Basically, I'm a flow/tech judge.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I debated for a long time and coached for a long time. I'm a lawyer now, but not in a detached "PF is a public speaking event" kind of way; I vote for the arguments that win.

(If you're looking for the other Bilal: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=21177)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

~~~MY PARADIGM~~~

My philosophy is that you all put a lot of effort into this activity, and it's my onus to adjudicate every round thoroughly. If you feel like I'm failing to do this in any way, pls call me out.

TL;DR: If I'm being real, I overwhelmingly and shamelessly vote off of the warrant debate. If you're winning the reasons that something will/won't happen (which means you're extending them specifically, and are being responsive to your opponents' answers) then you're almost certainly winning my ballot. All things equal, I will vote for a team with a clear warrant over a team with a warrantless impact card. Please do not hesitate to go straight for the warrant-level and spend your time there; I will gladly track internal links.

Additionally, please read your citations as clearly as possible.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

General Stuff worth noting:

1) I haven't done prep on this topic, so don't assume I'm already familiar with your evidence/arguments.

2) I'm fine with jargon, but don't exclude your opponents. I'm fine with swearing, but don't insult your opponents.

3) Be comfortable. I don't care about your attire/formality.

4) Speed: I don't mind, but please slow down for taglines. Slow down if your opponents tell you to. If you simply cannot resist going into x-games mode, give your opponents a copy of your speech beforehand.

5) I pay attention to crossfire, but I don't flow it; if something important happened, mention it in your speech if you want me to vote on it.

6) Framework is always the first thing I evaluate on my ballot. I vote for the team that wins under the winning framework. If only one team discusses/extends framework, that's what I default to. If there's no framework in the round, I default to generic cost/benefit.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Theory:

I debated in college, and am fine with theory. There are issues with PF that I wouldn't mind seeing addressed. If you're reading theory in front of me, it needs some structure, but mostly I just need a Role of the Ballot so I have an understanding of what you want me to do. YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOUR OPPONENTS, TOO. I'm significantly less likely to vote on potential/theoretical abuse than on in-round/demonstrated abuse. I also retain the right to intervene, somewhat, on questions of theory - especially ones that involve me as a judge - in a way that I don't for post-fiat args.

If you have questions about this, please ask me before the round.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

My email is bilalsaskari@gmail.com for questions, etc. I keep all of my flows on my computer.

Hello,

I will be entering law school the fall of 2024. In undergrad, I debated a few times, but most of my experience with debate comes from high school. There, I did policy debate for three years. Though I am most familiar with policy, I am a generalist in terms of my knowledge of the debate space, having judged rounds of PF, LD, and Congress in the past.

In debate, I care about the formation and presentation of the arguments. To put that clearly, you can use ANY type of argument so long as you effectively communicate your point. I typically do not tell debaters what types of arguments I prefer because I don't want them to conform to my likings. You should debate the way YOU feel most comfortable. When I say I am comfortable with any argument, I mean ANY! (Ks/Aff-Ks, DAs, T, Performance, etc.)

Here are a few notes:

1. You communicate between your partner (if not LD) and your opponents. For example, if you are spreading and your opponent has clearly indicated they can't follow your speed, I will dock speaker points. (I am comfortable with all speeds, so spreading is okay in my book, but it has to be interpretable by your opponent. Debate is an activity about the exchange of ideas, and speed should not inhibit that goal.)

2. There is no such thing as a common-sense argument. By this I mean, do not let anything go left-unsaid. A good tactic here is to go line by line on the flow. Oftentimes, we think we can bypass a point because the argument seems simplistic on its surface, but in reality, it has layers. If we ignore these nuances because they seem common sensical, we miss great chances to reveal nuance.

I think this is meaningful advice for any round because you never know what a judge will end up voting on. Now, I do not mean get lost in the minor details of your opponent's arguments. All I am saying is, engage truthfully and meaningfully with what your opponent is saying.

3. I believe in Low-Point Wins. Frankly, If you are not in a speech event (which debate is not) I do not care about how you speak. I care more about what you say and how it develops your argument not how articulate yourself. The best speaker does not always have the most syllogistically sound argument, and I want to respect this possibility.

Feel free to ask me about my paradigm before round!

I am an experienced varsity-level debater currently competing in PF for Staten Island Technical High School.

Generally, I am open to all arguments but weigh heavily on use of relevant evidence. I should be able to understand your arguments without prior knowledge of the topic. Speed is not a factor in my determinations, but enunciation is key - if I can't understand you, it isn't on my flow. If it's not on my flow, I'm not judging you on it. I appreciate speeches that are well-constructed and clearly define framework/weighing. Calling cards is permissible as per league rules, but do not spend the entire debate arguing sources.

Hello, my name is Connor and I live in New York City. I debated in high school (LD) on the Washington and national circuit from 2008-2012. I am looking forward to getting back into the debate community and I will post some updates to my paradigm as I get a few rounds under my belt!

I competed in PF for three years in high school, worked at two debate camps the summer before college, and worked as a judge/assistant coach for a nationally competitive program for about a year and a half. I also competed in Extemp and Congress in high school and have some limited experience coaching both.

I'm likely very similar to national circuit judges you've encountered before (though I understand PF has changed a bit since I was last a judge in 2017). I have specifics below, but you should definitely ask if you have any other questions. Unless the tournament tells me not to, I'll always disclose and give feedback after round.

• I'll listen to anything including arguments not typically seen in PF (e.g. theory though I know it's becoming much more common).
• I like it when the second speaking team's rebuttal returns to cover their case but will not consider the case dropped in the absence of going back.
• Especially in the scenario that a second speaking team did not go back during rebuttal, I don't think the first speaking team has the burden to extend defensive arguments during their summary. This is a bit murkier if the second speaking team did go back (because really, if they sufficiently addressed the rebuttal, your partner has nothing to go off of since they can't bring up new arguments in final focus) so use your discretion and try not to avoid clash.
• With that said, I'm very conscious to ignore new arguments in the final focus.
• I can handle speed - probably up to novice/intermediate policy debater level but I'll let you know if you're going too fast.
• Paraphrasing is fine with me and was standard practice when I was debating but I understand other judges have qualms about it. Similarly, pre-round disclosure was not the norm and now I see there is significant advocacy to push for it in PF. I don't care to get into why one side is right or wrong on these issues since I no longer really have a preference. If you really feel like the norms make a difference for the activity, by all means, run theory and I'll listen to it. That said, it would be prudent to adapt to other judges on these issues if I'm sitting on a panel.
• Being polite goes a long way with me for speaker points in prelims. Though I try not to be biased, a cordial team will also have a slight advantage in nabbing my ballot.

Lastly, I'm not affiliated with any school or program that will likely attend a tournament I'm judging at (WI and MN schools only). Feel free to ask for detailed feedback, suggestions, etc. after round. I'm happy to share my thoughts on how you can improve or arguments I think are persuasive on the topic.

Hi! My name is Wren Markman and I debated for three years in the UDL, so I have some experience in Public Forum debate. I typically flow (take notes on) rounds, but I'm not infallible so I still might miss something.

Hey everyone! I'm Zach, and I'm excited to be judging your round!

I'd like to be added to any email chains, my email is zachary.meryn@gmail.com (creative i know)

LD:
Tech>Truth

LARP-1
K-1, I'm familiar with most Ks but for the more high level ones just make sure you do a good job explaining Theory of Power, links, impacts, etc.

Theory-2, I'm down to vote off a theory shell but I have a very low tolerance for friv theory, if you're planning on running more than 2 shells in a given round I'd be careful.

Tricks-4, please don't run tricks I will very rarely vote on them even if they go unanswered.

Phil-2 I love phil in rounds, same with Ks make sure to give in depth explanations so I can follow but the more creative the better and generally I think they make rounds super fun.

Spreadings ok as long as I get a speech doc.

flex prep is alright with me just ask your opponent

dont post round me

PF:
Speed-should be conversational & easy to understand

I'm really big on seeing analytical arguments used to refute opposing points rather than just throwing statistics at each other-I usually vote for the team that can explain WHY they're winning.

Make sure to weigh

Be polite in crossfire

Also if anyone shows me photos of their cat before the round ill give +.1 speaks I love cats.

Hi! I'm a freshman at Hunter College and I debated in high school for two years!

Reminders:

• I encourage you to stand while reading your speeches! (not mandatory if online)
• I will vote on whose impact weighs the most; scope, magnitude, reversibility, prerequisite, time frame, probability
• Ask for evidence! If you are unable to provide evidence for your argument, I will consider it invalid.
• I will judge you based on your speech and delivery, NOT crossfire, but remember to poke holes!!
• USE UP ALL YOUR SPEECH TIME! i will have to deduct speaker points if you have more or less a min remaining (reemphasise your points, read evidence, etc)
• I have no preference regarding speed or volume, as long as you enunciate your words!!

cashapp me $20 to get 30 speaker points ???? (this is a joke)