gen:

tech>truth

email chain: duaasali37@gmail.com

im not gonna ghost extend for u

weigh: ur inviting intervention if you don't do that work (link weighing tends to be more important in most debates, but in gen u need to do some sort of comparative work between arguments)

defense is not sticky

i like analytical responses

saying game over and TKO is cringe

prog:

theory is mind numbing, but i'll still evaluate it

weigh ur shells if there are multiple

im not gonna project my preferences for a certain debate norm. i will vote for wtv as long as u win it

i can evaluate kritiks, but i can't promise i'm gonna be the best judge for it (just explain everything super well)

email: julienbenchek@uchicago.edu

ask a fun question before round and i'll know you read my paradigm :)

---

I like smart people and arguments. Be smart

I debated pf for four years. graduated 2023

notably, I do a college debate format now called APDA - there's no evidence in APDA, its just logic - this may affect my judging style

--- important general stuff --- read this section

do not attempt to spread. other speed is fine

I don't care about rhetoric... please

good logic will beat a random piece of evidence unless its a fact claim

Be more analytical than you think. This means explain every step in the chain of every argument you make and weigh it well.

depending on my mood, I will either:

- weight arguments that are analytically sound over those that are not

or maybe

- completely disregard arguments that are missing any single step in the link chain

* i'm not a truth person. basically, I won't intervene to ADD anything to either team. if an argument is conceded, I won't ADD defense to it even if its wrong in the real world. BUT this means I also won't ADD warranting, impacting, weighing, etc... If your argument is conceded but you don't explain why it matters, i'm not gonna look at it (i probably won't be insanely strict about this but i might so just do it)

** I don't think you can be TOO analytical but don't be repetitive or annoying. the whole point is for your arguments to be smart and solid, not to check boxes

--- unimportant specific stuff

scope weighing is the only weighing that doesn't need a lot of explanation. if you say timeframe or reversibility or especially probability, you need to take actual time to explain it (i probably will be strict about this - if you just say we outweigh on probability i'm fr not gonna write it down). I also don't believe in strength of link weighing... this is literally just how judges evaluate rounds you don't need to say it explicitly

all progressive stuff is fine except performances cause that's not debate now is it... notes:

- i will prob intervene here more than in normal debates. prob won't be super techy about dropping blips and so on

- logical debate only - you can read ev if its in the arg already but i'm not gonna give it preference

- if your opponents are actually inexperienced in this, I will be receptive to a "this isn't fair, I don't understand" claim if argued well

- all the analytical stuff from above applies extra here. make smart arguments

- i have no biases. feel free to make any argument even if you think some judges would think its politically incorrect. just don't be blatantly anything-ist or attack your opponents personally. you can be mean to their arguments just not them (i.e you can say "this argument is stupid")

- notably, i know pfers feel cool when they say "a is the interpretation..." but i'd prefer if you read theory formatted just like any other case argument

- none of this affects my decision but i only actually believe paraphrasing theory; evidence standards exist? if you read something else that's normal i'll evaluate, if you read something else that's mad weird you may have to actually convince me

sticky defense is not a thing

you gotta frontline in second rebuttal

no new stuff in final focus. preferably no new weighing in first final focus. definitely none in second; if first final has new weighing point it out and i will evaluate the old weighing first, BUT you are also allowed to weigh your old weighing against their new weighing a little if you want to (i.e. "this weighing is new but here's why our summary weighing beats it anyway")

speaks are based off of how smart and strategic you are in the round. if you win easily but your arguments are all under-warranted and silly, you will get something mid

might intervene really hard on bad evidence, might not

i have no like "ethical" or "moral" interest in pf debate

dont pretend to be professional. if you act angry/serious in cross or if you refer to me as "judge", this will be annoying to me. chill out, im 19

oh yeah send me any evidence but don't send me a speech doc, i'm not flowing off of that. that's weird

---

ask me any questions about anything at all

I debated for Boston Latin for 6 years, qualifying to the NSDAs, NCFLs, and TOCs a couple times. I broke at those tournaments in PF, Congress, Worlds, and Policy. Now, I'm a current student at Harvard.

Paradigm: My paradigm is pretty simple. I'm a standard tech judge, and will evaluate 99.5% of all arguments you read which includes theory, Ks, and tricks. I place heavy emphasis on warranting, clash-breaking, and issue recognition i.e. being able to understand the underlying clash in the round or between arguments. Fundamentally, you need to win the strongest link into the strongest impact and how I should view the round.

Some things to avoid: Avoid being mean or overly aggressive. I'll probably be somewhat biased against a team that runs tricks, and vote on educational/fairness arguments against them. I won't really use a speech doc in PF. Speed can be fast but it should be understandable.

Final thing to note: I very often will vote for the team that wins the single most important perspective, world view, or argument in the round. Most judges don't say it, but typically they can explain their decision in one sentence. That one sentence and line of reasoning is critical to how I vote. Debaters get too caught up in the line by line or small arguments like indicts to see the bigger picture - If you win that larger view of the round, you will almost certainly win my ballot.

I started a couple initiatives or led them through out my career as well. Check them out, all of them contain helpful resources for Public Forum debaters.

Outreach Debate: https://www.outreachdebate.com/

Libertas Debate: https://www.libertasdebate.com/

Public Forum Discord:https://discord.gg/CNVj2KG9f8

mcheng0602@gmail.com

BEWARE: you will be cleared.

I will vote on any argument- debate is a technical game which necessitates technical concessions and offense defense 101. All preferences can be overcome by good debating EXCEPT for formal clothing. Do not expect me to take your arguments seriously if you are not dressed seriously.

Qualifications

- cofounder of FilipinoDrills

- friend of spencer swickle (toc 2024 champion)

- carried by and partnered with ethan roytman

- judged for shapickle @ 2023 toc dsds3

- qualified to 2023 toc (did not attend because of flight issues)

- the rumors are true: i’ve beaten lake highland patrick seela and harrison layson

Additional Info

- blips without warrants are nonstarters because they do not constitute arguments. this includes “eval after 1ac”, “no neg arguments”, and most paradox/apriori dumps. it also includes k/larp cards highlighted to nothing and theory arguments that merely assert standard names like “condo is a voter for strat skew”. at the very least they justify new responses.

- underlining or bolding something does not make it a warrant

- i don’t want to evaluate ad homs

PF

- do NOT read “progressive” arguments for the sake of reading them. poorly executed strategies will be capped at 27.5 speaks even if u manage to win.

- i tend to think disclosure is bad and paraphrasing is good/can be technically won. winning this = 30 speaks.

Hey, I'm Raiyan! I debated for 2 years (2021-2023) in PF for BASIS Chandler, qualled to both nats and gtoc 2x. I now am a PF coach at Durham Academy and a freshman at Duke.

Email: raiyanc2005@gmail.com

TDLR: regular flow judge, down to evaluate anything but I do prefer substance rounds.

General Stuff:

tech>truth. This means I will evaluate responses purely off the flow and how contested they are in the round. However, you still need to give me clear warranting and internal links for me to vote off an argument. I will be hesitant to vote on squirrely arguments if you blippily extend them.

My job as a judge is not to impose my views on debate to you, but rather adapt to your style of debate. As a debater, I didn't like having to adapt to weird quirks each judge had, so I don't want to replicate that experience for any of y'all.

I'll disclose and try to keep my feedback as constructive as possible. I know how stressful debate can be, so let's keep the round chill and lighthearted.

I can handle speed (just like lmk before your speech if its gonna be 250+ wpm so I can prepare myself) but I unfortunately can't comprehend policy level spreading.

Let's try to keep the round moving at a decent speed, please come to the round pre-flowed and ready to start

How I evaluate arguments:

I look to who wins the weighing, then I look to that argument and see who is winning that argument. However, if there is a scenario where team A is winning the weighing but has a really muddled link to the point where it go either way if they still have access to their link and Team B has a much cleaner link but is losing the weighing I'll vote for Team B.

Procedural things I assume about the round:

Frontline in second rebuttal, otherwise it's conceded

Make sure to extend in summary and final, otherwise I can't vote for your argument, this applies for defense and offense

You can't read new offense/defense in summary

However, If a team makes a new implication in summary (i.e. cross applying a conceded response on c2 to c1) I grant the opposing team the chance to make a new frontline

Make sure to weigh, you can only make new weighing in first final if it's responding to weighing from second summary, 2nd final is too late

If a team reads a turn on c1, it goes conceded and they want to cross-apply/re-implicate the turn to another contention, they must do so in summary, not for the first time in final focus.

Speaker Scores:

I start at 28, itll go up or down based on stuff like strategy, fluency, good implications, not extending thru ink, etc.

I’ll give boosts for quick evidence delivery. I have a lot of respect for teams that put in the work, have good cards cut, and are ready to send them over quickly while keeping their docs organized. I’ll also doc points for showing up late (1 point for every minute) without notice (if you have a legitimate reason for being late please email me). This is just so we can keep the rounds going as fast as possible, and prevent delays.

Cross can get heated, just don't say stuff like "shut up" or "what are you yapping about" in cross, it's not nice, I might have to drop you

Progressive Debate:

I prefer substance debates, but am open to evaluating any arguments. During high school, I never really read theory/k's but I do understand the basics of both.I believe no RVI's applies only if there is no offense won off the shell. That is too say, even if you read no RVI's the opposing team can still win the round on the theory layer if they read a turn to the shell (e.g. paraphrasing is good against a paraphrasing shell) or win that their competing interp is better.

If you are running a K please run it properly, have good alts, solvency, links, etc. If you are running theory please make sure it is not frivolous. I don't like paraphrasing, and I like disclosure, but again run what at you want, I'm just informing you of any biases I have since it will be fully impossible for me to completely remove those notions.

The two exceptions to my policy of "do whatever you want" is tricks, friv theory, and panel rounds. Unless it's a round robin, please don't consider running them, just so we can have an educational round. To reiterate, I highly encourage teams to not run frivolous theory if this is not a round robin. I think its pretty dumb and a waste of everyone's time. Let's try to actually take something away from this round. If we're in a panel round, and there is a lay judge please don't read any progressive arguments (or at least present them in a lay friendly manner). That said, I'll still evaluate the arguments as if I'm a flow judge.

Miscellaneous:

If this helps, I really liked having Bryce Piotrowski, Pinak Panda, Eli Glickman, Nate Kruger, Anisha Musti, Elliot Beamer, and Wyatt Alpert as a judge when I was debating. I also learned debate from the goat, Lars Deutz, so I’d say my views and perception of debate is very similar to his.

Just have some fun, I know it's cliche but debate can get pretty heated at times. At the end of the day, this is an activity for y'all to learn from. As such, I'll do my best to be as helpful and considerate before and after the round.

Hello!

I'm Grant and I've debated quite a bit for Norman North

Email Chain - gjgoering@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm fairly tech. I'll try not to intervene if possible. I'll vote for pretty much anything with a good warrant, but I need to believe your argument could really happen, so explain it to me! Other than that I will do my best to adapt to you and how you like to debate.

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

HOW I JUDGE:

- Debate is an educational game, make strategic decisions but ground yourself in truth

- Tech > Truth, That isn't an excuse to under-warrant args: I need to understand what I'm voting for or I won't vote for it

- I default util unless I'm told otherwise

- I presume for the team that lost the flip, if I can't know that then I default first speaking team

- I like cross but won't evaluate anything unless it's in a speech (feel free to skip grand if both sides agree, 1 min prep), cross is binding

- I default 28.5 speaks

- I disclose after the round, if you want to respectfully tell me why you think I was wrong in my decision I would love to hear it! I want to be the best judge I can be

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

PREFERENCES:

Speed:

- I can handle ~260-280 WPM

- If you get over 230 WPM I would like a speech doc

- I'll give you 2 clears if I can't understand but after that anything I miss is on you

- You should get slower as the round progresses, if you are still going well over 200 wpm by summary you need a stronger collapse, of course there are exceptions for super high content rounds, but the more arguments in the back half the lower the chance that I understand the round the same way you do

Evidence:

- I don't care if you paraphrase or read off cut cards

- All evidence must have a cut card producible within 2min, after that period I will assume it doesn't exist and you will lose at least .5 speaks, if it is a repeat issue I'll be very open to a evidence ethics IVI

- If you misparaphrase to the point where the meaning of the evidence changes I will: stop the round, drop you, and set your speaks to the lowest allowed by the tournament whether that is 25, 20, or 0

- Same goes for any brackets you add to cards if they change the meaning then I will drop you

- That being said I read cut card and I know sometimes you need to bracket words to make it read correctly

- You should tell me about all questionable evidence (I WILL REVIEW IT IF TOLD TO)

Prep Time:

- Don't steal prep or your speaks go down (I will call you out on it)

- Flex prep is fine

- I don't care when you take prep

Speeches:

- 2nd Rebuttal needs to frontline

- Summary and FF should be mirrors: if I don't hear it in Summary I won't vote on it

- Only thing that should ever be new in 1st Final is responses to 2nd Summary's implications and weighing

- FF should be all about telling me how / what you have won, I want a story

-The threshold for a response to weighing gets lower the later you introduce it, if I get some totally new pre-req weighing in 2nd Summary any decent response in 1st Final will knock it off my flow

Progressive Debate:

My Prefs:

1 (Preferable) - 5 (I am not your judge)

- Topical Debate 1

- Theory 3

- Ks 4 (I don't know any of the lit, so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I will try if you feel you absolutely have to read it)

- Tricks/Friv Theory 5 (Get verbal confirmation with the other team or TKO)

- Non-T Ks 5

- If you are reading a framing argument (developing world, prioritize women, extinction good, etc) I would really prefer you read it in constructive or at the latest rebuttal. Every time I've seen framing introduced in 1st Summary the round falls apart on both sides so just read it in your case if you are going to read it

- My understanding of an RVI is that if Team A is reading a shell and winning No RVIs Team B can still gain offense by turning the shell. To clarify, an RVI only means that a team doesn’t lose if they have no offense on a shell they presented, if you want me to evaluate the round differently you need to explain why in round

- I personally think disclosure is bad for small schools and that big schools should be disclosing, however I’m not going to intervene for either side. Debate how you want, and exemplify the norms you think are good but if there is ANY performative contradiction for any shell you've read at the tournament and its gets pointed out in the round its a TKO so if you are reading theory you better have been reading that shell every time the violation occurred at the tournament

- Friv Theory is bad, don't read it (Formal cloths, Macbooks, etc.) The only exception is if both teams give verbal confirmation to me that they would like to have a Friv theory round in which case I'd be happy to judge

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

Reach Out If You Have Any Questions!

Did PF debate from 2020-2024

TLDR: I vote off of the least mitigated link into the most weighed impact.

Weigh comparatively. 9/10 times the team that wins the weighing wins the round. This doesn't mean repeating your impact and saying it's bad. This is showing me why your impact or your link is comparatively better than your opponent's. Framework must have warranting. Explain why your framework precludes all other weighing. Probability weighing isn't an excuse to read new defense. If nobody wins weighing, I vote on strength of link and that never goes well.

Send speech docs if you want. If you don't send a speech doc and you spread, it's on you if I miss anything. I prefer slower rounds anyways.

Read theory as soon as the violation happens. No RVIs is dumb. I have no idea what reasonability means. I flow theory a lot slower than substance so send a doc if you are going anything faster than conversational.

Second rebuttal must frontline all offense and all defense on the argument you are going for. I have not seen a single round where this has not been possible. Also, don't be afraid to concede things, even offense. You can always weigh against it in summary.

Defense is not sticky. First summary must extend defense for me to evaluate it. However, if the defense has been dropped, I have a much lower threshold for the amount of work you need to do to extend it.

Debate in good faith, and your speaks will be fine. Don't blip spam, DA spam, miscut cards, or run friv theory with opponents that aren't your friends.

If both teams agree, I can evaluate the round on a different metric or change any part of my paradigm for that specific round.

she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu

competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist

general notes

tech > truth

please preflow before the round

i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments

love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)

warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence

can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread

if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.

won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches

rebuttal

must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)

implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round

summary + final

defense isn't sticky

collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it

progressive argumentation

i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it

i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning

have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate

other notes

i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round

if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give

if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round

tech>truth - be nice - use debate, don't let debate use you

brentwood '25

based paradigms: alec boulton, sully mrkva, elijah gripenstraw, william hong

twicestan4lyfe@protonmail.com

weigh and don't be problematic

i love speech docs

substance:

• weigh
• basically everything needs a warrant (warranted analytic > unwarranted card)
• summary/ff should be the same
• defense isn't sticky
• anything dropped in the next speech is conceded (except constructive obvi)
• no new offense after rebuttal (implications are fine)

weighing:

• mechanism names dont matter, just make it comparative and warranted
• link weighing is goated
• terminalization is fine but isn't necessary - people try too hard getting the biggest number but smart link weighing wins rounds
• meta weighing is based
• Default util - I'm equally open to non-consequentialist arguments
• respond to weighing
• strength of link, probability, and clarity of x are mickey mouse
• risk of solvency/offense is typically just uniqueness comparison and is mostly just rhetoric. i evaluate it at the same level as implications of a nonunique (not necessarily a reason to look at ur arg first) mixed with urgency weighing.

prog:

• theory - probably best not to run it since it's typically done rlly poorly, but if you do send a doc
• IVIs are dope
• I can prob evaluate Ks that are structured decently (clear Link, Body, Impact, ROTB, etc)idc if they're topical or not tbh
• default to yes RVIs and Reasonability - spirit > text (ie, read warrants)
• what constitutes "friv" theory is arbitrary so if u wanna read friv bad have a clear abuse story
• I will intervene if there is an abuse that'd make checking back for it in round impossible

misc

• dont commodify ur arguments - it's really really stupid. at the same time I won't assume you're commodifying something
• grand cross is sleeper and I will not listen
• Everything is negotiable if there is warranting. The only exception is evaluating things beyond the standard offense-defense paradigm, but arguments made in favor of a different paradigm must win in both paradigms (ask me to explain if you need)

Hi I'm Kaveri (she/her) and I debated PF for 4 years at Newton South High School :)

Email: krishnam01772@gmail.com

TLDR: framing --> weighing--> offense --> default neg

• You need to win your offense to win the weighing

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, basically write my RFD

Basics:

• I’m a flow judge

• Tech>Truth

• I hate judge intervention so please don't make me do my own analysis

• Point out things that are conceded or dropped

• Postrounding is fine but it’s not going to make me change my decision

• Be respectful or your speaks get tanked

• Any explicit bigotry will result in an L20 and a report to Tabroom.

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread but if you are spreading:

1) send me and your opponents a speech doc

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

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 or if it is important towards my decision

[when you extend evidence, please extend the substance and not just the author name -- i value the content over just flowing the card name and date]

Cross:

• If something important happens, bring it up in later speeches (otherwise I won't evaluate it)

• Please don't be mean-- be respectful of your opponents

Rebuttal:

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

• Well warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants

• Everything in first rebuttal needs to be frontlined 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)

• Everything 2nd rebuttal needs to be frontlined in first summary

• Collapse on one argument PLEASE (quality over quantity)

• WEIGHING is key, please don't forget

• Don’t forget to weigh turns please, I can’t really evaluate them otherwise

• Remember to meta-weigh (weigh the clashing weighing mechanisms)

• Respond to your opponents weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded

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

If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to ask me before round!

And if you have questions about my decision, please ask me as well.

be respectful.

for LD

i am VERY inexperienced. I do pf, so I can evaluate logic and arguments well, and thats what I'll go off of. I understand the purpose of framework and its function, but still explain your arguments well. I have experience with Ks and Theory but not much, so explain those well too. If you go fast I'll need a doc and it might hurt how well I evaluate. WOOOOOO GOOD LUCK YEAAAA

Collapsing, weighing, and telling me why you win the round is very good.

Framework is important and winning under a framework will win you the round.

email: michellesu316@gmail.com

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

Hi I'm Peggy (she/her) and I do PF at Saigon South

general stuff

if you're not nice and respectful, i will be upset and your speaks will suffer :)

i'm a flow judge, unless im judging MS kids.

tech > truth.

warrant everything.

speed

speed is fine. i tend to speak really fast during my own round as well. however, if you're mumble rapping your case like future, i will not understand you or even try. speak fast but speak with clarity pls.

extensions

i care a lot about extensions. you should not expect me to fully understand your argument if you only mention it once or twice during the entire round. i can't vote on arguments that i dont even understand.

cross

my favorite thing in pf even tho it doesn't affect my decision. i just like watching interactive cross. don't dodge questions, don't be unnecessarily aggressive and don't ask(say) things that are not in a question form. if you start reading an entire card during cross, i will get annoyed.

weighing

actual comparative (good) weighing makes me happy. please please please don't just throw weighing mechanisms into your speech and think you win. generally prefer better-weighed arguments.

speeches

- signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. roadmap is kinda unnecessary but idm

- anything not responded to in 2nd rebuttal is dropped. offense and defense in rebuttal are equally important to me.

- weighing in summary and ff should be consistent. you will make my life 10x harder and make me very confused if its not.

- collapse in back half but dont collapse and leave it unwarranted.

final words

just make debate fun and entertaining to watch. don't be sad if you lose, learning is the most important.

I have debated in some capacity at some point in my life, current PF coach for Boston Latin School/APDA debater. Tl;dr normal tech judge. (My paradigm used to say flay judge but Ive come to realize I’m a lot more tech>truth than most judges. Read anything as long as it’s not racist or bad.)

my email is lemuelyu@bu.edu, please add it to the doc/email chain/carrier pigeon

At the end of the round, I will look down at my flow and do a few things, in the following order.

1. I will look at any framing, characterization, burdens, overviews etc. and evaluate the clash (or lack thereof) there. The winning arguments will serve as a filter for arguments in the round or as a way to determine the top layer of the round.

2. I will look at each individual contention or piece of offense within the round and determine what is won and how much it has won (i.e., how well it links to its impacts, a function of warranting, INTERNAL LINKS, uniqueness, etc). I will look at defense and evaluate whether it is terminal or mitigatory, and whether defense has been properly frontlined. Importantly, I will only look at offense and responses that are both extended and implicated in the final foci, and pulled directly from summary.

3. I will look at weighing. I often think about this as “layers” for the round, the side that best accesses (via probability, scope etc) the highest amount of the most important impact will win the round. This means weighing impacts over other impacts (i.e. death over poverty), and then weighing access to impacts/link weighing (i.e. more death over less death)

4. I will vote for the argument with the best link into the greatest amount of the best impact (not necessarily the greatest quantity).

some procedural stuff

- tech > truth but there is a threshold of believability for your arguments. if you claim that the sky is neon orange, you better have some EXCELLENT evidence for it. also, if you're argument is straight up racist, sexist, etc. i will not remain tabula rasa.

- I have never learned theory in my life, so I am not receptive to it. However, if you feel like running theory and get your opponent's ok to run it, you're welcome to run it at your own risk. Might make the round more interesting...

- light cussing is fine but full on spewing invective is not fine.

- I can generally flow relatively quickly but if you're gearing up to pull up speechdocs I will stop flowing. I will only flow what I comprehend.

- please don't be disrespectful. If you are disrespectful then I will be disrespectful to you :((. I don't care if you have fun or not, that's up to you. But don't make it unfun for other people.

- Weighing and warrants are important, they're what win rounds. Weigh before final focus and have a clear narrative. If no weighing is done throughout the round I will default to some stupid weighing mechanism like "who weaponizes the gay frogs". No one wants that. Also, I won't vote for an argument I don't understand.

- second rebuttal is required to at least frontline turns, otherwise they are considered dropped.

- Please signpost.

- Be as aggressive or passive as you want in cross, i'm usually not listening unless it starts to become whack. Aggressive =/= disrespectful. If both teams agree you can literally use cross as prep time if you want.

- Don't postround please, the round is over and you should have made it clear during round.

- If a card becomes heavily disputed in round, I will call it.

- If a warrant for an argument is not given, "this is not warranted" is a valid response.

- If the argument is well warranted and not empirical, "this is not carded" is not a valid response.

- if you concede defense to frontline a turn, tell me what piece of defense you concede and how it gets rid of the turn. Being able to wipe offense off my flow simply by saying “we kick out” is dumb.

- speaks start from 27 and go up from there. If I give you a 27 I think you were kinda poopoo. A 28 means you were aight. 29 means you were very nice, and a 30 means you were very very nice. Anything below 27 means that I think you're a terrible person

- Don't go more than 10 seconds overtime. I'll stop listening to what you say after that. Abuse prep and your speaks will tank.