'll vote either way -- I know that debate is a game, therefore it makes sense that affirmative teams might say that it is not in order to win. This paradox does not make me always vote neg.

2. TVA and SSD can be very critical in mitigating aff offense. That being said, sometimes people are anti-topical and you just need to win that they should be topical and defend a topical plan.

3. Fairness is usually an impact either directly or residually. It's a better impact than 'we'll be advocates and save the world' because we all know that's kind of non-sense. Clash can be an impact that turns the case if the case tries to actually forward scholarship/do something.

4. Fairness should always be impact turned by the aff and I am amenable to voting for 'fairness is bad' or 'fairness impossible.'

5. Kritikal teams are usually correct that the negative's debating in framework debates is usually phenomenal on the link and internal link level, and atrocious on the impact level. Everyone keep this in mind.

6. I prefer affs that think debate is good and try to do something productive/forward scholarship/are close to the topic and try to mitigate neg offense. If an aff basically does nothing or is a sort of self-care argument, I will definitely be amenable to voting aff on those impact turns, but the neg's strategy then should just be a hardcore 'be topical, you're anti-topical, ballot does nothing, fairness good.' The aff should just impact turn fairness.

7. If you don't read any of the above or choose not to take my advice, you'll still be able to win just or close to just as easily.

T: Limits and Ground I'm good for both. 'You have ground' isn't a sufficient answer to 'limits DA.' Affs should have contextual ev to their interp obviously. Aff should impact turn the debates that the neg's interp would produce. Caselist important. Don't make caselist too big -- you might link to your own limits DA and that would be amusing yet unfortunate.

CPs: I'll usually judge kick unless the aff argues otherwise. The neg still needs to justify why I should judge kick if the aff gives me a reason I shouldn't. Love advantage CPs. Love PICs if they're actually testing something substantive. Agent CPs are meh -- really depends on who does the better debating on the competition portion of the debate. Textual vs. functional competition or both being necessary is a debate and you should debate it out. I can be convinced either way.

Condo: I typically am good for unlimited condo/negation theory. I think the neg still has to not blow off condo and can definitely vote aff given a great 2AR on it and bad neg debating on the question. 2AC skew is the best argument. Contradictions isn't a great arg 99% of the time because either the neg has double turned themselves, or they're just testing different portions of the aff.

Other theory: Reject the argument not the team answers every other theory arg if you don't plan on going for the counterplan/position.

Style: I love aggression and sass in debate--but be weary for that is a line that can be difficult to tow. Also don't be sassy or indignant if you're losing--that's just painful. Don't be overtly, or covertly for that matter, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

hiya i'm abby (she/her) and i'm a debater on Newton South's PF team!

email -- abbyshin06@gmail.com

super excited to judge you all, let's make the round as fun as possible

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR:

essentially make me do as little work as possible, basically write my rfd

• flow judge

• tech>truth

• no postrounding

• be respectful or your speaks get tanked

• any explicit bigotry will result in an L25 and a report to tab

SPEED:

not really any preference, but if you spread:

1. send me and your opponents a speech doc

2. check with your opponents if it’s ok with them

EVIDENCE:

1. don’t misconstrue evidence -- paraphrasing is fine, but make sure you have good evidence ethics

2. i’ll only call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision

CROSS:

1. bring up cross content in later speeches if you want me to evaluate it

2. please be respectful

REBUTTAL:

1. signpost -- tell me where you are on the flow

2. if u do off-time roadmaps keep them concise please

3. well-warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants

4. second rebuttal should frontline completely

BACK HALF:

1. NO STICKY DEFENSE final stuff better have been extended in summary or ill cry

2. the weighing debate is crucial, please don't forget

3. weigh turns or they’re just fun facts

4. interact with your opponents weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it's conceded

5. meta-weigh (weigh the clashing weighing mechanisms)

PROGRESSIVE:

u probably shouldn’t run it because idfk how to evaluate this stuff – only know theory basics

please ask your opponents pre-round if they’re comfortable with you running progressive arguments, given that it’s not accessible to all

Hi! I'm Neena (she/her/hers) and I do PF debate at Newton South High School :)

First off - debate should be a safe and inclusive environment. If you ever feel unsafe/ uncomfortable before or during round please reach out to me at my email: neena.tarafdar@gmail.com

I'm excited to judge! Please make this a fun and respectful round.

—----- General things —------

1. I'm a flow judge

2. TLDR: Here’s how I evaluate the round: Framing --> weighing --> offense

3. Tech > Truth

4. Point out things that are conceded/dropped

5. "Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO" - EK <3

6. For progressive args:

• I do not like evaluating prog but if you run it I will do my best to consider it (do what u will with this info)

• Please ask your opponents if they are comfortable with it (I know progressive argumentation is not accessible to everyone) + do not run it on novices

1. This should be self explanatory but be respectful in round!!

2. OVERALL: Don't make me do my own analysis. Judge intervention is no fun so please try your best to write my RFD for me.

3. Any bigotry will result in an L and a likely report to tab

—----- Specifics—------

Speed:

I'm ok with speed - try not to spread but if you are spreading:

1) check with your opponents if it's okay with them

2) send me and your opponents a speech doc

Evidence:

• Don’t misconstrue evidence-- paraphrasing is fine but make sure you have good evidence ethics

• I’ll only call cards if a team tells me to and/or if it is important to my decision

Cross:

• Bring up important concessions in later speeches

• Be respectful to your opponents and partner and avoid yelling over each other

Rebuttal:

• Signpost/tell me where you are on the flow, off-time roadmaps are ok but pls keep them concise

• WARRANT OUT your evidence. Do not just read a card name and blippy explanation.

• Frontlining for the second speaking team should all come in second rebuttal

Summary/FF:

• Summary + FF should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL, everything you extend in final should have been in summary)

• Try to collapse on one argument

• Do not forget to weigh - a lot of the weight in my decision will be on the weighing

• you have to win your offense to win your weighing

If you have any questions about my paradigm or decision feel free to shoot me an email atneena.tarafdar@gmail.com or ask me at the start of round!

Hi I'm Ishaan (he/him) and I debate PF for Newton South. Excited to be your judge!

If you ever feel unsafe during round, have any questions, or j want to chat -- email me @ ishaan.tewari@outlook.com

I'm your average high school flow judge, so as long as you're enjoying the activity, I'm happy. Basically just have fun and don't be mean :))

I'm not gonna write my paradigm in depth because a bunch of other people have already written theirs much better. If you're interested, I agree with Enya Kamadolli and Janani Ganesh's paradigm (you can find them by heading to the "Paradigms" tab and searching their names up). But again, as long as you are enjoying the activity that's all that matters.

If at any point in the round you have any questions--whether it be about speech times, speech structure, music recs etc.--please don't hesitate to ask. YALL ARE GONNA KILL IT <333

I have debated and judged debates for about 5 years now. I have experience in more than 6 debate formats.

I encourage debaters to be keen throughout the round, be precise and mechanise their arguments in addition to weighing in of clashes in a round. But most importantly, I encourage debaters to learn from each and every debate regardless of whether they win or lose.

Rebuttals should be as concrete as your constructions because they carry as much importance.

I am okay with spreading.

Hello Debaters. The only paradigm I can have is just remember to quantify your impacts, this means provide numbers to impacts also remember to signpost so I know where in the flow you are. Its okay to speak fast, critical thinking is appreciated. Remember to weigh impacts.

Thank you

he/him -- south '24

add me to the chain: marcus.ye@bc.edu

TLDR: just weigh and warrant well.

FOR NOVICES: treat me like a parent judge and don't worry about anything else below. Debate can be scary sometimes and if you need anything in the round to make it less so, lmk.

Everyone else:

If you do anything mean or that makes the debate space less inclusive I will drop your speaks and, depending on the severity, drop you

I’m hearing impaired so please speak loudly, it helps you.

Debate is a game — tech > truth — but im old and lazy so don't run anything too crazy.

If you wanna go fast send a doc or else you're coinflipping the round. If I don't understand what you are saying, thats on you

You can go over time alittle i don't mind.

I don't care about CX, but still be nice. I’ll dock speaks if you are shouting over or cutting your opps off short. If anything important comes up in cross, mention in your speeches.

Warrants need to be extended through every speech for case or defense. no offensive overviews in 2nd rebuttal. Blippy one liners are not enough to grant defense if its not warranted.

If you don't weigh I’ll be very unhappy. Link weighing > Impact weighing and I presume first if no offense is weighed. ALL TURNS MUST BE WEIGHED OR ELSE ITS NOT OFFENSE.

I have a major distain for any type of prog but I do understand why its needed in the debate space. You can still run it and I'll still vote on it, you just need to explain it like you would a toddler to me. However, I'll auto drop any team that runs prog in any division below varsity no questions asked.

If I am on a panel and ALL the other judges are on the other end of the judge spectrum (lay-flay), I'll proceed to adapt to them unless both teams ask me not to. This will be done without me telling you in the round, we're not trying to demean judges.

Post round all you want. I think asking questions after round is a good norm and I'll try my best to provide advice, etc.

I hate bad evidence. If evidence becomes a big part of the ballot, I'll call for it after the round. I will drop teams based off bad evidence.

Auto default to 28s for speaks and goes up and down from there. Make the round funny and enjoyable for everyone and speaker points tend to be pretty high.

You can always find me on facebook or email me if you want more comments/flow etc or just search me up on instagram

Good Luck and Have Fun!

I'm a college sophomore at McGill University.

I did LD in high school for 3 years.

Don't spread, stick to substance for the most accurate decision but I can handle pretty much anything.

Be nice :)