Hi - I've judged several tournaments over the last year and I love hearing different points of view.

First -- make sure I can understand you. If you go fast and mumble, I won't hear your points and will have a hard time following your arguments. Ideally, enumerate your points so I can follow them and keep track of them throughout the argument. If you go fast, make sure I can get your points! Otherwise, focus on what's most important and share that with me.

Second -- use your time! If you have 4 minutes, make the most of it.

Third -- Cite your sources. It is important that you do this so I can compare evidence. Then tell me why those points are important.

Fourth -- (but probably most important) Be respectful. Good sportsmanship and being kind is important to me. If you insult or talk down to the other team, I will not be impressed.

Lastly, listen to the other team.

Good luck!

hi! I have been competing PF for Hunter (Princeton Co-Champion, Harvard Quarterfinalist), and I competed Parli in middle school. My email is juliakraffczyk@hunterschools.org, if anyone wants to add me to their email chain or to send case.

GENERAL

• CLARITY > SPEED. I’m not a fan of spreading, but if you really need to, please send me a copy of your case!
• SIGNPOSTING and off-time roadmaps are greatly appreciated.
• Gov/aff can define terms, but if the framework prohibits opp/neg to win or strays from the resolution, I’ll vote neg.
• Make sure your LINK CHAIN is properly defended and the impact is believable (PFers: if you can’t adequately explain a link in cross, you should reiterate the warranting in a later speech)
• Theory and K’s are accepted, but I’ll always prefer an argument with solid, simple contentions.
• PLEASE don’t be rude (particularly during PF cross. Let everyone speak!) You don’t have to be BFFs with your opponents, but a great team will be able to win without disrespect.

REBUTTAL/WEIGHING

• If you don't frontline a refutation, it will flow through on my end, so EXTEND your best frontlines!
• For weighing, refrain from reading pre-written weighing and instead, interact with your opponents’ case. It is not particularly persuasive or applicable to the round if you don't.

PF SPECIFICS

• Tech > truth
• Collapse during Summary to cut your losses!
• Empirics are important, as well as warranting. Refrain from relying on cards that are just quotes from certain individuals: anyone can say anything.
• I won't judge cross but I will notice if you lack understanding of your link chain or cards.
• FF is a time for WEIGHING. I value this over restating refutations or collapsing (again).
• QUANTIFIED impacts with TIMEFRAME are key

Don’t be any type of -ist. GL and have fun! :)

Hello :) My name is Benejoy (Bene for short). I have debated before in Public Forum before. I'm okay with spreading, just don't go "too" fast or else I won't be able to comprehend what you are saying - PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY.

If you weigh, explain why and what you weigh on, and remember that crossfire does not count unless it is brought up. Always be a good sport and try your best not to interrupt someone when they are talking.

Use your prep time! If you have any questions, let me know.

Hi!! My name is Philijoy, and I attend Staten Island Tech. I've debated for the last 3 years for PF (UDL, MSQI)

Email: philijoy.li1@gmail.com

• I'm okay with spreading as long as you speak clearly so I can hear you. Remember that it is more important for me to hear your contentions and rebuttal than to speak fast. Muffling or whispering doesn't help me, your opponents, or yourself.
• I don't like it when people talk over each other in cross. It's good to be assertive but be mindful of yourself
• Please be respectful when talking with one another

Anything racist/homophobic/abelist/sexist etc. or any other discriminatory language/behavior will result in an L with very low speaks. Don't be unnecessarily rude or aggressive, especially in cross >:(

Speeches:

• 2-3 contentions, please don't have a contention for everything you can think of
• Make sure to weigh in your summary
• Tell me why your impacts are the most important impacts in the round (magnitude/probability/timeframe etc) and compare them to your opponent's impacts!
• Please don't bring up new contentions or arguments in the final focus/summary (If you do I will not be weighing them)
• Make sure your rebuttals actually refute the opponent's arguments instead of using your own contentions to counter
• Crossfires will not be weighed in the final ballot. If you want me to weigh them pls talk about them in your summary/final focus (bring them up)
• If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence and you don't have it, the evidence will not be weighed in the final ballot

I suggest that you collapse on the contentions or rebuttals that are strongest, and focus on them

Other tips: Preptime is there to help you!! So do your best to use it :)
Try not to stress and remember to have fun

GL to both teams!

Email: Sundaywithhegel@gmail.com yes-- i wanna be on the email chain

Short Ver

Tech > Truth, you still need to do the hard work to implicate everything for me, I will not be debating for you.

Spin > Ev quality, unless spin is nowhere consistent with any parts of the ev.

Limits > Ground precisely because of ground.

Judge kicking bad but will do if you convince me of the abuse.

Infinite condo good, or more precisely, is justified.

Disclosure good-- LD's disclosure practices have traumatized me, I will vote off disclosure.

Zero risk is a thing-- if you don't make the link story coherent and force me to do the work, man thats gonna be a pain to write the RFD for and I'll likely vote neg off presumption.

Death Bad, been there done that-- sorta ran death good arguments before, if you go for totalizing arguments especially with VTL, only my VTL will be taken away-- be smart and go for link turns with death arguments.

Fairness is not an impact-- I'll be more convinced fairness is more of an internal link to education than an impact itself, but I do think its the most strategic impact to go for because it best accesses education.

Aff gets the perm against Ks-- its up to the aff to prove competition with the alt and mutual exclusivity, especially if the 2NR goes for a link of omission I find that the 2ar's best strat is just the perm. I think its fair and very reasonable that the aff gets to fight against neg tactics that are centered around "you link you lose"-- weak ontology can be very persuasive if you can execute it correctly against a strong ontology claim.

Long Ver

T/L: I'm a policy oriented debater that enjoys reading philosophy and recently picked up reading IR and domestic politics on the side. I mainly ran poorly made Ks in my sophomore year because I was desperate to try something that made me feel cool but I'm transitioning to more policy with a side of kritiks

1 -- Larp, Ks:

Policy V Policy

T/L Aff should garner offense through their solvency and I'm happy with judging up to 6 off from the neg. The neg can default to the squo but make sure your uniqueness is enough to defend a 2ar going for try or die, I think an aff ballot becomes very easy when the neg still triggers an extinction impact even if the judge votes neg despite the minimum risk for aff solvency --

DA's are great and cool and neg shouldn't be robbed of their ground just make sure to do the link debate for me and have some external impact. I'll think I'm more likely to pull the trigger on/against DAs due to uniqueness and impact defense from the aff.

CP debating is something I need to learn more about, I agree with Hirn that competition debate is a lost art and that aff's often let neg get away with murder-- though honestly most aff's have really wonky link chains. The counterplans should both be functionally and textually competitive because it's honestly not a really high threshold but I'm open minded to just functional competition being the norm. I can't follow with really complicated theoretical debates around counterplans mainly because I haven't watched that many rounds involving cp competition but if you signpost clearly I'll also do my best.

Policy V K aka clash rounds are great, having good link analysis from the neg + 2nr fwk and impact turn or perm strats from the aff makes me really happy. I'm fine with kicking the alt in the 2nr and going for fwk but just do the impact calculus for me. Aff wise-- you get the perm(look at my thoughts on aff v K perm) but I think absent of embodiment arguments, impact turning is heavily under utilized.

K lit wise, I'm familiar with most of the bastards of Nietzsche and Kojeve. Foucault, Bataille, Derrida-- I've made files and ran their arguments, baudrillard and deleuze however are people I'm still trying to wrap my head around. I've been reading a lot more on pess and queer theory recently too-- warren, puar, halberstam-- but don't trust me to be the best judge.

K v K debates can get really messy mainly because debate's so good at abstracting the forms of violence each theory is describing(tho my hot take is that all K's are just either derivatives of cap or psychoanalysis) but I'm very open minded to a good kaff, I side with a good debate on FWK or the perm finds my ballot easier. Also if you're running the cap K + T against a Kaff, you better exploit your explanatory power and do clear link analysis and the neg ballot becomes very alluring.

2 -- T:

I think topicality is a DA to the content of the aff-- but topicality is a DA on a procedural level and not necessarily a structural level. I think T/L wise its about models of debate, and procedural violation can act as links but are not necessarily what I'll pull the trigger for.

3 -- Phil/ Theory:

Don't have much to say-- Analytical philosophy can be very strategic sometimes but I find that often it's just hella abusive and made with weak arguments. Deontology or virtue ethics can be really strategic against policy affs tho :3 just saying

Don't run frivolous shells-- will go 26 on you even if you win on it.

I default to the following:

CI > Reasonability

Predictability > Limits for sake of limits

Debate/Education good

Yes RVIs good

Drop the argument

Strike -- Tricks, sorry I've never touched tricks before so I can't judge a tricks round lol

Hi, I’m a higher schooler who has debated in all 3 years of middle school. Here are some of my preferences for the debate round:

• Please project your voice and make sure you are heard. Please don’t speak too fast as this can increase the chances of the information you are trying to put out to be missed by both your opponents and I.
• When weighing, please explain how/why you are weighing on what you are weighing on. Don’t just state “we weigh on____” and end it there.
• When a side asks for a card/evidence, prep time won’t be run for the side providing the evidence (just make sure you provide the evidence in a reasonable amount of time). Once that evidence is provided, prep time will be run for the side that asked for the card/evidence (as they are reading over that card/evidence).
• I don’t judge on crossfire, so make sure to bring it up in other parts of the speech if you want me to judge on something that was said in the crossfire.
• Roadmaps are allowed
• I encourage using prep time to your advantage!
• Lastly, please stay respectful throughout the debate

Good luck! :)

Hey! My name is Anna Rams, she/her, and I am a sophomore in high school. This is also my fifth year participating in Speech & Debate, with categories including Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, and Congress.

Please let me know if you have any questions about any decisions made during a round.

Please signpost and weigh throughout the round. Also, with weighing, please make your weighing more than one sentence. Elaboration is key.

No stress about stuttering; I care more about if your arguments get across. However, if I cannot understand your speech (excessive mumbling, screaming, spreading, etc,) there will be more speaker points taken off.

I won’t count cross as part of the debate, only when points brought up in cross are carried on in a summary/final focus.

I will keep time in the round, both for the formality of the debate, and for my judging. Feel free to keep your own time throughout the round.

Most importantly, just enjoy yourself and have fun!

Hi! I'm Alessia sgroi , freshman student at CSI high school for international studies. This is my 3rd year debating and im fairly new to judging . Here are my debate preferences...

Clarity>speed

impact calc is preferred , esp if you bring up how it impacts further generations

Off time roadmaps are fine , don't make them too long though

Don't bring up new points after 2nd speaker cross.

The more passionate you are while you deliver your speech , the better you come across!

Deliver your speeches to me, your arguments are meant to convince me , not the opposing team

Final focus means the most to me. You should be writing my ballot for me . Don't spend too much time recapping , spend more time weighing on how your side is more worthy of the AFF/neg ballot and how ur contentions are more impactful.

Be respectful through crossfire! Its great when your enthusiastic through cross but please dont yell at the other side, make faces , etc. Also do not interrupt through speeches

Impact calc/magnitude plss!

BE LOUD PLEASE!!! Project your voice to me as you read your speech , and if your going to spread , spread LOUDLLYYY!!!

Taking these points into mind will be in your best interest if you want me to cast your ballot for your team .That's all! Have fun ;3

Hey there! I'm Shifa, and I attend Brooklyn Technical Highschool. Here are some of my preferences that would help me ensure I've heard and fully understood all of what you had to say;

• I am okay with fast talking, but REALLY REALLY FAST talking/spreading would make it harder for me to jot down many notes on your contentions/rebuttals, resulting in me not being able to consider the things you said when I decide who won. Speak at a pace where you know I heard all of your contentions/rebuttals. Always case>speed!
• Speak at a volume where your opponents and I can hear you clearly so I hear all arguments/rebuttals ????

Here are some tips that would make your argument stronger!

• If you weigh, don't just say "We weigh on ___." explain how and why you guys can weigh on whatever you are weighing on. This makes your argument stronger.
• Make sure your evidence is clear, ask for cards if you need! However, don't just ask for cards back and forth in the middle of the round
• Use the prep time to your advantage! Using prep time would help you brainstorm responses and that is very important!!!!!!!!!!
• CF does not count as a part of your case, so no worries

Off-time roadmaps are completely fine. No new points at any time after 2nd speaker cf, so make sure you get through all your points before. Do not be rude nor sassy, maintain formality and be polite.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, let me know in the beginning of the round. Have fun!

Hi

I'm a pretty experienced middle/high school PF debater (you can check my tab if you want: Hunter TS) -- this is my third year

I'm very slightly tech > truth -- but arguments that seem blatantly wrong will not be weighed

I would appreciate it if you stand every speech (don't need to during cx)

During every speech (I get this may be hard for constructive or rebuttal if you read a blockfile) please try to make eye contact a few times -- this will increase your speaks

Constructive: I’m fine with a bit of speed (~230wpm) -- but feel free to run a “speed test” (not your case) with me before the round. Every contention needs a clear link and impact. I assume your framework is util unless specified otherwise. I don’t really like K’s, but I am fine with most theory (as long as it isn’t friv). I also appreciate unique arguments (beyond what’s in the topic lectures) -- it just makes the round more interesting.

Rebuttal: Dump as many responses as you'd like. You need to frontline in second rebuttal or I will consider responses dropped otherwise. Turns should be implicated and warranted well the first time they are read if you plan on sticking with them.

Summary: Signpost! Please extend defense in first summary. Nothing is sticky. Extend all parts of the argument that you are going for (this includes uniqueness, link, and impact) with clear warrants. Weighing must start in summary at the latest. Be efficient -- you should not need to spread in back half speeches if you are collapsing strategically.

Final Focus: I will not vote for any arguments that are not explicitly explained in the final focus speeches. I will not flow any new responses and will not evaluate new weighing that isn't a response to previous weighing. You must also fully extend your arguments in final focus to win it.

Misc:

-Do not misconstrue evidence. If your opponents call you out on this, I will drop your contention and give you low speaks. Do not take more than 1:30 to pull up evidence; I will start running your prep. You do not need to have cut cards in MS, but it would be appreciated. If you do not, you must help your opponent find the info from your source and only then will their prep start.

-I will give you a 15 second grace to finish a speech or your last sentence

-Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts if anything is confusing

-I will disclose my decision after every debate. Postround as much as you want and feel free to ask questions about my decision. I would be happy to give speech-by-speech feedback and offer tips for improvement as well

-Have fun and be respectful; I will not tolerate rudeness or discrimination of any kind

-Looking forward to a great round (I am a nice guy in person)!

Email: dextertheisen@hunterschools.com

Shouts to Belmin Rama for being an outstanding PF coach.

Also shouts to Karina Samuel for being a great PF instructor. This paradigm is an adaptation of hers.

Hello, My name is Alma van Schaik and I have been in debate for over 4 years. I'm currently a debater, researcher, judge, and grant writer for my high school's debate team.

Here are some tips/ some of my preferences to know before the round:

• I'm okay with most speech paces! As long as you articulate, don’t worry about your speed.
• I will be timing your speeches, I expect you to be timing yourself as well. Please stay within your speech times!
• I'm expecting you to provide impacts, evidence, and weigh your arguments.

Lastly, remember to be compassionate, remain respectful, and have fun!

I am a high school national circuit debater. I understand the lingo, and can keep up with speed, but I don’t appreciate spreading. I flow.

I will vote off of good, extended weighing. Do not just say numbers, directly compare your argument’s impacts and your opponent’s.

If your opponent calls for a card and it takes over a minute for you to get it, your prep time will begin. If it takes over 3 minutes, you don't have the card.

I will disclose my decisions if debaters prefer.

I am tech>truth.

Defense is NOT STICKY.

All arguments need to be warranted and have clear impacts, all responses must be implicated.

Be confident, and have fun!

Hello everyone, I am an experienced High School PF varsity debater. I lean tech, but I will definitely not evaluate blatantly wrong arguments at their full weight/probability. I am comfortable with spreading, but I would prefer if you shared a speech doc (even if you don't plan on spreading, speech docs allow me to create more accurate flows). A few other things:

• Remember to frontline: if you don't respond to a rebuttal in the next speech, it goes clean conceded and it's difficult to recover from that.
• Remember to weigh: at the end of the round you should tell me who's winning by weighing. Also, it's important for your weighing to interact with the opponents --> e.g. if you use 2 weighing mechanisms and they use 2 different ones, do metaweighing to compare the mechanisms.
• Feel free to ask me questions and if you're starting an email chain please include me. My email is calderweiss@hunterschools.orog

flow judge

Hi, I’ve been doing pf for 2 years, now judging debates when i’m available

Mainly looking for weighing and numbers so i can understand your arguments better

I will not be judging crossfire and will only take points from cf in consideration if they are brought up in other sections of the debate

Feel free to be passionate in your points, but please refrain from being aggressive or especially rude in the round.

thanks for listening and have fun!