*if you find this @ randolph, props to you for going above and beyond --> ill explain paradigm in round

ishaanbanerjee6@gmail.com

do:

- weigh

- go as fast as you want

- weigh

- read arguments you understand well

- read evidence

don’t:

- read arguments you don’t understand well

- be mean for no reason

- forget to weigh

- call me judge

- glue your eyes to your computer

- read literal paragraphs from your evidence

this is my third year debating in PF for princeton high school.

add me to the email chain (if needed): ang3192007@gmail.com

notes + preferences:

generally tech>truth.

run fun arguments!

please collapse (i cannot emphasize this enough). the earlier you weigh, the better, and make sure it's comparative. be respectful (no -isms, -ophias, etc.)

make sure you extend and weigh the same in summary and final focus.

no new frontlines or responses in final focus- the purpose of final focus is to review the round and point out how you won.

i won't vote on cross unless you are extremely disrespectful to your opponents (mocking, scoffing, laughing, etc.)

speaks are determined on fluency and rhetoric. speed doesn't matter as long as you're comprehensible.

TLDR: basic flow judge, have fun and be polite to your opponents.

Add me to the email chain at: debate@nicholashagedorn.com

I'm a current senior debating for Princeton High School.

For evaluating the round, I'll look at weighing first. It doesn't matter whether you win your argument if you lose the weighing and your opponents win their arg.

Speaker points are directly proportional to how many times you say the word "nebulous."

27 = 0 times saying the word nebulous

28 = 1 time saying the word nebulous

29 = 5 times saying the word nebulous

30 = 10 times saying the word nebulous AND speaks like my amazing debate partner Will Pittman if you are first speaker AND speaks like my amazing debate partner Sasha Caracalos if you are second speaker

Hi, I'm Vihaan! I debate for Princeton High School in New Jersey. My emails vihaanjain@gmail.com add me to the chain.

TL:DR at the bottom

General Substance Stuff:

• im fine with speed, just send a doc if ur case/rebuttal is above 900 words(i know 900 isn't that fast, it's just easier so know for a fact i dont miss anything bc i can be lazy) also don't spread on some novices youll get a dirty look and low speaks.
• 2r needs to frontline
• concessions > "dropped" (this makes for more fun weighing/crosapps in the backhalf)
• WEIGH: if you don't tell me why your offense wins, it's very hard to vote for you
• i presume for the team that loses the flip
• defense is NOT STICKY UNLESS your opps extend smthn in 2nd sum that wasn't frontlined in the 2nd rebuttal, so i'll let you bring back new responses because that's abusive. also if its terminal, implicate it as terminal
• the backhalf is super important: i'm impressed by great summaries
• no new stuff in final: new weighing is fine in first final, as long as it doesn't function as defense i.e prereqs, short-circuits, probability weighing – all of that shoulda been in sum
• framing is cool -- just actually make sure you weigh using the framing. "covering the weighing on the framing" is meh, you should prolly implicate it as you go down each argument.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS:

THEORY: i'm cool with it, just a few ground rules.

1. don't run it against a team that hasn't broken at at least ONE VARSITY TOURNAMENT unless its ACTUALLY ABUSE. e.g. if you're running it just to win against some junior varsity/novices, DONT. I'm fine with more fun/frivilous stuff in high level rounds
2. if it fits in an i.v.i, put it in an i.v.i, just makes it easier for everyone involved
3. high theory is meh
4. i default to text>spirit, competing interps, and no r.v.is: that doesn't rep any biases, and you can certainly convince me otherwise.
5. just letting yall know, i debate from a small school, and have seen way too many judges hack for disclosure teams, even if it's ran terribly. It's gotten to the point where there are a few pretty bad disclo teams on the circuit. This isn't to say that I won't vote on disclosure, i'm just letting yall know i won't hack for it(also throwing shade)
6. i don't have anything against paraphrasing, but i also don't love it

KRITIKS:less cool with them, but that's just because of my own competence, not because i dont like them. few things here.

1. i'm somewhat familiar with cap, sec, setcol, but if you start spreading words above 10 syllables, i will be confused
2. if you actually respond to a k's warrant level i'll be impressed
3. impact turns are underused in k rounds, BUT BE CAREFUL. "Cap good" is prolly fine, but don't go and say "setcol good"
4. non topical is fine, but if ur responses to topicality shells are just "the shell silences our voices", i prolly need more than that
5. dont get mad if i make the wrong decision: i'm comparable to an annoying flay/fake flow in a k round

TRICKS:

1. i ran one identity trick thing that wasn't even a trick but also kinda was --- that pretty much sums up my experience with these

*TL;DR*

tabula rasa

Lay --------------x-----Hypertech

*being discriminatory is also an autodrop.

my biggest rule -- MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE INVOLVED

bring me food for 30 speaks.

don't call me "judge", if you need to, call me Vihaan.

good luck!

any offense from 1 rebuttal must be frontlined by second rebuttal or its dropped

pls weigh (also please make it be comparative)

extend. please!

collapse. please!

please frontline. i hate ppl who dont frontline and then start gaslighting the judge

rundown of what im looking for speech by speech

case - jus read case.

1 cross - i prolly wont be listening but this is a good time to clarify anything that you or ur partner is confused about - or if ur jus like that make them concede a piece of uniqueness or warranting - that'll make it a lot more fun for your second speaker in rebuttal

if there's anything of susbtance u want me to note from ANY crossfire - bring it up in a speech.

1 rebuttal- go down their case, respond on the line by line down every argument. remember the types of responses - non uniques, delinks, link turns, impact turns (not recommended), mitigation. (if u dump turns you're so real)

2 rebuttal- FRONTLINE. respond to everything that ur opps just said to ur case FIRST UNLESS it's a bunch of defense on some random argument ur not going for - then it doesn't matter. IF THEY READ A LINK TURN THO U GOTTA RESPOND. also u gotta respond to everything for the argument ur gonna be collapsing on in summary.

• after that go down ur opps case. be sure to get thru every argument!

2 cross - same as first cross - except clear up any misunderstandings or things they said from rebuttal

1 summary- please collapse. i do not want to flow three arguments on the flow. idc if they dropped all three go for 1. also flesh it out - and frontline anything they mighta said abt it in rebuttal.

then weigh. please do this. remember - prereqs, magnitude, probability are the holy trinity. no one cares abt scope. make sure your weighing is comparative - or it actually RESPONDS to the impact of your opponent. (ex. dont say a war kills people which is bad - rather war prereqs economy because without a country in war will have an economy drained by conflict)

finally, go onto ur opps case!remember, it doesn't matter if you win your opponents case if you lose your case and the weighing. that's also why it's the least important. (dont drop it tho). just like case - be sure to go for the responses that are strongest or are dropped.

*no new responses on ur opponents case in summary - that should have been said in rebuttal!

2 summary -literally the same format as before but be sure to respond to anything that they extended onto ur caseon the argument you are going for.(unless it's a turn)

grand cross - imma be honest no one cares. if yall want we can honestly skip this speech

1 + 2 final-wrap up the round! i format my final focuses as my case, weighing, opps case - jus like summary. A final focus should mirror a summary pretty similarly, since the biggest points are gonna be in summary. but in final - be sure to emphasize WHY (x) matters, and why you are winning and ur opps arent. (note that 2 minutes is pretty short tho - space ur time out well!)

Parent Judge

copied and pasted from the legendary Sean Lee

General

Treat me like a flay judge - I strongly prefer to judge slower, well-warranted, and actually coherent rounds rather than the awful current "tech" meta of reading as many contentions as possible and spreading out your opponents in every speech. I'm begging you, please please please slow down, go for less arguments, fully extend link chains and internal links, and actually read warrants for everything (especially frontlines and responses/defense). You do not need to go for every argument on both sides of the flow and speak incredibly fast to win the round -- your speaks will reflect it if you make my life miserable by being incomprehensible. The more moderately you debate, the higher your speaks and chance of winning the round will become.

Prog

Please don't run theory in front of me. My personal thoughts are that paraphrasing has its merits and disclosure is not necessarily a good norm, so do what you will with that information. I can't and would strongly prefer not to evaluate Ks. Tricks -- whatever.

Other preferences: I won't read evidence unless you explicitly tell me to call for it during a speech. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc, and I also probably won't flow more than three contentions. Go fast at your own risk. Feel free to ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round.

Ground Rules:

1. If your name is Audrey, I'm automatically dropping you - and telling you to go to class as my rfd. NO EXCEPTIONS.

2. Don't be screaming during cross. No pulling out new arguments or impacts in FF, especially if your second. If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be:

• in both summary and final
• extend the warrant, not the tagline
• preferably weighed

for scrimmage

im a sophmore - i partner with ethan tauro and if ur debating some of his kids u better win

email: kevinliren@gmail.com if yall have a chain add me

if ur audrey (or her partner) u shld start every speech with a good reason why i shouldn't drop u with 25 speaks

lowk ill evaluate anything i wld rather judge rounds that aren't boring yea i will be flowing!

bring me food or make me laugh for high speaks

if ur name is marco auto w30

but onto actual substantial stuff ig

im a second speaker so wtv u think that means go for it

any offense from 1 rebuttal must be frontlined by second rebuttal or its dropped

pls weigh (also please make it be comparative)

extend. please!

collapse. please!

please frontline. i hate ppl who dont frontline and then start gaslighting the judge

rundown of what im looking for speech by speech

case - jus read case.

1 cross - i prolly wont be listening but this is a good time to clarify anything that you or ur partner is confused about - or if ur jus like that make them concede a piece of uniqueness or warranting - that'll make it a lot more fun for your second speaker in rebuttal

if there's anything of susbtance u want me to note from ANY crossfire - bring it up in a speech.

1 rebuttal - go down their case, respond on the line by line down every argument. remember the types of responses - non uniques, delinks, link turns, impact turns (not recommended), mitigation. (if u dump turns you're so real)

2 rebuttal - FRONTLINE. respond to everything that ur opps just said to ur case FIRST UNLESS it's a bunch of defense on some random argument ur not going for - then it doesn't matter. IF THEY READ A LINK TURN THO U GOTTA RESPOND. also u gotta respond to everything for the argument ur gonna be collapsing on in summary.

• after that go down ur opps case. be sure to get thru every argument!

2 cross - same as first cross - except clear up any misunderstandings or things they said from rebuttal

1 summary - please collapse. i do not want to flow three arguments on the flow. idc if they dropped all three go for 1. also flesh it out - and frontline anything they mighta said abt it in rebuttal.

then weigh. please do this. remember - prereqs, magnitude, probability are the holy trinity. no one cares abt scope. make sure your weighing is comparative - or it actually RESPONDS to the impact of your opponent. (ex. dont say a war kills people which is bad - rather war prereqs economy because without a country in war will have an economy drained by conflict)

finally, go onto ur opps case! remember, it doesn't matter if you win your opponents case if you lose your case and the weighing. that's also why it's the least important. (dont drop it tho). just like case - be sure to go for the responses that are strongest or are dropped.

*no new responses on ur opponents case in summary - that should have been said in rebuttal!

2 summary -literally the same format as before but be sure to respond to anything that they extended onto ur caseon the argument you are going for. (unless it's a turn)

grand cross - imma be honest no one cares. if yall want we can honestly skip this speech

1 + 2 final -wrap up the round! i format my final focuses as my case, weighing, opps case - jus like summary. A final focus should mirror a summary pretty similarly, since the biggest points are gonna be in summary. but in final - be sure to emphasize WHY (x) matters, and why you are winning and ur opps arent. (note that 2 minutes is pretty short tho - space ur time out well!)

so yea gl debate is kinda fun sometimes

Hi I'm Amanda. amanda.ns224@gmail.com

For novices:
Remember to:

• extend your framework
• extend offense under your framework
• weigh between offense
• clearly organize your speech

Good luck!

Here is my no joke paradigm for Princeton Scrimmage:

I'm tech>truth. Don't run k's, theory, tricks, phil, or anything but the resolution in the Princeton Scrimmage. Don't be sexist or racist. That's a nono.

If you replicate the debate style of Ishaan Banerjee, Alex Margulis, Ryan Chen, Veer Prakash, Eshan Ahmed, Rajan Sambandam, Paul Wang, or Nick Budny --I'm auto picking you up.

When I'm judging, I see the round in three main categories: your case, weighing, opps case.

To win my ballot you either need to win:

Your case and the weighing

Your case and their case

When evaluating the round, I look to weighing first when I feel like it. Make me do as little work as possible. If there are two pieces of weighing, tell me which to prefer and why. Whichever team is winning the weighing, I look to their case next. But if they lose their case, and the other team wins their case -- the other team wins the round.

Some rules for the back-half

• everything must be in both summary and final for it to be on my ballot.
• extend the warrant, not the tagline (like don't say that aff relieves the wealth gap, say that because student debt disproportionately hurts colored borrowers, so relieving it would tenfold black wealth -- and thus close the wealth gap)
• A good extension includes the uniqueness (what's happening right now), the link (how affirming changes what's happening), the internal link (how your link leads to your impact), and your impact THE MOST IMPORTANT (why your argument matters)
• preferably weighed everything (this includes turns if you want offense)

Case:

Speed is fine, if it is too fast or I can't understand you, I'll ask for your case for both my flow and to run at P-Classic.

Rebuttal:

Cover everything, don't be dropping stuff. Everything on your opponent's case in the back-half should start in rebuttal. Make sure you spread out your time efficiently.

Summary:

Your case (Extend, Frontline, Weigh), Weighing (Extend, Frontline, Weigh), and Defense (Extend, Frontline, Weigh).

FF:

Condense summary into 2 minutes.

Speaks:

31: I recommend this website for you want to be the best debater ever. You truly deserve to win this tournament. https://tinyurl.com/4mzh2t9u

30: You completely blew my mind. You completely controlled cross and gave outstanding speeches. I expect you to be in at least semi's.

29.5: Excellent debater. I expend to see you in the elimination rounds.

29: Solid debater. Solid round.

28.5: You're a good debater. Right amount of everything, just wish you were a little more aggressive.

28: Everyone starts with a 28. This is the average speaker points. Try to aim higher.

27.5: Hey nice try, but not your best round...

27: You got steamrolled... I know how it feels...

26: You lied in you speech or brought something new up in FF.

I'm a Varsity PF debater at Princeton High School

Email: aishsvedula@gmail.com

Scrimmage:

Congrats on your first time debating! Remember not to stress but try your best, this is just practice to help you improve as you continue with debate in the future.

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before and after the round, I'll be happy to give any advice or pointers!

Also, please be respectful to your opponents during the debate.

There are a couple things I want to point out regarding speeches:

2nd Rebuttal - make sure to respond to your opponent's rebuttal as well as their case. Frontlining is crucial, which can also be said about summary and final focus.

Crossfire - again, please be respectful! Crossfire is an excellent opportunity to clarify your opponents arguments and to point out the potential flaws in their argument. Try to make your opponents argument seem weak, and get them to concede something. (I won't vote off of crossfire, but parent judges may do this).

Summary - make sure to extend your main contention/argument in your summary! This is crucial to set up the rest of your summary, including frontlining and weighing. In order to vote for your side, I need to clearly see what you win on and why.

Final Focus - DO NOT bring up new information in Final Focus. Instead, provide a review on the round and why you win. Follow a similar format to summary: collapse, frontline, and weigh. You should use the same weighing mechanisms your partner used in Summary.

READ MY PARADIGM IN FULL, IT WILL HELP YOU

For Parli, scroll down

copied and pasted from the legendary Sean Lee, TL;DR at bottom

General

Treat me like a flay judge - I strongly prefer to judge slower, well-warranted, and actually coherent rounds rather than the awful current "tech" meta of reading as many contentions as possible and spreading out your opponents in every speech. I'm begging you, please please please slow down, go for less arguments, fully extend link chains and internal links, and actually read warrants for everything (especially frontlines and responses/defense). You do not need to go for every argument on both sides of the flow and speak incredibly fast to win the round -- your speaks will reflect it if you make my life miserable by being incomprehensible. The more moderately you debate, the higher your speaks and chance of winning the round will become.

Prog

Please don't run theory in front of me. My personal thoughts are that paraphrasing has its merits and disclosure is not necessarily a good norm, so do what you will with that information. I can't and would strongly prefer not to evaluate Ks. Tricks -- whatever.

Other preferences: I won't read evidence unless you explicitly tell me to call for it during a speech. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc, and I also probably won't flow more than three contentions. Go fast at your own risk. Feel free to ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round.

If your name is Audrey, you cannot lose the round. If you end up losing my ballot, I'm joining the cult and telling you to go back to class.

*If you go my time starts in 3 2 1 and land a bottle flip i'll give you an automatic 30 speaker points*

TL;DR

Slow and steady wins the race, I'd rather you really explain 1 argument than blip out 5.

Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm, how I viewed the round, etc.

***************PARLI***************** >:D

As you can probably tell, I'm a PF Debater, I'm generally okay with speaking speed (but i prefer conversational speaking speed) and understand the flow decently.

I'll evaluate the flow first when making my decision, so if you do a good job covering that then you have a pretty good shot at wining my ballot.

If the round gets messy I'll look to the weighing. PLEASE WEIGH, but don't just tell me something like "deaths are irreversible", I think it's overrused, don't have it be your only piece of weighing. Using some link-ins, prereqs, or short circuits and I'll probably find your weighing really convincing.

I think POI's are a fun concept, so if you're asked a couple please try to answer one, after you've done that I think it's acceptable to continue with your speech. If you're asking the POI, I don't really care how much you ask until I feel it's beginning to get abusive and like half the speech is just answering your questions.

Obviously give POCs or POO's (haha poo) as needed, if you don't bring up that they've misunderstood what you've said or bring up something new I'm giving it to them. It's up to you to catch those and bring it to my attention.

Don't make definitions abusive, apparently if the Gov gives abusive definitions and I agree with the Opp that it's abusive it's an auto-win for the Opp, so...

Don't take everything so seriously, have fun and maybe crack some jokes. (if the motion turns out to be a serious topic, I assume you'll have fair judgement of when it would and wouldn't be appropriate)

(I'll try to give Parli - appropriate speaker points, I know PF has a bit of a different "grading system" but I'll do my best to be fair)

You know the gist, please be respectful, nothing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you. This goes for the very start of the round when you receive your motions, to after I've made my decision.

Good luck guys

I am a parent judge.

I prefer arguments be delivered clearly and not too fast.

It is ok to be passionate. But please remember to be respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Please time yourself and let me know if you are going to take pre time.

Your overall performance, including the quality of arguments, evidence, and style, will help me determine the winner of the round.

My email is feiyang007@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain if there is one.

I'm a PHS sophomore, I've debated for around a year.

Throughout the round, be respectful, but also advocate for yourself.

No racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc or being problematic in general you will be dropped!

Treat me as a flay, so use lay appeal.

Extend your arguments in every speech, or it will be dropped.

Weigh, or else I don't know why you're winning.

Crossfire will not be flowed, I will start playing on my phone until it ends.

Summary:
Collapseif you can, obviously every round has what works better, but in general collapse to make it cleaner. The round that you think is an "exception" to this rule is probably not...

Final Focus should be as clean as possible and lay out every reason why you should get the vote.

If you're a novice running progressive, don't. If your opponent uses discriminatory content I will auto drop, you can briefly mention it to remind me in speech, but don't go into a full shell or anything. Also don't bring it up after second summary it's too late...

And have fun and believe in yourself!!!

If your name is Audrey, good luck!!