I'm Suniva, I'm currently a sophomore at Trinity. I've been debating for 6 years, doing middle school parli for four of them and then mainly PF and some parli for the other two.

Add me to email chains at suniva.achuthan26@trinityschoolnyc.org.

How I evaluate rounds (the basic stuff):

• WEIGHING!!! Please have weighing on both sides of the flow. Interact with what your opponents say. Otherwise I will vote on who got the closest to analysing and comparing impacts (esp. in parli). IF that doesn't happen I will vote on whoever terminilizes their impacts. And if that doesn't happen at all, I will literally just go off of how many arguments you win on the flow.
• Warrants. Please just have a full argument. Repeating assertions doesn't make your argument believable, but warrants will. I will not think out your argument for you, and if you make me, I will drop you. :)
• Clarity. I think clarity is most important in your argument structure. Please dont make your argument complicated when in doesn't have to be (but do have nuanced arguments if you want). E.g. Dont name your argument "democracy" and then talk about climate change. Dont start with your impact. etc. Secondly, clarity is also important when your speaking, Your opponents should be able to understand what your saying, and so should I. Speaking fast is fine as long as you are clear.
• Clash. Please have it.
• Prog: Don't run it in novice, except maybe T (topicality) (but not formally, just if your opponents are super off topic with their arguments). Otherwise, im fine with any prog arguments, but I don't have a ton of experience with them -- I will judge to the best of my ability, but beware that you are taking a risk of me just not dropping something critical on my flow.

Other Notes:

• Nothing new in second summary, (or for parli, in the 3rd speeches). I am flowing, so I will catch if something is new. Try me.
• Tech>>Truth
• Feel free to dominate cross, just don't be rude.
• Please pre-flow before the round
• Be funny
• If you buy me coffee I will pick you up and give you 30 speaks
• I can follow any speed. If youre going over 250 word/minute, I would prefer a speech doc. But PLEASE DONT GO FAST FOR THE SAKE OF GOING FAST.
• PLEASE DON'T BE RUDE
• dont lie/misconstrue your cards. i will catch it. (I also don't care if you paraphrase slightly as long as the you don't misconstrue the card AT ALL -- i have a higher standard of accuracy though, if you paraphrase as opposed to just reading cut cards)
• I use she/her pronouns
• If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before round!
• if you are an all male team PLEASE DO NOT run an argument about abortion or one with a fem framing.
• In my RFDs I will misspell things.
• Also, novices especially, if any jargon confuses you, let me know and I will be happy to explain. (e.g. "pick up" means win)

Hello, I've been doing debate for two years, so I know what's going on. With that said:

First and foremost, be respectful towards your opponents!

If you spread please send a speech doc! I don't flow cross but I think it's important. Weigh please! If you drop an argument in one speech, don't try to run it in the next one. Please call cards if necessary but don't make it excessive.

Note for deathmatch: I have done research on the topic but most of it is critical and I have not been to camp. You don't need to slow down but I might not know acronyms and such other judges will.

If you don't understand the paradigm, treat me like your average circuit judge. I have some hot takes on debate, but if you weigh and extend and do all the stuff everyone tells you to do you're probably good.

---

1 - LARP, K

3 - T, Theory

4 - Tricks

S - Teams that can't weigh

---

Email chains are good; evidence must be on the chain to be evaluated. Disclosure is good but disclosure theory is boring. i like K debate. i'd prefer teams talk about the resolution in some way. Fairness might be an impact but probably isn't. Read rehighlights; you can't insert. i can flow fast but i prob don't know what you’re talking about. There is no grace period for cross nor speeches. You can’t clear your opponents. Defense isn't sticky. Ad homs aren’t arguments. Cross is binding. i presume neg absent warrants.

---

Better than average for: nuclear winter fake, degrowth, evidence indicts, floating piks, going for double turns.

Worse than average for: vague alts bad, death good, debate bad, IVIs, perfcons, protect "future lives," trigger warning theory, arguments along the lines of "I don't understand!!"

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Hello! I'm a sophomore at Walt Whitman High School! I've been debating for five years and like to consider myself a flow judge with a few quirks, but you could get away with calling me a flay judge at times.

Add me to the email chain! rsbarold@gmail.com

GENERAL NORMS

1. Be nice; the worst round I ever watched was finals at Apple Valley, where it got to a point where one team was being obnoxiously rude. If you're rude, I will certainly drop your speaks, and if it gets to a point where it's too much, I won't hesitate to stop the round and drop you immediately with 25s.
2. I don't care if you stand or sit for your speeches, but make sure you're projecting and you're not quiet.
3. Don't talk super fast, please; it gives me a headache and annoys me. Make your max 200 wpm. If it's online, make it less. If I can't hear you, I can't evaluate what you're saying.
4. Time yourself and your opponents, I will stop flowing when speech is over but it's your job to cut your opponents off after 10 seconds of overtime
5. If you have a speech doc, send it, it's just good norms
6. I'm usually pretty knowledgeable on the topic and the topic cards as I have likely debated it myself, so don't misconstrue cards
7. Evidence ethics are IMPORTANT!!! I have miscut many a card in my middle school days, but alas, those days are behind me. Don't paraphrase, don't miscut cards, and be open about evidence

SPEAKS

I start at 28.5 and change from there

1. Yet again, the number one thing is to be nice, if you're nice I'll up your speaks.
2. Know your stuff in cross, if you sound and act confident about what you're saying, I'll up your speaks
3. Fill up your time, don't leave me with 30 seconds on the clock, it looks bad. Just repeat what you're saying before in different words and sound confident
4. On the topic of confidence, BE CONFIDENT!!! If you make me think that you know everything about anything you're talking about it looks good to me, and this is a universal thing for every judge, it will increase your speaks!
5. Signpost!!! Do it too much, do it to the point where I'm annoyed. If you can annoy me by signposting so much I will give you 30 speaks.

CASE

1. 600-800 words is your sweet spot, don't read some 1000 word crap on me
2. Always send a speech doc in the email chain
3. Nothing blippy please, just read fully fleshed out contentions

REBUTTAL

1. signpost.
2. 2nd rebuttal MUST frontline, if it's not frontlined I'm gonna have a REALLY low threshold for responses to it
3. If you really want to impress me start weighing in rebuttal, it'll vastly increase your chance of winning.
4. Turns would make me smile, I like to run them and I like to judge them

SUMMARY

1. gonna say it again, signpost.
2. Nothing new in 2nd summary, but do as you please in 1st summary
3. If you don't weigh you're inviting me to intervene in the round
4. EXTEND YOUR CASE AND ALL OFFENSE AND MAKE IT CLEAR (If you're collapsing on turns reallllly explain all your links)
5. collapse. Please stop running five different arguments in summary, it's too much and you do not have the time to extend all of it
6. Voters summaries are my favorite, I like to do them and they make me happy

FINAL FOCUS

1. yet again, signpost.
2. WEIGHHHHHHHHHHHH. If you're weighing you're already ahead in the round.
3. Collapse further from summary and really hone in on what you want to extend
4. Extend all offense clearly
5. Final focus is the last thing I'm hearing, be perceptually dominate.

THEORY

I'll evaluate most theory, but if it's some crap like card clipping theory I will have a super low threshold for responses and anything I view ridiculous will land you with some pretty low speaks

1. Only meme the round with funny theory if your opponent has agreed to it
2. My threshold for theory is high, if you're running it make it good theory. Don't run some blippy crap in rebuttal and then blow it up in summary (cough cough Apple Valley finals, I really hated that round)
3. My general world view is that paraphrasing is pretty bad, so paraphrasing theory wouldn't be the worst thing to run on me
4. Don't run theory in the novice division please, your opponents may not even know what it is let alone how to respond. If you're running theory in novice it's gonna take a LOT of work to win
5. Disclosure theory is fine, but don't go into hyper specific norms, like "disclosure can't be open source!" only run this if they fully don't disclose

PROG

I've never run a K before and may not be the greatest at judging them.

1. Topical Ks I understand, and I wouldn't mind judging one
2. Non-topical Ks (cough cough fem rage) I'd be less likely to enjoy judging, and I would take pretty much any response as terminal
3. most Ks involve spreading, but modify your K to a point where it's not spreading.

OTHER

1. I will always disclose my decision, it may take some time to decide but as a debater it makes me mad beyond belief when judges don't disclose so I won't do that to you
2. Most feedback will be verbal, take notes or at least look like you're taking notes, that's a good norm for all RFDs in your future
3. Have fun! Debate is a fun space and shouldn't be taken too seriously and shouldn't have hard feelings.
4. Chat with your opponents before round, make friends, get people's phone numbers. Before every round I make a point to talk to my opponents and make friends, cuz that's what it's all about!
5. You can post round me and ask questions, but my decision won't change. I love it when people ask question after round on how to get better, it's the best way to improve!
6. Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm, I know it can be a lot
7. To everyone who's read this whole paradigm, one little tip that if you use in your final focus I'll give you 30 speaks is to give 20 seconds to just giving an overview of sorts on everything in the round, just tell me whats going on. I learned it from Crawford Leavoy, and it's proved extremely helpful.

Sorry for making you all read this, but knowing your judge is a huge thing in debate !!! See you in round!

PF HS debater

elizabethchung97@gmail.com for email chain

PF

I'm fine w speed

Tech > Truth

be funny, make jokes in speech (i love those and they will get you 30's)

I will disclose my decision and RFD - Post rounding is fine, but don't be rude

in round:

preflow before round

send speech docs if ur going fast

roadmaps are fine, don't make them too long

defense is not sticky

extend through all speeches, if you don't have any offense or defense extended I have nothing to vote off

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE COLLAPSE I DONT WANNA HEAR 50 CLASHING ARGUMENTS IN FINAL

comparative weighing, make it easy for me

please warrant I'm not just gonna believe "fetuses prevent climate change"

don't prep steal, I don't like it

i dont flow cross, do whatever

Evidence

email chains > card docs

send evidence quick, don't speed an eternity finding cards please

evidence indicts should be relevant

if it's messy then I'll check ev and decide

Para is fine for rebuttal onward

Don't micut or miscontrue cards, that's probably bad

Prog

I think disclo is generally good

I prefer O/S over RR

I get stock shells and k's, no tricks

Warranting's huge for me, especially if I don't understand some weird shell or prog arg

tell me how many offs ur gonna run

shells must be introduced right after the violation

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my third year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, would much prefer you to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism!

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- Speech time: I will continue to flow your speech until ~10 seconds after time is up. I will stop listening/flowing past that point.

- Prep Time: I do keep track of prep in the round, and I will be a bit unhappy if you go over that time. If you end up using more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing: please finish before the round starts.

If you have any questions or want any clarifications, you can shoot me an email or ask me before the start of round! Email is nylacrayton@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Gaby and I judge PF

I am a flay judge.

Just some basic things

Please don't spread, there will be tear drops on my flow.

Please signpost so I don't get confused.

Tech>Truth

You need to be frontlining

I won't flow cross so please bring up concessions or anything important in your next speech

Do not be overly aggressive or yell at the opponent, I will cringe at you and drop your speaks.

Time yourself, you also don't need to tell me how much prep you used, I trust you won't abuse this.

email chain: goobatroopa444@gmail.com

TL;DR: Speed is fine, tech> truth, send a speech doc, read cut cards, disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad.

Background

I currently coach a few teams and worked at a debate camp this past summer for a month so I like to think I am above the level of a washed second-year-out.

I debated public forum at Marist for 4 years (2019-2023). Competed in lots of rounds on the national circuit and went to TOC my junior and senior year.

I expect there to be an email chain sent up for evidence exchange every round. My email is:

jescayg@nd.edu

General Paradigm

Outside of issues of ethics I don’t believe it is my role to tell you how to debate the round. However, it is your responsibility to tell me how you wish me to judge the round. Debate is an inherently comparative activity which means that it is your obligation as a debater to provide me with a frame of reference for how my decision should be made. Weighing is paramount. Unless both teams use the same form of weighing, you should probably be answering the meta question about why your type of weighing is preferable. For example, why does it matter that your impact is bigger if there one is more likely? You need to win offense to access your weighing, but I have never written “you weighed too much” as a reason for a losing ballot.

Big debates aren’t usually better debates. You only need to have one good path to the ballot to win the round. Condensing the round will almost always be to your benefit. Rebuttal is your chance to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. The back half is where you need to make strategic decisions about how to win the round. The speech times shrink, so your speeches should as well.

All offenses you plan on going for along with turns must be front-lined in second rebuttal. That being said, defense is not sticky. Given that summary must mirror final that doesn't make structural sense. If a team kicks out by extending a delink, it is typically safe to assume the remaining defense on the argument is conceded. Often, defensive concessions can be taken advantage of elsewhere on the flow. You all need to be taking time to think about the round as a whole and consider how arguments interact with each other at both a practical and technical level.

Yes, I can flow speed. Debate is competitive, so you don’t need to slow down for your opponent. What you do need to do is be clear. Poor clarity is not a reason for me to flow off the doc. If you are a team that is inexperienced with speed and hit a team that goes fast, the best solution is not to try spreading for the first time in a round. Take some time to think about their arguments and try to condense the debate. Quality will always overwhelm quality. Debating smarter usually bests debating faster.

Evidence

I strongly prefer full cut cards and no paraphrasing when introducing evidence. If you don't do this, you will probably lose the theory debate.

Call out bad evidence practices! If I am on a panel where theory is not an option you can still make general arguments about rejecting the argument that I will be partial to.

Compare evidence and author quality. Teams don’t do this enough and it can give a major lef up in the round.

If you want me to call for a card, you should tell me in speech. You also need to tell me why it matters.

I prefer author qualifications be included in the citation. This wasn't a belief I held as a debater but is something I have come into believing as a coach. I think author qualifications allow the debate to be more educational as it facilities better evidence comparison.

Verbal citations are a must and need to include author name and publication year. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

Progressive​​

Theory

If this is a Nat Circuit Tournament and a team is not disclosing or paraphrasing you should probably read theory :)

If you include author qualifications for ALL of your evidence and your opponent doesn't, I think this could be a situation where theory is justified and persuasive.

I default to compete interps and think rvis are largely regressive unless the shell is frivolous

If you disclose round reports may be beneficial, if not then I think they are a waste of time

Not a fan of trigger warnings unless an argument is actually graphic. My threshold for what it takes to be considered graphic has never been met thus far in debates I have either competed in or judged. Gabe Rusk’s paradigm has a long excerpt on why trigger warnings are likely bad that is worth a read and corroborates most of my admittedly less educated views.

Ks

Time constraints make Ks hard in PF, but I can’t say I don’t like a good K debate. Just make sure you understand the literature you read.

Win the K on the flow and you will be good, but don’t presume I have knowledge on the more unorthodox positions. Basically just extend and weight effectively and you are fine

If you hit a non-topical K and don’t read topicality I will be disappointed. I am not biased either way but think it makes for a good debate

If you are reading an argument that talks about changing the debate space, please don't have an opt-out form, it is counter-intuitive, and potentially terminal defense on your method if you are willing to not debate an argument that aims to change the space

Speaker Points

I’ll start at a 28.5 and adjust based on a mixture of style and strategy.

Have fun, you should never not enjoy a round.

Kaitlyn Escayg 26'

I am a second year PF debater at Marist.

Add me to the email chain: kaitlynescayg26@marist.com

Tech Judge. I have a low bar for response against stupid arguments.

Be Nice

I am to be referred to as the Honorable Daniel Fink

IF you topically mention the greatest court decision of all time Apple v. Fintiv, you will be my favorite and I may or may not intervene on your behalf

Background:

Richard Montgomery High School

PF

- if possible, number your responses so i know if I missed anything

- Set up email chains/preflow during tech check. I am a big believer in sending case docs to make it easier for everyone but I won't force yall to do so. You'll get a bump in speaks if you do. daniel.a.fink@hotmail.com

- You can ask to look at ev during your partner or opponent's speech/cross. Idk why or when people started considering this as "stealing prep time".

-Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.Which weigh? Dat weigh. If you don't weigh you are asking me to intervene

- Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged.

- Not a fan of super squirrelly arguments or theory (the next 2 bullets might answer your next questions). If you run a non-T K, I have a low bar for topicality arguments,but if that's what you wanna read just make sure you explain it well. If I'm confused at the end of the debate I promise you won't be happy with my decision.

- Defense is sticky :)

- Don't spread (Or spread and I will lose something on the flow)

-

In re Paraphrasing

Be prepared for theory, low bar for accepting their theory.

In Re Disclosing. Same thing as paraphrasing; If someone discloses and either a) you do not and they read disclosure theory OR b) you LIE about what you've disclosed, I consider this a TKO. This means if disclosure theory is read in the round (reasonably) and it is conceded then it is basically over. Not disclosing or lying is indefensible.

In Re Final Focus

- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot. If i don’t have to spend time thinking about how im voting after the round, you and i will both be happy (half of you at least).

- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the roundI will presume neg.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me @ daniel.a.fink@gmail.comor ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well.Hated my decision? send all complaints to theref41216@gmail.comand hold nothing back.

In re Carded Evidence

Just because you read a card doesn't mean your argument is more true than an analytic. If your response to an analytic is "We read card they don't," you have dropped the argument. Argue about warrants

Syllabus of the Court, See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. (1906)

Bold:Collapse, weigh, signpost, don’t make me think, galaxy hoodie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VroFAx5GGFk

Fold:being mean, friv theory, no email chain/disclosure, partial quads lmao.

If you cite an American court case I will accept it as accurate. The gold standard of evidence (I don't care if its in dissent or its Obiter dictum)

If you mention a foreign court, I will laugh and ignore your argument unless it is :

A - The Starr Chamber

B - Pre-Revolution Anglo-Saxon court

C - You are actively making fun of it

Hello my name is Richard Fink.

I recently started high school and I have been debating public forum for 3 years.

A couple of rules you should follow when I'm judging.

1. Don't be a jerk to your opponents. It really messes with the debate round and depending on how mean you are I might drop you. Crossfire may be very heated but don't let it get out of control.
2. Don't give really bad or false evidence during the round. I will not flow the evidence and will take off a lot of your speaker points.
3. Always have your evidence waiting because if your opponents ask for a piece of evidence during cross its very awkward if you spend 5 minutes sending the card.
5. I will be able to get most of the things you say in your speech on my flow if you speak quickly but not everything.
6. If you have any questions for me at the end of the round feel free to ask.

Good Luck, in your round with me, Richard

I have been debating for a little more than a year. You should probably consider me between a lay and a flow judge, right in the middle between tech and truth.

I am fine with spreading, as long as you send me a speech doc. However, I prefer well warranted arguments over many low-quality responses. Try to only read responses you think will win you the round or lose your opponents the round, nothing useless or time-sucking.

Please carry your arguments through. And make sure you weigh. I consider collapsing a very important strategic decision that you should be making each round; it makes my ballot much easier to write for you.

I have not yet run k's or theory, but I would be interested in hearing you run them.

I love when you gain concessions in crossfire, but make sure you bring them up in later speeches or I will not flow them.

Speaker Points:

• I will give between 26 and 30, so a large range. Speak with energy and conviction! Be passionate!
• Cross has a minimal impact on speaks, but I do factor it in
• Extra speaks for referencing the French Revolution or Roman Empire. You will make me very happy. (Honestly any historical reference will win you a marginal increase in speaks, I'm just a big history buff)

hi i'm anika! i'm a high school public forum debater for nueva. add me to the email chain @ anigupt@nuevaschool.org + nuevadoks@gmail.com

general thoughts

• tech>truth read whatever you want
• warrant everything
• PLEASE EXTEND PROPERLY
• weigh! weigh weigh weigh.
• dropped turns have 100% probability
• defense is not sticky
• no new ev in second summary
• speed is fine but always send docs

theory + ks:

• i'm pro disclo and anti paraphrasing but theory debates are boring
• ks are ok, not a great judge for them but i think they're cool so just explain it well
• i'm familiar-ish w/ security, cap and matfem

speaks: speaks are fake so i inflate them

Hi, I'm Jackson. I do PF on the circuit for Nueva. I have basically never judged.

Round preferences

By desirability: Policy = K > Theory > KvK > K v Theory

By my competence: Policy > K = Theory > K v Theory > KvK

Basics

Set up an email chain. Speed is good but clarity matters. I won't vote on death good, self-harm good, or bigoted arguments. Let me know if you feel unsafe.

Tech>truth. Nothing is sticky. My one goal in life is to avoid intervening.

You need to do three things: weigh, extend, and warrant. Weigh early and keep it consistent; a brand new weighing mechanism in 2nd final is a new argument. Weigh turns if you plan on them mattering. Don't disguise new defense as weighing (special shout-out here to intervening actors, my least favorite weighing mech)

Do what you can to create and develop the clash in the round. Extending contradictory narratives past each other with no comparison of the two is very hard to evaluate and counter-educational.

K preferences

I'll vote on anything. I have a mild preference topical Ks. I've read cap, semiocap, deleuze+guatarri, bataille, and foucault on the circuit---but I'm absolutely not an expert in critical literature.

I strongly dislike uplayering the K with random theory violations (especially those that could just as easily be a disad to the K). There are many better places to push the K on the K sheet. I will reward a strong execution of actual responses. It is also very valuable to adapt responses to what they are saying: "perm do both" means very little without a warrant specific as to what "doing both" entails.

I have no opinions whatsoever on K Affs vis-a-vis T-Framework. I prefer K Affs that interact with the topic (even when they don't affirm it) and understand their literature base.

On language Ks: A K saying "don't use X discriminatory word" is suboptimal. The root cause of discriminatory language is discriminatory assumptions: try to kritik those assumptions at the root rather than the outcome.

Theory preferences

I think theory is a valuable way to generate norms and thus will vote on it, but most theory rounds are usually uninteresting to judge. I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but tabula rasa still applies in theory rounds.

IVIs aren't good. Make it theory or make it a kritik.

Current Position -- I have been the head debate coach at Lincoln Southwest High School for the past 23 years. In that time I have coached and judged PF, LD and congressional debate.

Background -- I have been coaching speech and debate for the last 32 years. I have been coaching pubic forum since its inception 20 years ago. I was a high school and college competitor in speech and competed in LD in high school.

Email Chain -- theimes@lps.org

PF Paradigm --

1. I believe that PF is a communication event with special emphasis on the narrative quality of the arguments. The story is important to me. Blippy argumentation or incessant reading of cards with no analysis or link back to the resolution does not hold much weight in my decision. Do the work in round -- do not make me intervene.

2. Weighing mechanisms should be fully explained -- if you want me to vote using your weighing mechanism, it is your duty to actually tell me why it is a good mechanism for the round and how your side/case/argument does a better job achieving the mechanism.

3. Presentation of arguments should be clear. I am not a fan of unbridled speed in this event. You need to speak clearly with a persuasive tone.

4. Reading cards > paraphrasing cards

5. If you must ask for cards or if you are asked for cards, you need to be prepared to ask for and present these cards in an efficient manner.

6. Don’t be rude.

I debated 4th year PF debater at Marist School in Georgia.

Add me to your email chains

matthewhorne24@marist.com

maristpublicforum@gmail.com

If you spread, send a speech doc

Tech>truth

Time your own speeches, prep, and crossfires.

I pay attention to cross solely for speaker points, if something happens that I should know about, let me know in the speech.

Please weigh and collapse in your summaries. Narrowing down the debate is important in the back half of rounds

Email me if you have any questions about rfd.

Hi, I debate at Sharon High School. Consider me a flow/tech judge.

• The faster you go, the less understandable you sound, and the messier you flow; don't spread
• I don't flow cross, bring stuff up in speeches if it's important
• Extend: If you don't extend thru all the speeches, I won't vote on it
• Weigh: I'm lazy, write the ballot for me; meta-weighing is cool too
• Don't run theory or kritiks

Prashanth SUBBIAH is the capitan of wakland highs debate team.

Bring me food and you get 30 speaks.

Hi, I am a student debater and I judge debates based off of tech over truth. extend arguments throughout or you don't have an argument.

I dont flow cross, that's for you.

I'm fine with speed but don't spread

I will not flow after 10 seconds after your time goes off

I count prep and will stop you when your time is finished.

Please pre-flow before round

TLDR: tech over truth u do u

Disclosure: Use speech drop or email @roydebate2@gmail.com

Speaks ova:
Your starting speak for me is 27.5 lowest I'll give you is 25 and highest is 30


You can lose speaks if you abuse your opponent too much.

Prefs

PF: All arguments are fun more specific bellow; not exactly the best judge for trix and K's but I can handle it
Spreading: u do u
Trix: Line by line it please
K's: Cool ????
Theory/T: Love them favorite types of argument, cool with friv as well i dont think any theory is friv until disproven
FW: Nice and simple
Standing or sitting; I do not care if you sit or stand

Random stuff

Do not ask "can i have the first question" in cross if you're the 1ac or nc or its 25 speaks

Defense is not sticky

Extensions aren't the be all end all unless its a close debate, their purpose is to break clash not be a voter

30 speaks if ur not wearing formal clothing, can we like leave that in the past we are fr the only event that spams suits atp

Do not:

Too abusive: eg. if it's your opponent is a newer debater don't read 5 offs, spread, 3 t-shells and FW, just win by skill rather than being fugazi as hell

think im presuming 1st speaking team, I err neg unless given presumption args(heavily urge u to spend 3 seconds of ur speech reading one if its a close round u wouldn't believe how many good debates collpase down to that on 3 judge panels for the flay trust bruv)

this list will grow over time

Thats all, extra info below if u want

Here are some debaters that I like and agree with- refer to them if you want more info, i was taught debate by all of them to some extent and therefore share similar views. I consider these 3 quotes some of the best advice any debater can take.

Joseph Nahas

"If you want to dump responses on the flow, I respect that, but I HIGHLY SUGGEST that you don't spam under-warranted and blippy analytics. Conversely, I LOVE warranted, smart, and efficient analytics. Good analytics are underrated :)"

Martand Bhagavatula

"any argument introduced in rebuttal, for example, must be fully flushed out/warranted in the rebuttal speech. If something's under-warranted in rebuttal, and your opponents call you out for that, you can't go up in summary and say: "they say there's no warrant, but here's the warrant:" and explain it in detail for the first time. With that in mind, explanations should stay constant. They can't get more in-depth throughout the round, nor can they really be less in-depth, with the former essentially prompting the formulation of a new argument, and the latter hurting your odds of winning'"

Gabe Rusk

"Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want."

Hello!!

General Stuff:

1. Respect others; any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop

2. Time yourself. I will also do it too, but it makes it way easier for me if you do it yourself

3. Do NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand what you are saying I won't flow

4. Tell me where you are on your flow when you give your speech

5. Use up all of your speech time if you can!! You know more than you think, and if all else fails just explain your case

Rebuttals

1. Quality > Quantity; I prefer responses that are explained, especially with how it interacts with the case

Summary

1. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything

3. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

4. A full extension extends the warrants and impacts. My least favorite thing to do is vote for a team that doesn't have warrants, so make sure to point it out if they don't

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN

My email is sophiali00112@gmail.com. Email me any questions or add me to the email chain ☺️

Hey everyone!

My name is Alice (she/her), and I am currently a sophomore and varsity PF debater at Lexington High School with 2 years of PF experience.

Please add me to the email chain: 26stu037@lexingtonma.org

Short version: Extend your arguments throughout the entire round, signpost, and weigh. Be respectful, and most of all, have fun!

More details:

• I will vote you down if you are exclusionary in any way. Respect the pronouns of everyone in the round, be kind, and do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
• Speed: No spreading, but I am fine with speed as long as you are CLEAR. I vote off of my flow, so anything I do not catch on my flow because you were unclear will only harm you. Send speech docs!
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, especially comparative weighing. The first place I will look at when I sign my ballot is the weighing debate. If you have extra time in your speeches, dedicate that time to weighing!
• Tech>truth/tabula rasa (blank slate). That being said, if you say anything -ist, I will drop you.
• Signpost! Again, I vote off of my flow, and if I don't know where you are, I will not be able to write your responses where you want me to.
• Extend your argument completely (including uniqueness, links, and impacts) throughout the round, as well as frontlining and extending defense.
• Cross: I may listen to crossfires, but I will not flow or vote off of them. If something important happens in cross that you want me to take note of, bring it up in your speech!
• Summary/Final Focus: The speeches in the back-half of the round should mirror each other, and no new responses in the final focus. Weighing should also be more prominent in these speeches!
• Theory/K’s/other progressive arguments: I do not think these arguments should be run in novice, so please keep the round substance-based.

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me before the round. Finally, be respectful and have fun!

Hi friends! I’m Deanna, a junior at Lexington HS, and I'm in my third year of PF. I don’t expect novices to ask for lots of evidence, but I advise starting an email chain because it’s good practice. Please add me at deannamayq@gmail.com if you do start one!

If you have any questions about my paradigm or about debate in general, feel free to email me or ask before round :)

I will always disclose the decision with RFD so long as all the debaters in the room are fine with it and the tournament allows.

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

If you're in a rush, here's a

TLDR: Bolded stuff = important stuff. I’m a tech judge and I really like to see good strategies executed well, even if they are simple. Adapt to me in terms of content (ie. you can run extinction impacts all you like), but don’t sacrifice your natural style of debating that makes you feel comfortable. Finally, don't be problematic (if it ends in -ism, don't try it).

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

--- General stuff ---

• Clarity: being clear in speech and explaining arguments is very helpful for my ballot. You can reasonably clear your opponents as well. This also includes organizing points and responses (ie. signposting).

• Speed: i can somewhat flow fast, but don’t go too fast. If you're going above 250 wpm send a speech doc and if you're going above 300 wpm, policy is in the building across :)

• Evidence:

  • I’m fine with paraphrasing but have cut cards ready - if you can’t produce evidence for an argument that isn’t an analytic it’s crossed off my flow.

  • Do not violate NSDA rules on representing evidence - it’s an auto L with low speaks.

  • If a round boils down to one card that is slightly miscut, (eg. to over-exaggerate impacts), but isn’t as egregious as NSDA violations, then it depends on if the other side calls it out and tells me why it is bad. If not, I will treat the rhetoric as real, but if I do notice it in round, I will give really low speaks, even if you win.

  • Do evidence comparison! It is really good for shaping my ballot and remember to give a reason as to why your evidence is better.

• Tech > truth: remember to warrant your arguments well for it to win on my flow and my ballot - I will not vote off an argument that I can't explain each part of, even if it's cleanly extended.

• Time: i will stop flowing after time and let you finish your sentence. I used to think grace periods are okay in novice year, but it isn't how a lot of debates work in varsity. Please time yourselves and your opponents if you like.

• Presumption: if I can't vote off any offense for either side, I presume whichever team that defends the status quo.

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

Cross:

I love cross! I won’t flow it but I will listen to it. If there’s something important that happens, bring it up in your next speech. Remember that there is a line between being assertive and being rude, don’t cross the line because part of your speaks come from cross. I dislike hearing ranting in cross or turning it into a speech, it gets annoying.

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

How I evaluate on the flow:

The round for me comes down to weighing on both sides. If you win the weighing debate, you win the round, insofar as what you weigh with have been extended throughout the round. Be comparative when you weigh, which includes meta-weighing! Saying “we outweigh on magnitude, our impact hurts 4 million people” without interaction with your opponent’s impact is not comparative. I buy that strength of link counts as probability weighing and if I don't get any weighing at all, I will probably default to that.

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

Framework:

I will evaluate them but please warrant it well. Remember to extend the ROTB/ROTJ in every speech unless you somehow aren't going for framework anymore. Always explain why your framework matters even if it is the only framework in the round and if it isn't, tell me why your framework should be evaluated first.

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

Back half (summary + final):

Please start collapsing during the summaries, you can also collapse in the rebuttals if you like. It makes the debate less messy if collapsing happens earlier than later. I advise to not go for everything.

Any new arguments or brand new responses that are brought up past second summary will not be evaluated. I see the final focus as a speech supposed to mirror and extend summary weighing and if the second summary brings new weighing, for the first speaking team to respond to that. Brand new weighing in final focus, unless responsive, in 2nd final, won’t be evaluated at all.

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

My takes on debate as a high school activity:

While I do agree that PF is more of a persuasive style of debating, I think a large part of it is also strategy and how you use what you know and researched. I like seeing good strategies being executed well. This doesn’t mean that if you are more comfortable going slow with heavy rhetoric, to just switch your style, but it does mean to adapt in terms of what you say and what you leave out.

If your strategy is to have stock contentions that you can frontline very well, do that. If your strategy is to purposefully say different types of arguments in the rebuttals to force your opponents into going for a weaker argument, do that. At the end of the day, high school debate is quite literally a game and in my opinion, you should have the space to adapt to each judge without coming at the cost of throwing away who you are as a debater.

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

--- Progressive Arguments ---

For any progressive arguments or pre-fiat impacts, tell me why it matters above substance/anything post-fiat and why I should look at it first on my ballot.

Theory:

• Competing interps > reasonability, you can try convincing me otherwise.

• If you’re gonna run friv, at least have some warranting in it.

• I have my own beliefs on theory shells, but I won’t let that influence the round.

• RVIs are a bit weird to me. I don’t exactly understand why someone should be voted up because they proved that they were being fair. I suppose, the shell can be a timesuck, but I feel that winning an RVI claim isn’t enough to really win the debate. Responding directly to the shell might honestly be better and more clear of a path to the ballot.

Kritks:

• I'm not really familiar with them, run at your own risk.

• If you do run them, please be slow and explain each part of the K, especially where I come in as the judge/my ballot.

• I would prefer it if you don’t try anything high lit or phil. There’s a higher chance than not that even after some explanation, I still won’t understand it.

  • I somewhat understand some of the most basic ideas behind post-modernism Ks, but I honestly don't understand fully how they function in a debate round proper.

Tricks:

• I don't see a point in them - but if you do run it, at least give me one warrant (it can be an ice spice warrant I don't care).

• If you spread through it so fast that even I don't hear it, I won't evaluate it.

• If you're gonna run tricks aimlessly with 0 warrant, LD is in the adjacent building.

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

---Speaks ---

I start at 28 unless you were rude or did/said something problematic (ie. -isms)

Mostly based off strat and cross

I don't care if you sit or stand or what you wear; be comfy and that's all that matters :)

Post round me if you like! I would be more than happy to show my flow and where I voted if it isn't clear enough in my RFD. If you manage to convince me that I made a mistake in the decision, I owe you one.

Here's my partner's (Aryan Sethi) paradigm which I agree mostly with if y'all need more ideas on how I judge.

If you need to make up something mid-round, roll with it and don't hesitate.

If the other team calls you out on it, double down and good luck.

Have fun and be confident! (it goes a long way, trust)

Most important thing: please just be nice. Debate should be fun, not stressful.

I would say I'm a flay judge. I understand the topics and am tech over truth. That being said, here are my preferences. I am relatively simple in my requests:

1. Technique

a. Speed is fine, but if you have to do the double-breathing while spreading, you're probably speaking too fast. Please learn breath control.

b. SIGNPOST! Make your speeches easy for me to flow and understand. Make sure to number your responses on each section of the argument. Be clear about what you are responding to.

c. Go line-by-line and stay organized on the flow. If you are jumping around, at least be clear about where you are.

d. Weighing will win you the round! Meta-weighing is necessary if you are using different weighing mechanisms. Explain why yours is more important.

2. Flowing

a. I will time your speeches and prep. If you steal prep, you will lose speaker points. I will flow 10 seconds over speech time, but after that I will not flow or evaluate the responses.

b. I do not flow crossfire. I am listening, but if you don't bring a concession up in a speech, I will not evaluate it.

3. Evaluating the round

a. In the back half, you should be writing the ballot for me. Don't make me choose objectively what I should and shouldn't be evaluating, as it likely won't work in anyone's favor.

b. Please warrant and implicate your responses. If you don't explain why things matter in the context of the debate, I don't know how to evaluate them.

4. Kritiks and Theory

a. I love to hear debaters try to evaluate the debate space, but I'm not experienced on evaluating these arguments in round. Walk me through the process and tell me how to evaluate them.

5. Speaker points

a. As I said earlier, I will take points away for stealing prep. That being said, don't point out your opponents stealing prep, it's not a good look.

b. Keep your cool. Yelling or unnecessary aggression will come with lower speaker points.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

As a judge I am tech over truth but a little more about me...

Cross: I will not flow cross

Speed: I am okay with speed but please don't spread

Evidence: Evidence should be cut and should match the card. Don't make anything up. If it's believable and warranted well I will believe you.

Speaking Times: I will listen to you for about 10 seconds after time ends

Substance > Theory

I’m a varsity PF debater at Brooklyn Tech. Add me to the email chain snash7877@bths.edu

Tech > Truth (but if you have an outlandish link you’re gonna have to do some extra work to convince me of it)

Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal

Collapse LATEST by second summary

I’ll keep times but you should be too (you can finish your sentence but I’ll cut you off after that)

Extend all important offense into final focus

Give warrants (don’t just read a card and not explain the reasoning behind why that’s the case)

WEIGH (and don’t just read buzzwords, just saying you outweigh on scope without doing some comparison isn’t weighing)

Signpost (don’t make me do extra work trying to figure out which side of the flow/ where on the flow you are)

Implicate what your responses mean, reading me a card without telling me why it’s important creates a messy round

I’m fine with speed as long as you articulate and use intonation

If you’re gonna spread you should probably sent a speech doc

Don’t take up cross and be respectful to each other

Have fun :)

hi yes i am real man does anybody want to go skateboards???

I AM VERY OPEN TO BRIBES

i too love ayush kumar

tetr.io is best game

tech and truth is good

e to the i*pi = -1

Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. Thats why its called the present

alr fr tho theory is objectively cringe

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

Actually though:

--> Tech>Truth

--> Crossfire is important even if I'm not flowing

--> Be nice

--> Be on time, 1 speak per minute late

--> I will stop flowing 10 seconds over time

--> IMPLICATE: please write my ballot for me I don't want to work for it and whoever makes it clearer WHY they should win will win

--> Theory is still cringe

Hi I'm Malcolm Portera and I've been doing PF for five years

Tech over truth

Don't try to do anything dumb like abusive theory, tricks, or Ks that don't really have a link to the topic if you want me to vote for you, debate is for debate, not confusing your opponent by running insane args.

Regardless of what you believe in don't make fun of the other debaters or be mean-spirited in round.

Cross is important but I won't vote off of it unless you mention the points you made in an actual speech.

incorporate a jack Harlow lyric into any of your spaces and you get an automatic 30

Speed is fine but I'd prefer you didn't spread

You should extend warrants for every arg you want offense off in every speech

Weighing needs to be comparative

I don't flow cross, if something important was brought up, mention it in a speech

Background: I actively coached from the fall of 2002 through the national tournament of 2017. I coached all events at various points, but had strong LD, PF, Congress, and Individual Events experience through the years. I was on the Board of Directors of the National Speech & Debate Association prior to joining the organization as their Director of Community Engagement. Through that work I oversaw processes related to topic writing, competition rules, publications, and National Tournament operations. I am currently the Principal of Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa.

Debate preferences:

1) Clear signposting

2) Give me clear warrants - even in extensions - with specific impacts.

3) I prefer having a framework to compare impacts to, which makes weighing important.

4) I am not against speed, however, I do not judge a lot. Therefore, I don't have the skill that I used to. Slow down for tags and analytics.

5) Theory/Kritiks - I am not inherently opposed, however, I worry about the assumptions people make about how arguments interact with one another and me having that same knowledge. I also worry about the lack of time to develop such arguments.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Tech>truth

Lex 2026

PF

IMPORTANT fax

I don’t mind what you do, just have fun with the activity. Basically run anything and if its something dumb like friv theory or a dababy K i will evaluvate just at the same level as I would any more serious argument.

Don't do anything either of us would get sued for!

I’ll disclose the results and speaks if you want me to unless the tournament says otherwise.

good vibes+strat=speaks

call me King or judge whichever one

Add me to the email chain: sethiaryan2008@gmail.com and 26stu075@lexingtonma.org

Send case and rebuttal docs: I want cut cards with working links and like properly cited all that good suff. if ur paraphrasing send that too with cut cards. If not STRIKE ME.

How I evaluate

1st weighing if your winning access to the impact if no one weighs then I look to whose case is cleaner and if no one has any access to any impact then I presume neg unless other warrants are read.

QUICK FAX:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. (Hint: if it has phobia or ism probably don’t do it)

I give pretty high speaks because they don't matter, to be honest. If you’re in a bubble round, let me know, I got you right.

Don't go toooo fast under 270 wpm, but if you’re a novice you should be fine. If you want to go fast, just give me the speech doc. Also feel free to speed test bfr round like i dont mind as long as its not ur case ur testing and if i yell clear or slower dont worry ur speaks arent tanked unless its been like 3 times then I will prolly tank them a point or so.

EVIDENCE:

Don’t misconstrue evidence – paraphrasing is fine but please make sure you have good evidence ethics. I won't drop you for badly misconstrued evidence unless your opponents read args as to why I should, in any case I will probably just not evaluate the evidence/argument in my decision.

I'll only look at/call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision.

When you extend evidence throughout every speech in the round, please extend the actual logic/warrant and not just the author name – I value the content over just flowing the card name and date.

SPEECH SPECIFIC

CASE:

Preferably, put your framing here. If you do it in rebuttal, I hope your opponents don’t make an issue out of it.

Second case can read all turns if you want because that’s pretty interesting.

If it’s triggering, preferably give an anonymous opt out form but I usually won’t care unless it’s really bad, do it for your opponent’s sakes and have back up contentions/cases just in case someone’s not comfortable with it.

Be as squirrelly as you want, as long as there’s a link feel free to go for it.

Slow down for tags.

Read warrants.

Read as many contentions as you want, to be honest just do whatever floats your boat, boss.

If you’re reading offs, tell me how many pieces of paper I’ll be needing.

CROSS:

I love love love open cross, just ask your opponents if they are cool with it.

But if you don’t want to have open cross, then just don’t.

I get annoyed if you just rant on and on, so please don’t.

I want to see fire/clash and all that good stuff.

Be funny, it’s a great way to get out of a tense situation.

If they don’t ask for a question just keep talking, it’s not rude.

If they don’t answer, ask again. Make them either answer the question or concede.

If you lie, stick by it.

Have fun and don’t make anyone cry.

Rebuttal:

Signpost, PLEASE

Disads are cool, turns are fun, impact both of those out though.

Second rebuttal MUST frontline, if you do it in second summary it’s too late.

Good analysis>card dump, but card dump is fine, just send speech docs.

WARRANT RESPONSES

WEIGH TURNS

Tell me WHY what you say matters to me at all.

Summary:

No new offense in summary.

First summary, you have to frontline.

Second summary, no new stuff except weighing

Extend defense and whatever you want against their case.

I only want to draw arrows, I don’t want to write.

Also, I don’t think you should lose because of mid extensions. I personally don’t care if it’s blippy as long as the main stuff is there. It shouldn’t be longer than 15-20 seconds, imo. HAVE ALL IMPORTANT WARRANTS THO

WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH

Meta weighing will win you a lot.

Please don’t make me weigh, but just in case I default to the cleanest link chain if it comes down to it.

No new weighing after second summary.

COLLAPSE, PLEASE.

Go for one contention and maybe a turn, weigh both and you will win a lot more than you know.

Don’t doc bot or card dump for this one.

SELL ME ON WARRANTS, not card names like Rolly Polly 23

FINAL FOCUS <3<3<3:

Final focus is literally the best speech ever, trust.

Just do what summary did, but less. For example, choose to go for the turn OR contention AND WEIGH THE FLIPPITY FLIP OUT OF IT.

This is what I vote off, if you want it on the ballot make sure it’s in final.

Even if you’re losing by final focus, you can still win, trust me.

Tell me why, where, and how I write my ballot.

Tell me warrants, I don’t care about cards, tell me the WHY.

Spoon feed the weighing to me.

There should be no new weighing. First final can have a bit but second final would be allowed to respond in that case.

Progressive

Fun stuff:

TRICKS: Run it if you want make sure I know there is one and make sure it is warranted enough to win the round. I will flow them till first final but at that point your oppnent saying to late is enough so keep it in case and rebuttal pls

Presumption: I presume neg by default but any warrants until first final are fine by me to switch.

Theory: Do as you wish i will evaluvate anything and extend it well

Kritiks: Cool with it just slow down with them especially for tags and in summary and final simplify it down

Interupting your partner is cool with me and making them repeat after you is fine but I will only flow what they say down so be warned and make sure it is extra clear to me who is saying what you might loose some speaks if I think its mean and your giving your partner bad advice but other then that do your thing

ALSO:

I have personal beliefs about norms and things but I try not to let it interfere. I might believe paraphrasing is not good, but you could just as easily read a must paraphrase shell on me and win, or win against disclosure theory. Rules and norms are supposed to be debatable, so you won't see me giving you an L because of my out-of-round beliefs. So run what you want, I’m cool with it.

MOST IMPORTANT

In the end, have fun, ball out, do your thing, don’t cry, and if you honestly think I made a wrong decision tell me why. I am begging you, email me or find me and argue with me for hours and get feedback. The decision won’t get changed but if you’re right and I messed up, I owe you oreos.

Just have fun its not that deep

debated for a year on the ms circuit for bergen and two years for ardrey kell on the nat circuit

for non varsity divisions:

none of the stuff under this will make any sense really so in general just try your best

I care much more about argumentation then presentation but if presentation is horrible it will factor into your speaks (not the decision)

give me comparisons of impacts in round please

varsity only below

tldr:

tech judge, speed ok, theory ok, tech > truth

put me on that email chain: sheaustin42@gmail.com

in round:

preflow before round

just tell me where you're starting & signpost, no offtime roadmaps

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u don't send docs with cards i'll cap ur speaks at 27 and you should take no more than 5 minutes to prep a card doc

if you need time to send a marked doc im taking it out of your prep cuz it really should not take that long - stop trying to steal prep

if u spread: send speech docs, however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow - i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go fast (but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be implicated and weighed in rebuttal to be voted for

i have a pretty high threshold for what i consider turns - i need uniqueness, impact, and weighing

do not try to blow something up in the next speech when it wasn't implicated in the prior one--i will not evaluate it

i don't believe in probability + clarity of anything weighing

meta weighing makes me happy

so does weighing AGAINST YOUR OPPONENTS IMPACTS; actually talk about their impacts, dont just talk about yours

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

cross:

i will be playing brawl stars in cross so no guarantees i hear everything

cross is binding but reference it in speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

i like open cross

evidence:

warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev > unwarranted uncarded analysis

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or if i want to use it in my case!

strike me if you don't cut cards

i hate bad evidence ethics which means no brackets

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

i hate nonchalant cx please actually put effort into cross

evidence challenges:

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

Ks:

i like Ks and most of them are very interesting but also complex please do not blaze through 20 pages of random long words strung together and pretend like anyone can understand it

idk how tricks work i'll try to evaluate them

running prog just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

theory:

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

i default: disclo good, OS good, para bad, brackets bad, no rvis, CI > R, spirit > text, DTD > DTA

things i wont evaluate:

- any __ist or ___phobic arguments and no i don't care if some old guy says anything different

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (unless tourney rules prohibit it), just ask

postrounding and being a sore loser are not mutually exclusive, im fine with the former not the latter

if you have any questions prior to the round or after feel free to email me (preferably ask me in the room, im a very lazy typer)

*side note: debate should be fun--run whatever makes you laugh (so long as your opponents are also okay with that type of round)

if you include a VCT reference i'll give you 30 speaks

--if you're not weighing you're not winning.

--interact with the other side's weighing.

--i will flow but you need to signpost or i'll stop.

--if a round gets too messy to follow, i'm voting off of who had aesthetically better arguments.

--don't spread. don't even speak that fast.

pf:

--please collapse before second summary.

--don't abuse prep time

--don't be a jerk, especially in cross.

--add me to evidence chains michael.sorgen26@trinityschoolnyc.org

parli:

-- get the coinflip done and choose fast.

-- if you are clearly hogging time before prep, that will be reflected in speaks.

-- introducing yourself and any road maps are part of your time.

-- opposition constructive has to respond to government constructive.

-- if you run any framework that isn't material net benefits for all people or a certain group, you need to thoroughly explain it to me if you want me to evaluate it at all, and even then i'm gonna be skeptical.

-- follow the nypdl rules and don't run progressive forms of argumentation (i.e. theory, k's, etc.)

--highest possible speaks if you drop 10 rupaul's drag race references in a speech.

good luck!!

I'm Lilly, the Trinity PF captain. My email is lilly.spitzer26@trinityschoolnyc.org

What I look for in a round:

-Weighing: weigh as early as possible in the round and make your weighing comparative (interact with your opponents' impacts.)

-Extensions: if you do not extend your arguments, I will not flow them.

-Signposting: please tell me where you are on the flow as you make your arguments.

-Warranting: warrant out every argument you make!

Hey

tech > truth

> Extend extend extend. Extend until FF

> Weigh. Preferably early enough. Pls do comparative weighing

> Stay on time +/- 10 secs --> use all speech time lol even if you have to yap about something silly

> Unless your opps cards are crazy abusive: don't have card wars!! BTW you can still indict, just stop spam calling for card- esp when it's common knowledge

> ill give you extra speaks if youre funny

Hello, I'm Andrew Xin. I've been debating for over a year in local circuits for Sharon.

I'd say I'm a flay judge. Don't try and pull some wacky stuff, no shoe theory, no funny stuff. Truth over tech. I want cases that are easy to understand, that will make sense in the real world. The easier you make it for me, the more likely I am to vote for you. If you say something without telling me where it is, it's probably not going anywhere. Fully flesh out weighing, if you just say a weighing mechanism without explaining it I am not going to be voting on it.

I'll mow your lawn at a base of 25.

Also be on time.

Also generally try to be a good person.
Speaks start at 28.

Guess my favorite music genre for speaks.