Email: dev.d.arora@gmail.com

I am currently a student at Hunter College High School.

I have been debating in PF since 7th grade and I have some experience in Worlds School debate.

I am your average tech judge. I judge based on the flow. I am familiar with most Ks and theory shells at this point and will evaluate all of them. (I am not a fan of trix and do not consider them in my decision.)

Ev ethics: I am not particularly strict, however, any team that abhorrently misrepresents ev will be auto-dropped. I am not against paraphrasing on principle, however, I am open to Paraphrase theory as a response.

Defense is not sticky!!! Extend defense pls

Collapse in Summ

Weighing must come at the latest in Summ, and should start in Reb

Fully extend offense in Summ

Everything in FF should be in Summary (Mostly)

Tech>Truth

Have fun!!

Be respectful.

Average speech will revive a 28.5.

Some ways to get a 30:

1. Show some personality in speech
2. Impress me with strategy
3. Use of literary devices such as metaphors
5. Technically flawless
6. Fire debate fit

Open to questions about my paradigm

Hey y'all! I'm Sunay. I'm a Captain on the Bronx Science Debate Team, and this is my third year doing PF. You can consider me a flow judge: I'm very generous with speaker points, so 28.5 for an average speaker.

I flow and am tech > truth. When judging, I'll vote for the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Email for evidence sharing and/or any questions: chawlas@bxscience.edu

General preferences:

- Frontline in second rebuttal (at a minimum, turns and terminal defense)

- Collapse (go for one contention in the back half)

- Extend the argument you are collapsing on (with warrants! Card names are not required)

- WEIGH starting in summary (please do comparative weighing. For meta weighing, it needs to be interactive and warranted instead of just saying "prefer probability over magnitude")

- Defense is not sticky (extend your defense if you want it to be evaluated)

- No new arguments after 1st summary (this includes new warrants. Backlines in 2nd summary & new weighing in 1st FF are both fine)

- Implications are important! (what does a response/frontline mean for the argument?)

- Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow. I don't need off-time roadmaps as long as you tell me where to start and signpost as you go)

- Warrant everything! (warranted analytic > card with no warrant)

Other in-round stuff:

- Please cut your cards

- Ev exchange should not take more than 2 mins. If you plan on calling for a lot of cards, just call for a speech doc.

- I won't pay much attention during cross, but cross is binding and anything said in cross must be brought up in a speech if you want it to be evaluated.

- Spread at your own risk. Some speed is fine as long as it's comprehensible, but if you go policy-fast I'll prob miss stuff.

- If you go overtime, you can finish your sentence but I'll stop flowing after approx 10 seconds.

Progressive arguments:

I'm not too comfortable with theory and/or Ks. Don't expect me to understand super niche prog arguments.

Speaker point boosts:

- Make a Drake reference +0.5

- If you are a soccer fan:

- Guess my favorite league: +0.5 (If you guess my favorite club in that league, you’ll get an auto 30)

Hey y'all

A quick recap about me, throughout my four years of high school, I debated in PF (freshman and senior year), LD (sophomore), and Policy (junior and senior year). triple homicide. Second speeches is my life I love second speeches.

Cards:

If you have a card, it is your opponent's job to prove to me that the card is false or unreliable. until then, I will assume that the card is true.

please don't take 5 years to send out a card. if it take you longer than 1 min then you need to move on

Public Forum:

• I am not super strict on time, but since it has the shortest speaking time, I would prefer for everyone to keep up with the time given
• remember it is not about who can make the best policies for me it is about who can prove to me that their way of life is better.

Lincoln Douglass:

• Don't hate me but I only did one year, so some of the terms may have been forgotten about
• Timing can get confusing for me, so I would prefer if you remind me about the timing in LD

Policy:

• I LOVE POLICY DEBATE
• if you are going off-case let me know. I take away speaker points if there is a lack of organization.
• if you are one of those teams that give 1,000,000,000 off cases, then you will see me give you a major side-eye. (LOL)

overall:

I will give my RFD.

Everything I say in the round will be put in TAB.

Have fun you humans.

hi, I'm Leo!

ldamato25@regis.org for email chains

Some stuff about me:

3rd year doing pf at Regis HS

Judges I agree with: Sebastian Attlan

tech>truth (with exceptions in extreme cases, so if you say something like "Russia is in NATO," I'm not gonna buy it)

I vote off my flow, so if I miss something it's (usually) your fault for going too fast. ALSO: IF IT IS THE FIRST ROUND OF THE DAY OR IT IS PAST 6 PM, DO NOT SPEAK FAST, I WILL BE CRANKY.

Just because the other team doesn't read a piece of evidence for it doesn't mean it's not true. If you want to contest an analytic, give me a piece of evidence to oppose it or respond to the underlying logic. DO NOT just say that "they have no evidence."

Treat me like a flay judge

I'll drop you if you run theory, ks, etc (but if one of your opponent does something obviously wrong, we can resolve that without theory)

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST (tell me exactly what you're talking about and where you are on the flow)

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH (tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents')

No new stuff in 2nd summary and beyond, no new weighing in 2nd FF

Time yourselves. I will forget/am too lazy to do it for you.

please weigh. I know I already said this but it is super super important and can win you the round 90% of the time.

have fun.

ps if you make jokes/are fun I will probably give higher speaks

pf captain @ bronx science (she/her)

add me to the email chain!! (gallom@bxscience.edu)

tldr: tech > truth, line-by-line, signpost, write my ballot for me, be funny bc i am probably tired

mac miller lyrics in your speech = +1 speaks

if you have any questions about my paradigm/the round, pls ask

novice/general:

• i look to the team that wins the weighing debate first -- if i then see that your case is clean, you get my ballot (if no one does good weighing ill just prefer the least mitigated link)

• collapse and give a clear extension or i will actually burst into tears

• cut your cards or i will burst into tears a second time

• spend most of your backhalf focusing on and clarifying the best pieces of offense!!

• defense isn't sticky; if you want me to consider a response read on their case, it should be extended through each speech since it was first brought up

• give off-time roadmaps given before each speech

• speed is fine as long as it’s not an accessibility issue

• i listen to cross, but don't consider it in my decision -- if you think something that is said is important, bring it up in your next speech

*novice/jv stop reading here*

--

cws: if you're running any argument with graphic content, pls send out an anonymous opt-out form. if anyone chooses to opt out, read an alternate case/response with none of the graphic/triggering topics mentioned.

fw: i like evaling framework rounds!!! if the fw is conceded or agreed upon, i'll only consider arguments implicated under that framework. if both teams drop the framework or no one implicates to it then i'll literally just forget about it. if you drop your framework in backhalf and the opps turn that into a voting issue, i'll vote on it. if no one reads fw, i default to util.

--

my rant on prog: if you're clearly running theory/Ks as a cheap path to the ballot because you think your opponents can't respond & you have a tech judge (ie. you don't know the literature or have 0 clue what's happening on the flow), I WILL DROP YOU. you should be trying to set a norm or spread a message, not exploiting that message for a win. imo, if you really do believe in your arguments, you'd put in the effort to prep & argue them well. don't divert from substance debate for no good reason.

theory/t:

• shell theory > paragraph theory but i'll evaluate both, paragraph theory still needs drop the debater/rvi/etc warrants

• i default to no rvis

• cross should check. if your opp is asking questions so they can better engage, be truthful about your answers. if it's clear that you either a) are deliberately being misleading to gain an advantage or b) have no clue as to what you're saying, i won't evaluate your arg.

• if the violation is blatantly harmful ie. misgendering then i'll likely just end the round

• i think disclosure is a good norm & i'm comfortable voting on it, i'm fine if you paraphrase as long as you 1) disclose and 2) have a cut card available in a reasonable amount of time. that being said i don’t hack against this shell, if you win on the flow i’ll vote for you

• i'll vote off T, no preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "no judge intervention" and moving on

• i won't evaluate plans or cps

• trix/friv theory/TKOs are fun but i personally won't evaluate them (also i do not understand trix!)

• if u read theory on novices i will drop you

k:

• most experienced with nonT Ks, ive read a few (mainly killjoy) on the circuit before

• out of topical Ks i can prob best eval cap, sec, orientalism, & fem IR -- not too knowledgeable ab the literature outside of those but will still 100% eval the best i can (just explain it in a simple way)

• if you want me to vote on the alt, you have to explain to me what exactly that means for the round/world

• links are super important. even independent of the alt, they can be sufficient enough to win the round as a case turn. it's super important that they're contextualized to what you actually do. the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad"

• don't spew some random old cards from a policy backfile that no one in the debate understands and just go for some stupid tech role of the ballot trick pls, actually do research if the k is important to u

• if u read a k on novices i will drop you

lmk if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them before or after round.

I believe I have a very simple but fair view on debate.

As long as you're being ethical in your debate I will listen to any tech that you want, at any speed.

Ks, 2NC CPs, anything that you want to present should be seen as valid if you use it effectively. You can still ask in round if you're unsure about your tech and if it qualifies :p

The only tech that I won't bother with is Off Clock Roadmaps, when presenting a roadmap with me you are required to do it on clock. NSDA rules state that I shouldn't be talking to the debaters during the round outside of rules calls and you should only be talking to me for the same thing if you aren't on the clock.

If you still use a off roadmap after I've said not to I'll simply start your time for the round since you're now talking to the judge. However that's not something that I want to do.

Always try and start an email chain if you can for the first few speeches, it's easier for opponents and me to see your case if you're spreading or if you have an accent/speech issue.

Chain Email: lukasgillette05@gmail.com

Extend your args and you'll be fine :D

As we engage in this intellectual exercise, I want to establish a few key principles that will guide my evaluation of the round.

1. Respectful Conduct:
Debate is a platform for the exchange of ideas, and I believe that such exchanges are most fruitful when conducted with respect. I expect all participants to treat each other, as well as myself, with courtesy and professionalism. This includes refraining from rude or disrespectful language. Remember, it's not just about making strong arguments but also about maintaining a positive and constructive atmosphere.

2. Clarity is Key:
Please prioritize clarity in your speeches. Your arguments should be easily understood by both myself and your opponents. If you're making complex points, break them down into digestible components to enhance comprehension.

3. Have Fun and Engage:
Debate is not only a learning experience but also an opportunity to have fun. Enjoy the process, engage with your arguments passionately, and show enthusiasm for the topics at hand.

Remember, this is a learning experience for everyone involved. I'm here to support you on your debate journey.

Maguene Moussavou

Lexington '25

Email: immaculatebaboon@gmail.com - add me to the email chain please have it ready before the round starts

Email chain title: "Tournament name - round number - team [AFF] vs team [NEG]"

Top level comments

PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE EFFICIENT---AS LITTLE DOWNTIME AS POSSIBLE! (I will boost speaks for both teams) TIME YOUR PREP, SEND OUT THE EMAIL CHAIN ON ROUND START

Give me an easy way to vote for you -- judge instruction is VERY GOOD and needed in final rebuttal -- We both don't want judge intervention which is the alternative if I'm not given instruction

Give a roadmap before every speech, it's very helpful for organizing my flow and would look like, "first the IRS DA, CP, then case", say "and" or "next" to signal when you're going onto another card

Please signpost it makes the flow a lot less hard to evaluate post-round, this looks like saying when you're going onto a different argument or answering the opposing teams argument ("Now the counterplan") or flagging the subpoints you're answering (ie. in 2nc saying: "2ac 4...") helps me know directly what you're answering on the flow

top of 2nd rebuttal: why you win the round (15-30 seconds at most)

TECH >TRUTH

Big fan of clash and line by line

I will pretty much vote on anything if it's debated well as long as its not problematic - I will not vote on it if it is barely in the rebuttal speeches (ie. I will not vote on multi-actor fiat if it's only 5 seconds of the 1ar)

Policy Affs: I read a policy aff my entire novice year and now switch off between policy and k-affs - They are obviously a good argument - I lean Hard right > Soft left but as mentioned before, it's not hard to sway me the other way. Soft left gives you a lot better options vs the K,

CPs - It is definitely possible to get really creative with process CPs but make sure you’re able to answer theory. Adv CPs good. PICs are probably theoretically illegitimate without a VERY GOOD reason as to why the reading of a certain word or idea is bad.

DAs - Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are really bad. I can vote aff on 0 risk of the DA. If you’re pairing the DA with the CP, make sure to explain why the CP doesn't link to the DA. This applies to nay other argument but do more than just regular impact calc but actually compare the DA impacts to the other impacts in the round and why I should prioritize. If there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w

T - I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp not just "they dropped x." I'm not opposed to voting on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad.

K - Usually Affs lose when they go for the perm because it is virtually impossible without sufficient no link or a link turn. Instead, focus on extinction o/w, disproving the theory and winning that fairness matters and O/W.

I have an extremely low aff threshold for winning vs nonblack teams reading pess

On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad, try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links.

FW/T-USFG - Fairness is a good internal link and neg teams should go for education and clash a lot more. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I really need good impact framing for this.

K-affs: These can be really interesting with all the ways they can be deployed creatively outside just a preempt to FW, although having the 1AC be about 60-75% a FW preempt is strategic, I prefer these to have a coherent argument and also a justification for why talking about the aff is preferable to talking about fiscal redistribution. Aff teams should aim to impact turn other FW standards like clash and education I'm familiar with most content so run whatev. Debate is a game and I dont think you'll win its not but having something like debate shapes subjectivities is usually a sufficient answer.

Theory

I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Generally, I think perf con is not a voter (but can be a TKO to the K on subjectivity) and TOO much condo is bad but I can be EASILY swayed in the other directions.

Show me your flows after round for +.1 speaks

Ishaan Tipirneni has had a profound influence on my debate views, he has aided me greatly in achieving my 1x TOC Qual, and has bestowed upon me a vast wealth of knowledge to aid my understanding of debate, thus, I vehemently agree with every aspect of this intelligent mans paradigm,barring "fairness is an impact"

I have been judging PF for a little over two years now. I am a scientist at heart. So it should make sense that in order to evaluate your arguments I need to understand them. This is PF, not LD and that should mean something to you. I want to hear well-warranted arguments supported by evidence extended and explained in rebuttals.

You need to weigh with rationale and impacts. Everything in the final focus should be said in summary.

Be respectful to one another and to me. Be polite in the crossfire. You should learn something new in every round and remember to have fun.

As a side note, I am here to judge the resolution. I will not listen or judge side topics or arguments. Do not bring your own agenda into the round, specifically I am not judging your critique of debate theory.

My opinion? All good debate starts the same way:

Stand up, introduce yourself, confidently and clearly. You are representing your team, your school; most importantly, yourself - and perhaps even a position with which you do not agree. Be counted. Be heard. Gird Your Loins...

Be prepared. Know your material profoundly. Present it, rather than reciting or speed-reading it. Effective Public Speaking is a connection with your audience, not a listing of innumerable facts.

Draw from the strength of your convictions. Ergo: Have conviction. Every argument deserves its airing. This is true even of the one you're making. Convince me.

Words matter. Speak slowly to present your argument. If your words are too fast to be heard, you've already discounted them yourself. Cut to the chase. Distill. Edit. Much better to make a thoughtful, clearly-articulated argument than to try to pack in the absolute limit of facts.

Amaze me with the quality of your research, the extent of your reading - and the depth of your insights... Show me you have some overview of the history underlying the arguments you're making. Study. Learn. Study it again. This is what you're here for.

If you think you've covered it all, go back and dig deeper. There's more.

You're all brilliant. You make the job of judging difficult, which is why we're here.

Keep up the Good Work!

Parent Judge.

I would appreciate it if you talk clearly and not too fast. Please do not spread, I need to be able to understand your facts. Would appreciate it if you could minimize the debate jargon. Also it would help if an off-time roadmap could be given. I'll listen to cross, but won't flow it. If anything happens during cross that you want me to consider in my ballot, mention it in a speech. Being assertive is good, being overly aggressive is not. Please do not throw cards at me without warranting them out.

Finally, as a public forum debater you should rely on both logic and evidence to construct your arguments.

Have Fun!

Ishaan Tipirneni, He/Him/His

Call me "Ishaan" not "judge" please.

Lexington '24

Qualifications: 3x TOC Qualifier

Email: Ishaantipirneni504@gmail.com

PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE EFFICIENT---AS LITTLE DOWNTIME AS POSSIBLE! (I will boost speaks for both teams)

(VARSITY ONLY) Please post round---it's good to know what you did wrong and if you think the decision is wrong in any way.

Give me an easy way to vote for you---judge instruction is VERY GOOD and needed in final rebuttal---we both don't want judge intervention which is the alternative if I'm not given instruction.

General Comments:

TECH > TRUTH---to a reasonable extent

Make sure you’re clear. If you have to give up speed to be clear, do it. With that being said, you can go as fast as you want

Feel free to read pretty much everything - K's, CP, DA, T, Procedurals, K-affs, etc. - just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Policy Affs: I've read a policy aff for the majority of my career. I lean Hard right > Soft left, but as mentioned before, it's not hard to sway me the other way.

CPs: It is definitely possible to get really creative with process CPs but make sure you’re able to answer theory, competition, and intrinsic perms.

DAs: Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are really bad. I can vote aff on 0 risk of the DA. Make sure your 1NC shells are highlighted with some sort of argument being made. I understand the urge to read a 25 second DA shell (I've done it myself), but these are almost never viable 2NRs.

T: I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp, not just "they dropped x." I'm will vote on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad. Impact calc is HUGE for T debates and are necessary to get my ballot.

K-affs: I think these can be really good when creatively done, but please make your argument coherent and not just a preempt to FW. I usually find presumption a really good option against k-affs because they often don't make much sense at all. Make sure you have some reason to vote for you. In terms of the content, I am chill with high theory, race, cap or whatever amalgamation of political theory you call an aff.

K: I will vote on basically any K. However, there needs to be some great 2NC/1NR explanation on the K if it's a 1 card K. On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW, so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me, so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link, depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad; try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links.

FW/T-USFG: Fairness is an impact. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I really need good impact framing for this. K-affs shouldn't go for the W/M unless you have a plantext.

I have no opinions on theory. It just comes down to the impact calc debate.

If you make a GOOD joke about Misty Wang, Billy Blechman, Maguene Moussavou, Jamie Levitan, Ishaan Deepak, or any ex-Lex debater I will boost your speaks.

I am a PF debater.

Generally truth > tech but still extend and stuff (in retrospect this is only true if no one is doing tech stuff lol)

Don't go too fast. If you think I might not be able to understand then spend a speech doc.

Don't be a jerk.

Don't lie.

Signpost!!!

I'll evaluate theories and Ks, but I would prefer you don't run them. It's not like I'll drop you or give you low speaks, but I'll definitely be subconsciously harsher when considering whether you won or not. Also I'll suck at evaluating it.

Friv theory is fine but same goes.

No new rebuttals in summary, and no new points in second final focus. Call out your opp on it though in case I miss it.

don't be mean in cross pls

SPEAKS:

General breakdown:

• < 27: actively made the round unpleasant.
• 27 - 28: didn't use up all time on speeches, made crucial mistakes, didn't properly extend, cost the round.
• 28-29: generally good speeches.
• 29-29.5: good speaker. Few to no issues.
• 29.6 - 30.0: amazing speaking.

my email is alyoshavak@hunterschools.org

i don't remember if i finished this paradigm but i feel too cringe to read through it so consider it complete