Hi! My name is Abby and I debated in PF all four years of high school and dabbled a little in congress as well! I have competed on the local circuit in New York and Iowa as well as the national circuit, so I have been exposed to many different styles of debate.

I am 100% Tech > truth. I will vote for completely bogus arguments if they are not properly refuted, but I will be sad so please don’t make me do that.

Add me to the email chain: abbybonat@gmail.com

Speed: I can handle fast paced rounds but if you are going to spread I expect you to send a speech doc to everyone in the room/zoom call.

Framework: I don’t really like framework because it limits the possibility for an interesting weighing debate, but that’s just my opinion. I will not penalize you for running it as long as you warrant it. Don’t just state your framework without telling me why I should prefer it over util.

**Please tell me which side of the flow you are starting on before giving your speech! With that being said, do not give a 5 minute off time roadmap.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost clearly!!

First Rebuttal: just use this time to respond to your opponent’s case and weigh if time permits. You do not need to go back and extend your case since there is no ink on it yet.

Second Rebuttal: you should always frontline in second rebuttal (especially turns!) i also think it's strategic to collapse here! If there are turns on a contention you MUST either concede to any delinks or frontline the turn. Dropping the contention does not drop the turn!

DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK

Summary: I do not require defense in first summary but I do think it is strategic to extend turns! You should also start weighing here if you haven’t already!

Weighing: Your weighing must be comparative! I will be very sad if you just say “we outweigh on magnitude” without any further explanation. Thats not weighing!! I will be very pleased to see metaweighing or at least see you respond to your opponents’ weighing and tell me why I should prefer your’s. Also, I would really like to see evidence weighing. If there are two pieces of conflicting evidence in the debate you must tell me why to prefer your's instead of just repeating your evidence over again.

I have ZERO tolerance for any sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. If i see anyone behaving inappropriately or overall making the debate space uncomfortable i will drop you and report to tab without hesitation.

Cross fire: I will not flow but I will listen. If something important happens it must be brought up in a speech. Mentioning in cross fire does not equal extending!

Please keep a consistent narrative through the round! Do not decide to collapse on a contention and then change your mind. This means your final focus should follow the same format as your partner’s summary.

I will not call for evidence that is not refuted in the round. However, if i read your evidence and it does not say what you say it says, I will be less likely to buy anything else you read. If you feel your opponent is practicing bad evidence ethics, feel free to use that as a voter in the round. Nothing makes me more mad than power tagged evidence!!

Extend claim, warrant, and impact! Do not just extend your impact evidence and expect me to vote off it.

Hello all! I am a current PF debater, and generally value Tech > Truth.

My email: dianehe@hunterschools.org

If you’re a novice or in middle school, I wouldn’t stress out over techy stuff. I will likely approach your round as more of a lay judge. The important thing is to just have fun!

For everyone more experienced, here are some techy reminders:

Please(!!!!!) signpost throughout your speeches.

You should collapse wherever you can. While this isn’t necessary, it will definitely help you save time.

You should clearly extend through summary and final. If you plan on extending an argument, you must respond to everything your opponent has said against it and/or explain why your argument still stands despite their responses.

Weighing is essential to debate, and will most likely make or break a close round. You should be weighing wherever you can. If you can’t think of anything else to say, just start weighing.

If you make a US military joke, I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

I do want to be on the email chains: viveth [at] debate.nyc

I'm the lead program director at the NYC Urban Debate League. I've coached policy debate at Harvard University and Emory University. I did policy debate at Emory University and at Chattahoochee High School.

I evaluate the debate entirely based on the arguments in the round and the flow.

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

The most important aspects that I look for when judging are: clarity over speed, clear emphasis stated for the contentions, enunciation of words for clarity, and clearly stating why the side has won (Scope, Magnitude, Reversibility, Prerequisite, Time Frame, Probability, or a Priori).

Circuit LD Paradigm

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Edit for NSD: I'm a fine judge for all of you, read what you want. Especially if it's something other than the stock aff/inflation DA.

Tl;dr I look for the path of least intervention to the ballot. Good for phil/theory, fine for clash debates, bad for K v K and larp v larp. I'm less lenient with super short blips than you might expect; you need to have fully fleshed-out warrants. I AM BAD AT FLOWING SO BE SLOW AND CLEAR.

Generic
- Default to truth testing, permissibility/presumption negate
- If I don't understand your case after your constructive, I won't expect your opponent to predict a massive rebuttal extrapolation.
- I'm pretty tab and don't hack against arguments that other judges might not vote on. But I won't vote for legitimately problematic things (ex. if you start screaming slurs against your opponent).

Larp
- I'm bad at evaluating policy. Please overexplain. And if you're against another larper, I'm praying that one of you uplayers.
- I can, however, evaluate util just fine. In fact, it can be quite persuasive against Ks.
- Default to epistemic confidence, yes judge kick, zero risk does exist.
- I have a lower threshold for winning calc indicts than most judges. Util debaters undercover them.

Phil
- Love it. I'm most familiar with Kant, determinism, and skep, and I'm somewhat familiar with most other common FWs, but feel free to run whatever. However, this doesn't mean you can rely on my knowledge to fill in gaps for you.
- Calc indicts <3

K
- Not the most experienced with Ks, but I'm not opposed to them.
- I view Ks as frameworks. That means when going for a K, you should try to frame it as a phil NC - i.e., heavier on the line-by-line as well as explaining why your offense is relevant and theirs isn't.
- I don't understand why so many K 2Ns have enormous overviews at the top that just explain what the K says and don't explain what implications the arguments have on the round.
- Pathos is not offense.

Theory
- I like theory. I'll vote on almost any shell if it's well-justified. SLOW DOWN ON BLIPS.
- Terminal defense on theory, even under a competing interps model, is sufficient for me to ignore a shell. In other words, I don't default to risk-of-offense framing, but you can always argue otherwise.
- It is much harder to get me to vote on independent voters and paragraph theory compared to regular theory shells. A one or two-sentence argument likely doesn't have enough warranting for a full collapse in rebuttal, but it's fine if you warrant and impact out the initial argument.

Tricks
- I'll vote on them if there's a warrant in the constructive speech. A lot of times there isn't, like "negating denies the antecedent of the resolution, and statements with false antecedents always have true consequents" is literally just words. Yeah I know it's condo logic, but I'm not doing that work for you.
- Keep the debate clean pleeease
- If you extemp a random a priori in the middle of the AC, I probably won't catch it. Just put it in the doc.

PF/Parli Paradigm for NYCUDL

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Selena. I competed in LD debate for Millburn High School (NJ). Some miscellaneous things to take into consideration:

- I evaluate only the arguments you make in round without using my own knowledge and opinions.
- Weigh/compare between arguments! This is where a large portion of rounds come down to.
- Signpost your responses; it makes them easier to flow.
- I will be very happy if you run a framework and execute it correctly.
- A team once called me "your honor." Please don't do this or anything similar. "Selena" or "judge" is fine.
- If you have any questions before or after the round, ask or email me! I'll be happy to provide information and feedback.

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

Former Policy Debater from the UDL circuit and NFL (Nation Forensic League).

Debated for the University of Louisville (2005-2010).

Flow judge with high school PF experience. Time yourself and speak clearly at a reasonable pace. In other words, don't spread. Don't run Theory or K. I don't flow or vote off of cross. No sticky defense. Remember to weigh and please be respectful to each other. :) If you reference Peppa Pig, I will consider it when assigning speaks.