Tabroom.com

TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 3

2024 — Online, KY/US

PF - Rising Star Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Varsha Alurkar Dougherty Valley High School

Amy Bauschard Lakeland

Stefan Bauschard Lakeland

Sandy Berkowitz The Blake School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:47 PM CDT

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN), where I teach communication and coach Public Forum, World Schools, Policy, and Congressional Debate. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

I debated policy in high school and college and began coaching in the early 1980s. In addition to the events listed above, I have coached and judged Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Oratory, Rhetorical Criticism/Great Speeches, Informative, Discussion, and (and to a lesser extent) Interp events, at variety of schools in IL, NY, NC, MN, MI, ME, and CA.

Public Forum

Fundamentally, I believe that PF provides debaters with opportunities to engage and debate key issues of the day before experienced debate and community judges. It is useful and important to understand and adapt to a judge’s preferences. So, for me:

General issues

--The crux of PF is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that relate to the resolution, are well organized, well warranted, and supported with quality evidence that is explained.

--Good analytical arguments are useful but not normally sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument.

--I flow. But, clarity is your responsibility and is key to a good debate.

Evidence Ethics

--Evidence is critical to building good arguments and that includes warrants. Use academically rigorous and journalistic sources to support your arguments. Offering a laundry list of 5-10 names with few warrants or methodology is not persuasive.

--Proper citation is essential. That does not mean “University X” says. A university did not do the study or write the article. Someone did. Source name and date is required for oral source citation. Providing qualifications orally can definitely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. The complete written citation (including source name, date, source, title, access date, url, quals, and page numbers) must be provided when asked in the round.

--Exchange of evidence is mandatory when requested. There is not infinite prep time to find evidence. If it takes you more than a minute to find a card when asked, or all you can provide is a 50 page pdf, then I will disregard it.

--Paraphrasing is not as persuasive as reading cards and using the evidence appropriately to develop and deepen your arguments.

--If you have misconstrued evidence, your entire argument can be disregarded.

--Evaluate your own and your opponents’ evidence as part of your comparative analysis.

Strategic issues

--Extending arguments goes beyond authors and tag lines. Extend and develop the arguments.

--Narrative is key. Debate is inherently persuasive. Connect the arguments and tell a story.

--It is in the best interest of the second speaking team for the rebuttalist to rebuild their case. If the 2nd speaking team does not do that, they likely yield the strategic advantage to the 1st speaking team.

--Avoid Grand becoming yelling match, which is not useful to anyone.

--Clash is critical. It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. Write the ballot in the final focus.

Delivery and Decorum

--PF, and all debate, is inherently a communication activity. Speed is fine, but clarity is absolutely necessary. If you unclear or blippy, you do so at your own peril.

--Be smart. Be assertive. Be engaging. But, do not be a bully.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Finally, have fun and enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day.

World Schools

Worlds is an exciting debate format that is different from other US debate and speech formats. It is important for you to understand and adapt to the different assumptions and styles of Worlds. Content (the interpretation of the motion [definitions, model, stance], arguments, analysis, and examples), Style (verbal and nonverbal presentation elements), and Strategy (organization, decision making, engagement, and time allocation) all factor in to the decision and should be seen as critical and interrelated areas. Some things to consider:

--As Aristotle noted, we are influenced by both logos and pathos appeals, which you should develop through both examples and analysis. Thus, narratives are critical. Not just a story to “put a face on the motion,” but an overall narrative for your side of the debate.

--Motions are, in most cases, internationally, globally focused and your examples and analysis should reflect that.

--Have multiple, varied, and international examples that are used not only in the first speeches, but are also developed further and added in the second and third speeches to be more persuasive.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--POIs can be statements or questions and are a key element of engagement during the debate. Questioners should be strategic in what to pose and when. Speakers should purposefully choose to take POIs and smartly respond to them. Typically, speakers will take 1-2 questions per constructive speech, but that is the speaker’s strategic choice.

--Importantly, carry things down the bench. Answer the arguments of the other side. Rebuild and develop your arguments. Engage in comparative analysis.

--Third speeches should focus the debate around clash points or key questions or key issues. Narrow the debate and offer comparative analysis.

--Reply speeches should not include new arguments. But, the speech should build on the third speech (especially in the opp block), identify key voting issues, and explain why your side has won the debate.

Be smart. Be articulate. Be persuasive. Take the opportunity to get to know other teams and debaters.

Policy and LD

I judge mostly PF and World Schools. But, I have continued to judge a smattering of Policy and LD rounds over the last few years. Now that you may be concerned, let me be specific.

Overall, I believe that rounds should be judged based upon the arguments presented.

--Clarity is paramount. Obviously, my pen time is slower than it was, but I do flow well. Roadmaps are good. Sign posting and differentiating arguments is necessary. Watch me. Listen. You will be able to tell if you are going too fast or are unclear. Reasonably clear speed is ok, but clarity is key. For most of my career, I was a college professor of communication; now I teach communication in high school. I strongly believe that debaters should be able to communicate well.

--Do what you do best: policy based or critical affs are fine. But, remember, I do not hear a lot of policy or LD rounds, so explain and be clear. Having said that, my area of research as a comm professor was primarily from a feminist critical rhetorical perspective. In any case, you bear the responsibility to explain and weigh arguments, assumptions, methodology, etc. without a lot of unexplained theory/jargon.

--Please do not get mired in debate theory. Topicality, for example, was around when I debated. But, for other, new or unique theory arguments, do not assume that I have current knowledge of the assumptions or standards of the theory positions. It is your responsibility to explain, apply, and weigh in theory debates. On Framework, please engage the substance of the aff. I strongly prefer you engage the methodology and arguments of the aff, rather than default to framework arguments to avoid that discussion.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--Last, and importantly, weigh your arguments. It is your job to put the round together for me. Tell a good story, which means incorporating the evidence and arguments into a narrative. And, weigh the issues. If you do not, at least one team will be unhappy with the results if I must intervene.

Finally, I believe that Policy and LD debate is significantly about critical thinking and engagement. Better debaters are those who engage arguments, partners, opponents, and judges critically and civilly. Be polite, smart, and even assertive, but don’t be impolite or a bully. And, have fun since debate should be fun.

Adrian Chavez Collegiate School

Andy Chen Lakeland None

Kaylee Chen The Blake School

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 8:28 PM EDT

hello i'm kaylee i'm a junior at blake and this is my third year of pf

add me to the chain kychen25@blakeschool.org AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com and make sure to label correctly ex: Yale R3 Blake CK (2nd aff) vs Blake OR (1st neg)

*my judging style will be very similar to blake coaches so if there is anything you are wondering that is missing from this paradigm just go to any of these judges paradigms- eva motolinia, christian vasquez, joshua enebo, shane stafford, skylar wang, sofia perri, elizabeth terveen and literally any other blake coaches -- also cork ofc :))

general:

-tech>truth

-pre flow before round

-make a chain, send case and rebuttal docs with cut cards on pdf

-signpost

-dont excessively signal i will not be swayed by ur disgusted face during ur opps speech when i make a decision lmao

evidence stuff:

-send docs

-have cut cards (christian’s paradigm has a how-to)- most of my opinions of para, bracket, etc is in the prog section

-if it takes longer than 2 mins for you find a card i will let your opponents choose whether they want to have free prep or strike the card, you should always have the evidence u read in round ready, don't lie abt having evidence and cut it mid-round

-compare methodology, author creds, date, etc but dont just say "we postdate"- implicate everything

in round:

-collapse

-in-depth extensions in the back half, narrow the round down so its clean and i won't have to intervene and vote on nitpicky things, however, if that does happen keep this in mind:

warranted cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

link +impact extension > link with no impact > impact with no link

comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

-defense is not sticky

-speed is fine. don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise, it will be counterproductive for the debate.

-do comparative weighing and frontline ur opps weighing

-warrants are key, idc if you have an author if you can't explain the warranting I don't buy the arg

-implicate turns always, so if u are going for a turn extend link and impact ------- i wont be happy if u dump turns in rebuttal with no warrant or implication and then do that in summary, whats in summary should have been read in rebuttal

-don't be mean, jokes are appreciated and will make the round more entertaining but that doesn't mean bullying.

-i will not vote for anything racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc and any discriminatory language will result in L and low speaks

-i will time but time yourselves, that is your responsibility. i will not flow beyond 5 secs over time and you'll see me put my pen down. i will let cross go over if you are in the middle of answering a question, just make it quick.

-i will nod or make a confused face, so i suggest looking at me in speeches

-i appreciate witty rhetoric

cross:

-i enjoy an interesting cross but thats not an excuse to not be respectful

-if you want me to vote for something in cross bring it up in speech

-make cross fast, ask efficient questions. it shouldn't be like speeches, avoid long questions and answers unless u feel like its necessary

-call out cards and ev stuff those are my fav questions

prog/other:

-i’m fine with theory, survival identity stuff, fem ir, security, rotb, framing--- but im prob not the best person for deep philosophy stuff so if u do decide u wanna run it assume i know nothing, make warrants clear, and tell me how it should affect my ballot- regardless just send speech docs (if u can make me fully comprehend baudrillard and the hyperreal u get a cookie)

-theory opinions: para bad, os disclosure good, typically tw bad, bracketing bad but i would only read smthg if they egregiously bracket otherwise normal grammar stuff isn't worth it, friv is annoying. all this being said i do vote off the flow but just know my threshold for responses will be rly low

-dont endlessly introduce random ivis, just make it a shell or whatever is appropriate when the idea is fleshed out

reminders:

-every team is beatable no matter what their record is, don’t let anyone psych you out, you got this :)

-have fun and learn! while im walking through my decision i will have feedback for both teams so i suggest writing those down

Pallavi Chirakala Emerald High School

Subramanyam Choudarypally Emerald High School

Marco Cortes Christopher Columbus High School

John Corum Ascent Academy

Ziyang Dai BASIS Silicon Valley

TUSHAR DAVE Bergen Debate Club

Giridhar Desaraju Valley Christian High School

Adam El Bahey Bergen County Academies

Abednego Forde-Rhone Bergen Debate Club

gabriel frasca Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS None

Hong Gao Potomac Debate Academy

Andre Gomez BASIS Silicon Valley

Anil Raj Gopalakrishnan Valley Christian High School

Nura Henok The Pembroke Hill School None

Chelsea Hodgson Collegiate School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

John Holen Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 11:51 AM CDT

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.
A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.
I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.
On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.
Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)
Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard
I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online
Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.
I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.
Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.
I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.
For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.
That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.
I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.
My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.
I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.
I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.
Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.
In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.
Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.
Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.
Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.
I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).
Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.
There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.
Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.
One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.
This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????
Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.
So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

Argument ratings

K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10
Performance: 10 out of 10
T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10
LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10
Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10
T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10
Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

Speed in person: 8.5/10
Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

(This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.
That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.
I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.
I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.
Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).
If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.
Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.
For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

GG Jones VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Chetan Karande Bergen Debate Club

Ruhi Kurdikar The Blake School

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2024 at 3:32 PM CDT

hey! i'm ruhi and i'm a senior at blake in minnesota. i debate on the nat circuit and this is my 4th year doing pf.

please add me to the email chain blakedocs@googlegroups.com AND ruhikurdikar@gmail.com and label it correctly: Yale R3 Blake CK (1st aff) vs Blake OR (2nd neg)

main people that have shaped the way i view debate: christian vasquez, joshua enebo, and eva motolinia.

tl;dr tech>truth, no isms, weigh, collapse, read good ev

i won’t vote on anything offensive/discriminatory but unproblematic and good intentioned humor is appreciated.

i will flow and make my decision based on my flow. i'll disclose/give a verbal rfd if the tournament allows and if anyone has any questions feel free to ask. if you want me to vote off of something in cross bring it up in a speech- cross is binding if your opponent says it in speech. also you can postround me idrc im happy to defend my decision.

i am pretty expressive, so i suggest looking at me in speeches and in cross. if i look confused or you see me pause flowing and its an arg that u think wins u the round, pls explain it more. it’s annoying when you excessively signal though especially if you are wrong lol.

general things i would like to see in round:

-make sure to preflow and use the bathroom before round

-send speech docs for case and rebuttal. this should have all the ev/rhetoric you read (besides frontlines for 2nd reb) in the speech. if you are paraphrasing, you MUST have the cut cards you paraphrased from also in the doc (and preferably in order pls it’s genuinely not that hard). also don’t take 10 years to “put together the doc” ik u are probably stealing prep lmao

-before starting each speech (besides constructive) please tell me what argument you are starting on and signpost. if the roadmap is over 5 sec long i dont want to hear it. don't say 3-2-1 (blastoff??) before starting

-weigh. 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! the earlier weighing comes out the better- i'm a lot more likely to lean towards you in a messy weighing debate if your weighing came out in rebuttal. if there's competing weighing tell me which one to prefer (metaweighing) and frontline your opponents weighing. link-ins and prereqs are super underrated- you can win so many rounds on ridiculous link-ins if your opponent drops it just make sure it is warranted (e.g. don't say war exacerbates climate change, tell me how/why). with that being said, if your opponent makes an obviously dumb link in my threshold for responses won't be very high. i think new weighing in 1ff is fine tho

-make sure to extend whatever you want me to vote on in final focus (links/impacts/warrants)- if it's not in summary don't bother saying it in final focus (see above for weighing exception). and besides weighing and 1st summary frontlining, i won’t vote on any new arguments read in summary. please pleaseextend warrants- for example dont just say "GPC is bad" tell me why. idc what your author says if you can't actually explain the warranting to me.

-every speech after constructives must answer the speech that came before it. for example, in second rebuttal you must respond to all offense the other team put on your case (as well as respond to their case)

-defense is not sticky UNLESS they don't touch the contention at all in 2nd rebuttal and then go for it in 2nd summary

-i'll gladly evaluate framework if you read it, but please don't read "cost-benefit analysis" framework. it's just a waste of your time, framework is meant to be strategic and frame your opponents out of the debate.

-pls pls collapse (narrow down your arguments) in the back half of the debate! y'all should really only be going for one contention from case, and don't try to extend every response from rebuttal in summary/final focus. choose a couple you think are the strongest and you are winning the most, and explain those+weigh them well. in summary you should probably be collapsing on 2-3 pieces of offense (arguments that give me a reason to vote for you such as case or turns) and in final focus you should probably be collapsing on 1-2 and weighing them really well.

-compare evidence when you and your opponent's evidence contradicts (ex. postdates, author more qualified, etc.). it's also good to know the methodology of your evidence because if you are asked about it in cross and you don't know it's not a great look. i'll also be persuaded by evidence preference args surrounding paraphrasing (that cut cards are better).

sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

warranted cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

qualified source and author > qualified source only > qualified author only > no qualified author or source

link + impact extension > link with no impact > impact with no link

comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

evidence:

-evidence is super important- cut cards good, paraphrasing bad. i will not vote against you for paraphrasing but please do not misrepresent your evidence. if your opponents say you are- i will probably call for it. if ur ev is bad ill be mad and if it's really bad i WILL drop you.

-if your opponents ask you for evidence you must be able to send the fully cut and highlighted card (not just a URL!) to the email chain. if you can't produce it within 1 min i'll strike it from my flow. don't lie and cut ev mid round and then claim to have read it earlier.

-if your opponents call for evidence and you are unable to send it in a timely manner (2 min) for whatever reason and you tell me to "strike it from my flow" i'll drop you and give you bad speaks- if you introduce ev into round you better be able to provide/defend it.

-christian vasquez's paradigm has a how-to on cutting cards and even has a link to verbatim if you are unsure about what i'm looking for or how to do it! i'm also happy to help you before/after round if you have any questions.

timing/speed:

-time your own prep please and let me and your opponents know how much prep you took/have left after taking some. if i find out you took prep past the 3 min i'll be really annoyed and probably lower your speaks. if it’s really egregious ill drop u

-i will time your speeches and stop flowing past 5 seconds over, but pls still time your own and your opponents speeches. do not start reading a new argument if there is only 5 seconds left- i am not going to flow an argument that you start overtime.

-speed is fine as long as you're clear but dont spread blippy paraphrased args- use speed to read more of a card or more in depth args. also slow down for tags/author names so i can flow- i'm not gonna flow off the doc so if i cannot flow you that's your problem. i'll clear you twice before i just stop flowing.

progressive args:

paraphrasing theory- run it. i will never vote for paraphrasing good. i genuinely think paraphrasing is horrible for the activity and am happy to use my ballot to punish teams who do paraphrase. that being said, if you are really losing the shell i won't hack for it and i'll probably just treat a para good shell as terminal defense.

otherwise- disclosure good (with tags/highlighting, the all-cleared formatting is kinda egregious), trigger warnings bad (unless there's super graphic depictions of violence, but idk if you should even be reading that in the first place), and round reports are silly but i suppose they are kind of a norm now.

please do not run friv theory (if you aren't sure about if what you want to run is frivolous it probably is). do not run theory unless you genuinely believe it makes the debate community a better place. if you run friv theory expect L25s and my threshold for responses won't be very high. i reserve the right to determine what is frivolous.

IVIs are stupid don't read them in front of me. if there is a real violation, read theory. if you think there is an ev ethics violation, then just end the round and call one. IVIs are just an excuse to read a ton of blippy "round ending" arguments and it will be really hard to get me to vote on one. also recording someone without their consent to "check for clipping" will result in an L25.

introduction of theory arguments should happen in the speech directly following the violation. out of round violations should be introduced in constructive.

RVIs to para or disclo are domeless. i vibe with RVIs if the theory is obviously friv. i default to reasonability > competing interps

i don't have much experience at all evaluating Ks and i am not familiar with much of the lit, so i wouldn't read complicated ones in front of me. i probably understand survival args the most. you are running a survival argument, keep in mind that i strongly believe debate is good as a whole and voting someone up solely based on their identity is bad for the activity. idk what the hyperreal is and tbh you probably don't either so don't read these types of arguments just to confuse your opponents and win the round if you cannot actually explain it in english.

i do have experience running/answering topical identity-based ROTBs and frameworks so i am a good person to run these in front of and i enjoy these debates.

speaker points:

i think that speaks are silly and utterly arbitrary, so don't pay that much attention to them. i'll never base speaks on how you sound, what you wear, etc. however, some ways to get higher speaks in front of me are

- strategic crossfires, getting the opps to make concessions

- weighing in rebuttal

- good vibes/being funny

hi josh

Tasneem Lakhia Valley Christian High School None

Brandon Lin Ivy Bridge Academy

Arjun Lingala Bergen Debate Club

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 11:55 AM EDT

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Fei Liu American High

Sean Lu Cranbrook

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:40 PM EDT

Hi! My name is Sean and I've debated PF at Cranbrook for three years now. Pronouns He/Him/His.

my email is seanlu580@gmail.com for the email chain.

TLDR: Be nice, signpost and weigh. I can't vote if you don't tell me where to vote. When extending, please restate everything (uniqueness, link, and Impact) Don't Spread in PF. I don't believe in sticky defence, if it's important, respond to it. Please sign my ballot, tell me why you should win and why your opponents shouldn't.

Debate Stuff:

Tech > Truth, I am a flow judge. Willing to vote off of anything left in the round. If your opponents tell me that the sky is red with the correct warranting, the sky is red until you prove otherwise.

Start weighing in rebuttal if possible but at the latest in summary. Nothing new should be introduced starting after first summary. Responding to weighing is okay, but no new weighing after 2nd summary.

I generally don't think "probability" should be a weighing mechanism because it's just asking me to evaluate which side has a stronger link chain which I can do by looking at the responses on that contention.

On turns, do the comparative weighing. Tell me why the turn links into your opponent's impact.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other, aka extending the same args, with no new ink on the flow after summary.

Frontline in 2nd Rebuttal, Anything not responded to will be extended on my flow. I do not believe in sticky defence, extend it if it's important.

Collapse and signpost (tell me where you are at on the flow, i.e. "Now let's move onto my opponents C2 on Housing, here are five responses etc".) in the round, or else it gets messy and difficult for me to vote on.

When extending, restate the entire uniqueness + link chain + impact. If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on that argument

I default to Util as a FW, if you choose to run a different FW, extend it throughout the entire round with the cards and warrants. Tell me why your FW is better than Util.

Good with prog args, but I need more ballot directive language to tell me where to vote and why

I don't flow cross, if you want something to be known, say it in a speech.

This goes without saying: Don't be offensive (Being Racist, misgendering, homophobic etc.), I will drop you, 20L, no tolerance for this at all. Make debate a safe environment.

Please be nice when post rounding

Speaking Stuff:

I'm good with speed, although for PF, I don't believe in spreading as PF is supposed to be accessible to the public. That being said, I will not take off speaks for solely speaking fast or spreading. If 10 is top speed spreading, then I can handle about a 8. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down. If you reach a point where I cannot understand a single word you are saying, I will yell "clear", and after that, I will start deducting speaks if you don't enunciate better.

Regardless of speed, send speech docs with ALL CUT cards and rhetoric. No higher than 28s if you don't send.

Can skip grand cross for 90 seconds of prep for both sides if both teams agree, good with open crosses.

Have fun! Debate is supposed to be a fun environment and be willing to interact with me. i am not a stone statue. Granted, don't force jokes or make the environment awkward.

If you'd like to see my flow at the end, stay after my rfd and ask.

-1 for saying "starting with an off-time road map". Just tell me what side to start and go to.

I.e "Starting on aff and moving to neg, line by line"

+1 for good synergy and energy with your partner (I won't dock you speaks if you don't because at that point you have enough problems to worry about)

Auto 30 speaks if you say "My little ops" when referring to your opponents in every speech and cross. Make it clear though if you're spreading cuz I might not catch it.

-0.5 for every time you're aggressive to your opponents in cross. Don't interrogate your opponents like they're a criminal.

If you think your opponents have no path to the ballot at any point during the round, you can call a TKO and I will look at my flow and if I agree, the round ends there. If I don't then you auto-lose the round.

Don't give speeches during cross, it's actually super annoying

I start at 28 and will go up and down from there.

I’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric

+1 if you make me laugh

My pet peeve is when people tell me to vote for an argument because morally I am supposed to vote there without explaining why it is morally wrong. (Don't just say "X is bad") If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

koti Mellachervu Valley Christian High School None

Sophie Miretsky Bergen Debate Club

Sukhada Moogi Bergen Debate Club None

Zachary Morgan Power Speakers Unlimited

Eva Motolinia The Blake School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:39 AM CDT

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

Suresh Nair Dougherty Valley High School None

Micheal Oliver Harbinger Academy

Uma Paleti Dougherty Valley High School None

Bharat Paliwal Emerald High School

Roman Park Valley Christian High School

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 9:49 AM PDT

As a judge, my primary focus is on the effectiveness of message delivery and the debater's presentation skills. It's essential for debaters to engage with their audience and judges through confident and dynamic delivery. While I understand the necessity of referring to prewritten statements to ensure accuracy and coherence, excessive reliance on these notes can detract from the overall impact of the argument.

Key Aspects of Effective Delivery:

1. **Eye Contact**: Maintaining eye contact demonstrates confidence and helps in connecting with the audience and judges. It's understandable to glance at notes for reference, but constant reading from the paper may give the impression of being underprepared.

2. **Vocal Delivery**: The ability to modulate voice, pace, and tone is crucial. It not only aids in emphasizing key points but also keeps the audience engaged throughout the debate.

3. **Body Language**: Non-verbal cues, such as gestures and posture, play a significant role in reinforcing arguments. They should be natural and complement the verbal message.

4. **Engagement**: Effective debaters interact with their content and audience. This can include responding to the dynamics of the debate, demonstrating flexibility in argumentation, and showing genuine passion for the topic.

5. **Preparedness**: While occasional reference to notes is acceptable, debaters should exhibit a thorough understanding of their material. Frequent reading from scripts may suggest a lack of familiarity with the content.

Evaluation Criteria:

- **Clarity and Structure**: Arguments should be clearly articulated and logically structured. This includes a coherent progression of ideas and effective use of evidence and examples.
- **Persuasiveness**: The ability to persuade, not just through logic and evidence but also through the strength of presentation. This involves making a compelling case to the audience and judges.
- **Adaptability**: Demonstrating adaptability in addressing counterarguments and navigating the debate's flow while maintaining a strong presence.

Conclusion:

While content and argumentation are undoubtedly important, the power of presentation cannot be overstated. A debater's ability to deliver their message with confidence, clarity, and engagement significantly enhances the persuasiveness of their arguments. My judging will lean towards debaters who skillfully balance the substance of their arguments with superior presentation skills, marking a comprehensive approach to debate.

Shabana Patel Hunter College

Yada Phongadulyasook Cranbrook

Anisha Priya The Pembroke Hill School None

Eva Redmond The Blake School

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 5:50 AM EDT

hi! i'm eva and i'm a junior at blake in mn. this is my 3rd year doing nat circuit pf.

before round, start an email chain and add BOTH evaredmond25@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com. label the chain appropriately, ex. Emory R1 Flight 1: Blake OR 1st AFF vs Blake CK 2nd NEG

tldr: standard flow judge, do what you do best and everything should go well, don't do isms

**update for february: i haven't researched or debated the topic, so please define acronyms to make sure i understand

if you have any questions not answered here, i think about debate very similarly to shane stafford, christian vasquez, eva motolinia, joshua enebo, or really any other blake debater so feel free to check their paradigms

evidence exchange:

send full speech docs before speeches. if you do this, your speaks won't go below 28.5. if you elect not to do this, your opponent can take prep while you try to find individual cards.

send word docs, pdf, or at the very worst cards in the body of the chain. locked google docs rly suck, pls don't do that.

make sure to send the cards in the email chain, it's ok if you have rhetoric as well, but at minimum cards should be there.

general preferences:

tech > truth, i'll evaluate what's said in the round and make my decision off of that. the one exception to this is if i do not understand an argument well enough to explain it back to you, i won't vote on it.

come to round preflowed, i love rounds that end quickly

offtime roadmaps are fine but please don't make them lengthy. "aff, neg" or "neg, aff" should suffice in most rounds

extend the arguments you want me to vote on in final focus and summary. make sure to extend every part of the link chain for me. if a part of the link chain has been conceded, i will be more lenient with warrant extensions for that part. however, it will make me happy if you tell me why every part of your argument happens.

collapse! the final focus should be one contention and only a few arguments on the opps case. choose your best arguments, frontline them well, and weigh them well.

weighing is also very important. there are 3 types of impact weighing: magnitude, probability, and timeframe. any other mechanisms you can think of are subsets of those 3. a lot of the time probability weighing is defense that should have been in rebuttal which makes me sad since there are interesting and smart ways to do probability other than new defense. metaweighing is ok, but tbh i think a lot of the time it's very unwarranted, i'd rather you just line by line the weighing debate and win the warrants on each mechanism.

smart link weighing is very impressive and will be rewarded. i love turns case analysis and link ins, but these also tend to be very unwarranted. the best link weighing is rooted in evidence. if there isn't evidence, at the very least have a logical warrant.

frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal. the last time you can read new weighing is 1st ff, but i'll have a lower threshold for responses.

i don't flow cross, but i do think it's binding so if there's a major concession, bring it up in speech.

evidence:

debate is a research activity, and the quality of evidence is very important to me. my ideal debate is rooted in lots of evidence comparison and analysis.

if your evidence is egregiously miscut and it's called out, i will probably drop you.

if you can't send the full card when asked (not a pdf or a link), i'll strike it after 1 minute.

paraphrasing is genuinely a horrifying trend, email me if you need help learning how to cut cards or anything.

speed:

i'm a pretty fast debater, so i understand the utility of speed. however, you have to be clear. if i can't understand what you're saying, i won't evaluate it. i'll clear you once, and if you don't slow down i'll stop flowing.

speed is not an excuse to be inefficient or spam bad responses - it should be used to develop more nuanced arguments.

i won't flow off a doc lol. i'll be fine flowing any fast pf round as long as you slow down on author names and tags.

timing:

time yourselves and your own prep please.

i stop flowing 5 seconds after the speech time ends.

framework:

i'm down to evaluate any framework, as long as it's not cost benefit analysis (huge waste of time)

structural violence frameworks can be done very well, but oftentimes they become teams asserting that sv is underprioritized without explaining why that matters. underprioritization is not itself a warrant for why something should be prioritized. please don't say "their threats are all solved because of traditional policymaking" without reading impact defense or a uniqueness response, this is incredibly lazy debating.

i also really don't like prefiat framing. in order to win prefiat framing, you need to be winning a link on substance. if the discourse you're spreading is proven to be bad, i won't vote to spread said discourse. if you're winning a topical link, you're probably already winning the round and going for prefiat wasted a bunch of your time. personally, i haven't yet seen a coherent warrant for why change spills over to the real world.

i won't evaluate arguments that the opponent can't link in to framework or that you should win because you brought it up first. to clarify, you can read arguments that link ins are a worse method of addressing the framework, but voting for a team just because they introduced framework first implodes the debate space.

theory:

theory rounds are pretty boring to judge and i'd rather not, but if you rly rly want to.....

as referenced above, i think paraphrasing is a horrible trend and am very likely to vote on paraphrasing theory. bracketing can be just as bad, i'm very receptive to bracketing shells.

disclosure is good, open source disclosure is best, and round reports are a good norm. winning disclosure theory while full texting will be an uphill battle.

i will not vote on trigger warning theory unless there is a graphic depiction. trigger warnings have been used to silence marginalized groups and pretty much all of the literature concludes they don't do much.

i default to competing interps over reasonability in all of those scenarios.

i default no rvis. you don't need to be winning rvis to win offense on the theory level, either from a counterinterp or a turn on their interp. nobody knows what rvis are these days :(

if friv theory is read, i will evaluate it under reasonability. it's bad for the debate space, and my role as an educator comes before any obligation i have to avoid intervention. if you are questioning whether your theory is frivolous, err on the side of caution and don't read it.

for the same reason, i'll evaluate ivis under reasonability. ivis are another example of lazy debating. read a shell, read a k, or read an ethics violation.

evidence challenges are stop the round issues, not something that i'll evaluate as a theory debate.

Ks:

for topical ks - i have decent experience with security, cap, and fem ir. i can probably evaluate anything simple. for anything postmodern/high theory, i will evaluate but please overexplain. i am not smart enough to explain most of the words that get thrown around in k rounds.

you need to read a link to the k - either from the topic of your opponent - otherwise the k is just a bunch of fun facts about your conception of the world and not a voting issue.

alts should be specific actions. i think the rules of pf create some tension with the existence of alts/neg fiat generally, and i'll be open to theory arguments against alts.

for non topical ks - i do not like traditional pf identity ks. i won't hack, but i haven't yet seen one be well executed in pf. i don't feel comfortable evaluating callouts. similarly, i have reservations about the ballot being used as a referendum on the debate space. there are a lot of forums for social change in debate, but i haven't seen discourse in round change anything during my time in the event. i'm very receptive to arguments about hollow hope, backlash, solvency deficits, and oppression deficits. i'm also a good judge for T as long as you read definitions in your interp.

tricks:

please don't do this like srsly pls.

speaks:

speaks are pretty arbitrary, but i'll standardize them to the best of my ability.

for good speaks:

be funny and don't make the round too awkward. at the same time, know when you're taking it too far and be aware of power dynamics in round.
don't paraphrase, disclose, send cards on email chain
smart weighing/weighing in rebuttal
say cork in speech!

after round:

i'll always disclose and there will always be an rfd available on tab

feel free to post round and ask questions, i think it's good for education and holding me accountable. however, you can't change my decision. stay respectful.

if you have any questions, feel free to email me or dm me on fb (Eva Redmond)

good luck, have fun! the best rounds happen when everyone is chill and funny

Emily Robinson Power Speakers Unlimited

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 10:52 AM CDT

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years at Kennedy High School (2015-2019).

While I do find debate to be strategy based, I prefer arguments that follow a logical well thought out narrative. I keep a flow, but I prefer truthful and reasoned arguments.

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh. It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Signpost! At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I prefer teams to not just say "extend Smith 19"- you need to explain the evidence and what that is directly responding to

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- For first and second summary I would like you to extend responses on your opponent's case in order to extend it to final focus

- within this speech it is important to collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I have no experience in LD or Policy so if you choose to run this type of argument you need to dumb it down for me. Personally, I would prefer a traditional contention over this type of argument. I am not a fan of disads read in rebuttal.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- I understand rounds can get heated and I like respectful humor and sassiness, but do not be condescending or rude to your opponents

- Have fun!

Sarah Santorsiero Dougherty Valley High School

Olga Sayyidina SD Academy

Jai Sehgal Bergen Debate Club

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 8:20 PM CDT

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

Lina Shah Dougherty Valley High School

Monali Shenolikar Potomac Debate Academy

Oriana Shi Cranbrook

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 9:11 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Ori. I'm a junior at Cranbrook who is debating PF for my third year. I currently have four career bids and have qualled for gtoc. I'm your typical tech judge with topic knowledge on plastics.

TLDR

Add me to the email chain: oriana.shi@gmail.com
PLEASE extend in summary AND final focus. This applies to the entire linkchain.No extension = no ballot.
I won't evaluate new evidence/warranting/implications in final that aren't in summary.
PLEASE weigh with specific mechanisms.
I don't flow cross. Anything important in cross should be in a speech.
Speed is okay with me but if you're spreading send a speechdoc.
Collapse. It makes the round so much easier to debate and to judge.
Obviously, flagrant racism/sexism/homophobia, etc etc etc = 24L

Extensions

Not extended = not a path to my ballot. You need to extend UQ, ALL links, IL, and impact on contentions or turns that you go for.

If your opponent's didn't extend, you should probably still point it out to me, and I'll drop the argument right there.

If both teams aren't extending, I will be sad. And I guess I'll just evaluate whatever is extended through ink at the end.

Weighing

I want to hear specific weighing mechanisms (e.g. scope, magnitude, prereq, etc.)

Probability is NOT weighing. It's just strength of link.

I won't evaluate the weighing debate if the teams are being totally non-comparative (e.g. one side keep repeating scope, and the other keeps repeating reversibility with no clash)

Don't waste your time weighing offense that isn't extended, because I won't vote off it.

Prefiat and Framing

Novice division = only substance. Boooo

I have next to zero experience with K's.

I don't enjoy judging theory, but I guess I can do it.

I default to competing interps and (controversially) I default to RVIs allowed. The way I see it, a turn on your shell is a reason why your norm makes the debate space worse. Which is why I shouldn't vote for you.

I don't hack for any shells. I don't even have a personal standpoint on most shells like para, rotb, tw.

I default to util framing but will evaluate any framework as long as it's well argued.

Collapsing

I get sad when teams don't collapse because it makes the debate super messy and the clash everywhere is just... less deep.

Misc

I'm pretty nice with speaks. You'll probably only get mid speaks if you're egregiously stealing prep or being mean in cross.

Bhawna Singh Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Guneet Singh Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 12:44 AM PDT

Guneet Singh

Background: As a relatively new judge for debate competitions, I draw upon my experience participating in parliamentary-style debates over thirty years ago. I understand the dynamics of a successful argument and the skills required to deliver them effectively.

Judging Philosophy: I believe that the essence of debate lies in the ability to construct, articulate, and defend arguments in a rational and factually sound manner. My approach to judging will be centered on the content of the arguments, the structure, and the logical consistency of the cases presented by the teams.

Criteria for Evaluation:

Content: I am looking for well-researched arguments supported by concrete facts and figures relevant to the resolution. Arguments should be clear and direct, demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic.
Reasoning: Logical and coherent reasoning is paramount. I will evaluate how well teams analyze and link evidence to their arguments and how they engage with the opposing side's case.
Rebuttal: The ability to effectively deconstruct and respond to the opposition's arguments is crucial. I expect teams to clash directly with the core arguments of their opponents, not just peripheral claims.
Delivery: While content is king, delivery is certainly queen. The tone, clarity, and pace of speech contribute significantly to the persuasiveness of an argument. I appreciate speakers who can convey their message confidently and respectfully without becoming overly aggressive or passive.
Organization: A well-structured speech, with clear signposting and an easily followable line of argumentation, will be highly regarded. I appreciate debaters who can guide me through their cases logically and systematically.
Engagement: Teams that engage directly with the debate, showing responsiveness to the dynamics of the round and adapting their strategy accordingly, will stand out.

Closing Note: As someone new to judging on this platform, I am open to the evolving styles and strategies of modern debating. I aim to be fair and impartial, and my feedback will be constructive and aimed at helping debaters grow and refine their skills.

Revathy Sivakumar Dougherty Valley High School None

Matt Suescun Bergen County Academies None

Aiyang TAO Bergen Debate Club

Sirisha Vadlamani Emerald High School

Praveen Venkataraman Emerald High School None

Monika Verma Valley Christian High School

Alex Wang Cranbrook

Bingquan Wang Boston Latin Middle School

Ivy Wang Saratoga HS None

Xing Wang Valley Christian High School None

Amanda Wasylik Winston Churchill

Julian Ybarra Bergen Debate Club

Kathy Yee Winston Churchill

Angelina Yu Hunter College

Yanbing Yu Bergen Debate Club

Dave Zhang Livingston High School

Hui Zhou Liangyi Youth Leadership None

Jie Zhu Potomac Debate Academy

Yan Zhu Valley Christian High School None

Login to Tabroom

TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 3

2024 — Online, KY/US

PF - Rising Star Paradigm List

Judges