I was a high school debater but haven't been around debate in many years.

I'm pretty flexible about what you run in front of me as long as it is written well.

Speed- Spreading is fine, but be clear. I'll say clear 2x, but after that if I cannot understand you I'll stop flowing.

Racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, etc. comments= loss of points.

If you're running against a team/debater who clearly has less experience than you and maybe does not understand what you're doing, you do not need to point that out to me or be rude/condescending towards them; be respectful, teach them something, be kind.

If you have any more specific questions feel free to ask me before round.

im a 3rd year PF debater at Anderson High School

add me to the email chain: ananyaarora2016@gmail.com

Tldr: please be respectful, go slow or send a speech doc, tech > truth, roadmaps + signposting expected starting with rebuttal

Read the bold & underlined stuff for a better understanding or just read the whole thing, whatever works.

General:

tech > truth: I'll vote for any substance argument y'all run, so read what you want as long as it isn't harmful or exclusionary. i'll evaluate anything as long as it is well warranted. if the argument you're running might be triggering, I expect a trigger warning or it's an automatic L25.

speak slowly OR send a speech doc to EVERYONE. I'm fine with speed if you speak clear enough, but if you speak fast (especially in novice) send a doc and send it to EVERYONE so we can ALL follow along

cross should be used to ask any clarifying or leading questions. i'm not flowing cross, however if they concede something in cross, please bring it up in the next speech and I will evaluate it. I am still listening to cross though, so please be respectful. I especially hate it when debaters are rude during cross and I will dock speaks accordingly.

be nice!! I will dock speaks if you're rude, and yes this includes cross

please don't read progressive arguments (i.e. framework, theory, K's, etc.) in novice. i believe substance debates in novice are more educational anyways.

please please please give me an off-time road map before your speech starts and signpost as you go. in other words, tell me what order you're going to go in your speech (i.e. Aff, neg, weighing), and tell me in your speech when you are switching to a different argument. It doesn't have to be anything too fancy, but it helps me keep track of which arguments are responding to what.

please time your own speeches

Speaks:

based on good in-round strategy and partner cohesion; range from 28-30 unless you're rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

auto 30s if you bring me food/drinks!!

Specifics:

constructive (no need for a roadmap here):If you run stock arguments, you can go slightly fast, but make sure the contention names accurately reflect your argument so I know what the argument is. (i.e please don't call your arguments things like "smoking mirrors") If it's not a stock argument, please go slow or at least slow down on card names and taglines

rebuttal: please give me a roadmap and signpost as you go. frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky

summary: please collapse!!! on one or two arguments, it helps make the round cleaner and easier for me to vote on

a) defense is not sticky!!! In other words, please extend your arguments, even if they weren't responded to, or else it will be considered dropped. On that note, if the argument you extend isn't responded to, PLEASE make sure you mention it

b) Weighing is super important, especially if both teams have similar impacts. I need to know why your argument is more important and why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents impact. Also, please do some meta-weighing (explaining why one type of weighing is more important than the other).

c) give me a road map and sign post

1st Summary: This is arguably the hardest speech in the round cause there's a lot to cover, so I get it if you need to go fast. Just make sure you send a speech doc and please speak clearly.

2nd Summary: No new arguments or evidence here because that's unfair and abusive. If a team does this, please call them out in final focus cause I might miss it.

final: collapse, extend, weigh, tell me why your world is better and how you're winning!! really clean up the round and make it easier for me to vote if it was a messy round. finals can be very persuasive if done right, but i won't be evaluating anything new.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns! I would love to help! My email is at the top, but I'll include it here as well: ananyaarora2016@gmail.com

ied72017@gmail.com

I've been debating public forum at Anderson for 3 years and have plenty of knowledge on the topic already.

PF:

Tech>truth

extend all offense you are going for in every speech

in summary you should be collapsing on one to two arguments

final should be cleaning up the round and make it easier for me to vote if it was a messy round

first cross should be used to either clarify or bring up potential defense (i wont be paying much attention to it anyway)

dont bring up any new arguments or evidence after rebuttal (defense is not sticky)

call the other team out on anything they miss/do wrong dont just let it disappear from my flow

please weigh as much as possible (should be brought up by summary at the latest)

road map before speeches and sign post while your talking please

will give you high speaks based on your organization in your speeches and partner cohesion unless you say something racist, homophobic, etc (if you do ill auto down you)

If you want to run something funny and you actually win it ill vote on it

ill give you auto 30s if you bring me chips/candy/soda

pf debater at anderson

tech > truth

extend offense in summary and final

collapse in 2nd Rebuttal or first summary, don't go for too much

speed is fine, just make it coherent

share speech docs with me, email is samantha.saleen41@gmail.com

weigh weigh weigh, give as many reasons as you can to tell me why your impact matters more, just saying "timeframe" or "we outweigh on mag and scope" is not weighing.

feel free to ask any questions before the round

Speaks

Wont give below a 28 unless your being disrespectful or sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist in that case L 24's if the other team points it out

Progressive Argumentation

I know this is novice so you shouldn't be running this but if you are curious...

I will evaluate theory, but generally you should be able to prove to me why it makes the debate space better.

Put me on the chain -- its1gonbeoff@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech > Truth.

Tech over truth.

Tech over truth.

Everything below is rambling that i'm easily convinced otherwise by, dogma is the single most harmful portion of judging that I as a debater hated. If you feel that I had made an incorrect decision please feel to post round me for an hour, because my duty as a judge is to evaluate the debate correctly.

I have no material predispositions, here's some of my understandings.

Spark is a fantastic argument, and most 2AC's are horrible to it. The best execution of spark usually is a 2NC on AI bad and negative util however go for aliens or whatever I really don't care.

Wipeout is fine, reincarnation is fine, the gregorian time pik is fine.

Please don't take me for K debate's not that i'm not interested in judging them, but rather incompetent at adjudicating them.

Here's how I debated:

take all of these things with a grain of salt. I mean it, your arguments will not effect my decision one bit and I won't hack for anything. These are just my understandings of debate, so I can adjudicate it as technically as possible. Most of these things are ADVICE not predispositions.

Kritiks, after my 4 years of debating I have concluded that the K is irrelevant and everything devolves into some random reps link, a floating pik, or the fiat K. Personally I find the fiat K to be strategic and most affirmatives struggle to answer it, K teams that go for the link struggle with two things

1. Framework, if you are going for a link that is based on the 'reps' then you need to win this
2. Permutation, if you are going for a link that is based on the 'consequence' of the plan, you need an answer to the double bind
3. Alternative, applies to subpoint two, but I find most negative teams struggle to answer the perm double bind.

Kritikal affirmatives, I have concluded your 1AC is irrelevant and all that matters is your 2AC to FWK, the best 2AC's to topicality have a plethora of DA's, and not 50 rephrased 'silencing/exclusion/conformity' DAs.

K v K debates, negative teams struggle with the permutation, you need a coherent link, affirmative teams should use their 2AC DA's to topicality vs the Cap K, negative teams should read 15 links in the block if you want to go for it.

Debate is probably a game structured by competition.

I believe fairness is a superior impact to clash, because I as a debater concluded that the ballot is only a remedy of a procedural violation of unfairness, debate is likely a game structured by competition, and the most persuasive topicality DA's in the status quo such as the K of models, or predictability is subjective struggle vs questions of this round rather than models. Clash is great vs things like the conformity DA/old school FWK DA's, I find clash more compelling on the aff v K. I also just generally don't care what you do, if you really want to debate the K of models then go for it doesn't matter to me.

Affirmatives should recognize that silly arguments that are non-sensical under a question of models, such as 'disclosure checks fairness' become more persuasive under questions of this round.

Policy debate

Process CP's are the greatest and most strategic argument ever invented in the history of debate, and I mean it. The best ways the affirmative can beat it is, through either competition, or a deficit and inb defense often does wonders.

DA's these are great, however you cannot go for the squo and drop the case. I will always try and not DIE, time frame is a nonsensical argument but if the affirmative doesn't answer it correctly/drops it ill err negative. Politics is fine, the rider DA is fine affirmative's 2AC to the rider is horrible, seriously look into it.

Adv CP's these are great but the negative cannot go backfile hunting and paste in the AT: warming planks, you could do this and win debates but at the highest level these won't cut it, however these are an excellent way for the 2A to hate you and make the debate so much more difficult for the affirmative. negative teams should 2NC CP out of Addons or if one of their planks got nuked.

Topicality affirmatives should go for PTIAV more, and I mean so much more. Predictability probably outweighs debatability but will be convinced otherwise, likewise for limits outweighs predictability etc. however, these are uphill battles not because I think these are unwinnable in front of me but rather because the truth of these arguments are incorrect, however if technically executed I will 100% not care.

Theory, arbitrariness is a fantastic argument and is the best impact in my opinion. Logic vs condo is excellent too. Here's why non-resolutional interpertations justify FURTHER amounts of unpredictable bad interpretations which means that an arbitraty ad hoc rule justifies the absolute worst form of your debatability impact. Logic vs condo is great, because it lets you get predictability vs debtability. Negative's burden is to prove both the implicit and explicit oppurtunity costs to the plan, which requires condo. Do I think debate is a logical game? probably, but up for debate.

UQ CP's are fine, watch out for overwhelms.

Ban the plan is incredibly strategic and great. Not sure who's right about net topicality

PIC's are great, word PICs are probably not competitive.

i'm a horrible flow, so go a little bit slower, this is not a fault of you but a fault of me and my laziness to fix it.

I will probably not ask for a card doc, as I feel these to be interventionist however, ill take a look at them in questions like this:

Jack says your author sucks says nothing and card has no warrants.

Jill says your author sucks says nothing and card has no warrants.

not sure if counterplans compete of the resolution or the plan;

offsets might or might not be competitive.

I have no idea what the new topic will be, so please over explain things.

everytime you say the "perception alone" causes something ill be sad but this argument is strategic.

Some debates are truly inadjudicable, and might require me to intervene I hope that your debates aren't bad enough that it needs to break the realm of tech over truth.

When I must intervene.

If undisputed I default to judge kick---it's the most logical extension of conditionality

questions of evidence ethics---ill stop the round accused gets a L 25 if correct, accuser gets a L 25 if incorrect.

feel free to read death good in front of me idrc.

don't say any of the isms/phobias.

Topicality > Procedurals > Theory---this is ONLY in a world like this

Affirmative drops ASPEC

Negative drops Condo

if both teams say ZERO words or does ZERO impact calculus then I will default to ASPEC outweighing condo. Why? Because the procedural controls the internal link to conditionality.

I think zero risk could be real, but in debates it never happens, here's the problem if the other team ever ASSERTS the opposite of your argument, then it's impossible for it to be zero risk. However, if the negative reads a nuclear war impact but drops MAD checks then I believe the impact is zero risk.

Presumption flips to the world of least change.

if both sides have a 100% risk of extinction, I would vote negative on presumption.

if both sides have a 100% risk of case and a 100% risk of a counterplan that solves the case but the affirmative does not extend a permutation, then I would vote affirmative on presumption.

i'm Nick, currently debating at Anderson

Add me to the chain: nicksharma114@gmail.com

tldr: normal pf tech judge

im good with speed, but you should be clear in all speeches, i should be able to flow and understand everything you say.

i love a round with a lot of clash on the flow, make a ton of arguments!

tell me where you are on the flow, lets keep it structured

frontline in second rebuttal

as many judges say, final focus should mirror summary, dont go new in the 2

weighing is very important! good link ins and pre reqs can win a losing round, need to win risk of offense though

theory is fine, but only actual abuses (ie disclo, paraphrasing, round reports, etc) nothing very friv pls

i dont know very much k lit but feel free to educate me in a round (although pf ks kinda suck most of the time)

Tldr: Please be respectful, go slow or send a speech doc, tech > truth, roadmaps and signposting starting with rebuttal. Please please please weigh in summary and final. Don't call me judge.

Put me on the email chain: rosemary.spindler@gmail.com

Bold & underlined stuff is most important or just read the whole thing, whatever works.

General:

tech > truth: I'll vote for any substance argument y'all run, so read what you want as long as it isn't harmful or exclusionary. I'll evaluate anything as long as it is well warranted.

I'm fine with speed if you speak clear enough, but if you speak fast (especially in novice) send a doc.

Cross should be used to ask any clarifying or leading questions. I'm not flowing cross, anything you want me to evaluate has to be brought up in your next speech.

Please don't read progressive arguments in novice. I believe substance debates in novice are more educational.

Give me an off-time road map before your speech starts and signpost as you go. Tell me in your speech when you are switching to a different argument. It doesn't have to be anything too fancy, but it helps me keep track of which arguments are responding to what.

Please time your own speeches!

Speaks:

Based on good in-round strategy and partner cohesion; 28 floor unless you're rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Be confident!

Specifics:

Constructive (no need for a roadmap here):Send case if the other team asks.

Rebuttal: Give me a roadmap and signpost as you go. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky.

Summary: Please collapse on one or maybe two arguments, it helps make the round cleaner and easier for me to vote on.

Defense is not sticky. In other words, please extend your arguments, even if they weren't responded to, or else it will be considered dropped. On that note, if the argument you extend isn't responded to, PLEASE make sure you mention it.

Weighing is super important, especially if both teams have similar impacts. I need to know why your argument is more important and why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents impact. Also, please weigh your weighing! (Why does a higher magnitude mean you win?)

Give me a road map and sign post. This is one of the most important things in round, please please have a structure to your summary and do your best to stick to the roadmap.

2nd Summary: No new arguments or evidence. If a team does this, please call them out in final focus cause I might miss it.

Final: Collapse, extend, weigh, tell me why your world is better and how you're winning!! Really clean up the round and make it easier for me to vote if it was a messy round. Finals can be very persuasive if done right, but I won't be evaluating anything new. I won't vote off anything not brought up in final, don't make me do the work for you.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns!

Hi y'all! My name is Kaavya (she/her) and I graduated in 2024. I did PF for Anderson High School all 4 years og highschool.

Yes, I would love to be included in the email chain! My email iskaavyayal@gmail.com. This is also the best email to reach me if you have any questions after the round.

Tldr: Tech > Truth unless it's a harmful arg (i.e. racism good, sexism good, etc), be nice, prog args are not my forté, I suck with speed, read trigger warnings where appropriate. Read the bold & underlined stuff for a better understanding

General:

1) +0.5 speaks if you bring me food

2) I don't care what you wear to round, I'm most likely showing up in sweats or a t-shirt and yoga pants

3)Speak slowly AND/OR send a speech doc to EVERYONE. I'm horrible with speed, so if you speak fast, send a doc and send it to EVERYONE so we can ALL follow along. There have been instances in my rounds where my opponents tried to send a doc to just the judge and not me or my partner. Don't be like that please. If your opponents aren't on the chain, then leave me out of it too.

4) I don't flow cross, I'm just getting my thoughts organized on my flow. If you brought something up in cross you want me to evaluate, then say it during a speech. But, I am still listening to cross, so please be respectful. I especially hate it when debaters are rude during cross and I will dock speaks accordingly.

5) Tech > truth I'll vote for pretty much anything y'all run, so read what you want EXCEPT for stuff any sort of discrimination good args (i.e. saying racism, sexism, homophobia, etc is good) or the patriarchy doesn't exist args.If the argument you're running might be triggering, I expect a trigger warning or it's an automatic L25.Speaking of, I don’t have topic knowledge, so please spell out any acronyms the first time you mention it so I know what you’re talking about.

6)Prog Args:

Novice PF: NO prog args in novice,or it's an L25. If you want to run prog args in novice, then LD or Policy might be your kind of vibe, but PF is not the right event to do that in.

Varsity PF:

FW: I'm fine with it.

Theory:Fine with theory. I'll evaluate pretty much whatever shell you read, but please make sure to have all the key parts of a shell and extend it like you would a regular arg. I don't expect you to extend the shell in rebuttal, but it MUST be in summary AND final focus for me to evaluate it.

Theory shells I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing, any sort of accessibility-related shells. BUT, PLEASE DON'T RUN THEORY IF IT'S OBVIOUS YOUR OPPONENTS ARE FRESH OUT OF NOVICE AND DON'T KNOW WHAT THEORY IS

PICS: I'll evaluate a PIC, but PICS are so easy to perm, especially when it comes to military-related topics, so it's a pretty risky argument to run IMO.

Any other Prog args: My knowledge of Prog args beyond FW and Theory is pretty limited, so run them at your own risk. I will evaluate literally anything as long as it's not harmful, so I'll believe anything you say if y'all do choose to run anything fancy.

7)Be nice!! I will dock speaks if you're rude, and yes this includes cross

8) Please please please give me an off-time road map before your speech starts and signpost as you go. In other words, tell me what order you're going to go in your speech (i.e. Aff, neg, weighing), and tell me in your speech when you are switching to a different argument. It doesn't have to be anything too fancy, but it helps me keep track of which arguments are responding to what.

9) Time your own speeches please. Speaking of which, please don't be that person that's really obnoxious about your opponents being overtime. I'd say that if they're 10 seconds overtime, then just hold of your stopwatch or something and if they keep going for more than 15 seconds, then just be like "Y'all, that's time" or something.

Speaks: Usually 29-30 unless you're rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. I'll try to leave detailed feedback in my balots and give detailed oral RFD's as well

Speech by speech:

Constructive (no need for a roadmap here)- If you run stock arguments, you can go slightly fast, but make sure the contention names accurately reflect your argument so I know what the argument is. (i.e please don't call your arguments things like "smoking mirrors") If it's not a stock argument, plz go slow so I can understand it or at least send a doc.

Rebuttal: Please give me a roadmap (even if it's just "I'm going down their case"), but more importantly, signpost!! I can't emphasize enough how important signposting is!! Otherwise, I won't know what arguments you were responding to when so you're prob not gonna be happy with my decision at the end of the round

1st rebuttal: I don't care what you read here except for if it's novice, no prog arguments

2nd rebuttal: Make sure you frontline. I get it if you need to speak a little faster here, so send a speech doc and it should be fine

Summary:

General:

a) DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY!!! In other words, please extend your arguments, even if they weren't responded to, or else it will be considered dropped. On that note, if the argument you extend isn't responded to, PLEASE make sure you mention it

b) Weighing is super important, especially if both teams have similar impacts. I need to know why your argument is more important and why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents impact. Also, please give me some meta-weighing (explaining why one type of weighing is more important than the other) cause otherwise, idk which type of weighing to prioritize, which means I have to intervene, and there will definitely be some unhappy debaters

c)Please give me a road map and sign post , or I won’t be able to follow along. For the roadmap, please don’t say “my case, their case” just tell me which side your starting on (I.e aff, neg weighing)

1st Summary: This is arguably the hardest speech in the round cause there's a lot to cover, so I get it if you need to go fast. Just make sure you send a speech doc and please speak clearly.

2nd Summary: No new arguments or evidence here because that's unfair and abusive. If a team does this, please call them out in final focus cause I might miss it.

Final Focus:

1st Final: you don't have to extend everything from summary, but all the things that you do extend should have been in mentioned in summary. At this point in the round, absolutely no new arguments

2nd Final: Same thing as first final, and again don't bring up new stuff in second final focus, that's just cruel

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns! I would love to help! My email is at the top, but I'll include it here as well: kaavyayal@gmail.com