Hi there! My name is Ishana, I've been debating public forum for five years. My pronouns are she/her/hers

Since we are debating online, I really appreciate cameras on for the whole round; regardless of if you are actively speaking. Additionally, please speak loudly and clearly (no mumbling!) so I can understand what you are saying.

So a few things:

I look for both evidence and logic. If you are bringing up evidence for the sake of bringing up evidence, I will not flow it if I do not find a clear connection to your case. Statistics/facts can only help you if they are backed up with reasoning and good explanations. Tech>truth

Weighing is VERY important. If you do not weigh your impacts (explain why yours are better, more important, ect) I will most likely give the ballot to the opposing team (given they do weigh). I love impact calculus and it is a great way to do this.

I do not have a pre-determined bias; I will vote solely based on your debating skills and your knowledge of the topic.

I’m a flow judge and follow speed, but please be sure to be clear and stay organized. I will tolerate spreading as I understand there is limited time, but if I cannot understand you due to speed, the argument most likely won't be flowed.

I will not be deliberately flowing cross; if you say anything important, repeat it in a speech. However, I will be taking into account what happens in cross- talking over opponents, answering questions properly, ect. Please don't be rude in cross. Additionally, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross.

I shouldn't even have to mention this but like I said before be respectful to each other. I don't want to hear any cursing or comments against race, gender or anything of that sorts. Remember you're here to have fun, so please try to be civil to your opponents, both during and after the round.

If you have any more specific questions, just ask me before the round! Good luck!

New to Parli; just make sure to weigh and extend your points

Flay for the purposes of judging, competed PF since 2020. I flow the whole round and will vote off the flow, but I value clear explanations and sound logic. Tech > truth, you need to support statements with logic (don't just say things without explaining why). Don't run Theory or K, if you do I am not used to judging it.

Things to remember:

• speak clearly, be confident to the best of your ability
• cross is for you: I don't vote off cross unless it is brought up in a speech
• weigh, weigh, weigh: if the round is messy I will be voting off the weighing
• establish your world and why it is better/worse than your opponent's
• don't bring up something completely new in FF please - however if your partner did absolutely no weighing in 1st summary I will allow it if you weigh in 1st FF bc your opponent has time to respond to it in 2nd FF (you cannot bring up completely new arguments in 2nd FF EVER, just interact with old ones)
• be respectful, don't worry too much, and have fun!

Btw I don't really believe in sticky defense (the idea that if your opponent didn't frontline an argument in first rebuttal, you don't have to mention in in 1st summary and can just bring it up in 1st FF -- the defense is sticky and is automatically extended bc they didn't respond to it). If they didn't frontline it you should just be mentioning important tags/the bare bones of the argument so we understand what you are going for/how the round will narrow. This makes the round cleaner and shouldn't take much of your time, you only need to really fully explain a rebuttal if the other side attacked it anyway.

Please lmk if you have any questions/tech issues!

if you reference a studio ghibli film I'll consider it when assigning speaks

hi im alexis (she/her). LD debater at stuy. also did three yrs of parli in ms. princeton & UH semifinalist, columbia & lakeland quarterfinalist. i keep telling myself that i’ll make my paradigm look nicer but i haven’t…

add me to the email chain: aqian70@stuy.edu

for speaks i start at a 28 and generally don’t go below a 27 or higher than a 29. will disclose unless told otherwise.

parli: i want to see you weigh, signpost and for you to not drop arguments (i think that parli rounds lack these elements and i need them if u want the ballot). i’ll vote on anything if it’s not offensive and it is extended, weighed and not really refuted well by the opponent OR rebuilt well by you. i tend to find myself heavily basing my decisions in parli rounds on weighing so please do it well, meaning you tell me how and why you won. for weighing, i prefer probability, scope and magnitude but i’m fine with anything. i’m not going to do the work for you so you should explain ur weighing and refutes well. BASICALLY PLS SIGNPOST, CLASH AND WEIGH

for my preferences, i like plans and counterplans a lot and i think they can be executed decently in parli but if you’re running one, know what you’re doing. frameworks are also cool and if there’s none, i’m defaulting to util. pois are good (answer them right after they ask) and heckles should be limited. speed is fine (if ur opp is fine w it) but be clear and signpost. lmk before round if u have any questions

LD

novices: if you plan to run something very prog (something my dad wouldn’t understand, let’s say) then ask your opp before the round for a prog round. if they agree, do whatever you want. if not, please run a trad case. if you don’t ask and you do run prog, i’m prob giving you very low speaks but i may give you LPW if u do win. most policy/larp args are imo fine in novice (cps, das, etc) but just be nice about whatever you’re running and make it a little basic for your opp. if ur not sure if something is “prog” or should be ran in novice, ASK!

beside high prog in novice, i’ll evaluate anything that’s not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc if it’s extended, weighed and dropped by opp or frontlined/rebuilt by you. please weigh, extend and collapse!! probability, scope and mag are my fav weighing metrics. meta and comparative weighing is great also. if u have any questions lmk before round

jv/varsity:

tech > truth

shortcuts:

1 - larp/policy (my fav)!! love policy v policy rounds, pls clash a lot

1/2 - theory/t

2 - trad

3 - low phil (like kant) - pls explain

3 - friv theory…

3/4 - generic ks (cap, setcol)

4 - other ks or phil u can explain

5/strike - high phil, confusing ks

?? - tricks (i don't love them but i might eval depending on how i feel tbh. just know ur getting LPW and i rather not base my whole ballot on them. also i'm bad at flowing by ear so i lowkey may just not catch ur tricks at all. take ur chances if u want!!)

defaults:

t > theory > rob > fw > substance

p and p negates

no rvis, competing interps, dtd or dta (i can be swayed either way)

comparative worlds

^ for all of that, you can argue otherwise. i’m very easily swayed.

to elaborate on shortcuts above, i can eval trad, larp and most theory/t (mixed feelings abt friv but will eval) pretty well since this is what i run. i don’t feel trained enough to judge non generic ks or high phil rounds but just explain and i guess i’m cool with it. i prefer topical cases honestly and i’m very biased to any reasonable t. i love cheaty cps and basically any larp. i like trad too but make it interesting and clash a lot.

FOR SPEED: i want to add that i will try (key word is try) to flow as much as possible but i flow horrible by ear (i type sorta slow in general). yes, speed is generally fine just be clear and most importantly, send docs (pls). if you want me to flow what you say, i really really need you to SLOW DOWN ON TAGS, ANALYTICS AND ANYTHING THAT ISNT IN THE DOC!! anything i don’t catch simply won’t be factored into my ballot.

if you have any questions about literally anything, just ask :)

Hello, my name is Ninon and I am a parent of students on the Ella Baker Debate Squad. Full disclosure, I have not competed in debate tournaments personally. But, I am a keen student and truly respect all the work that goes into crafting and delivering persuasive arguments.

In general, I encourage you to focus more on improving your performance from the last round or last tournament than winning and beating your opponents.

I value clear, well-structured arguments supported by evidence and developed over your team's speeches (i.e., extensions).

I find it persuasive when a team responds directly to the opponent's weighing arguments and engages in debate about the overall merits of each side (i.e., clash).

I also love a good turn. But, make sure to back up the turnaround and show its impact.

Please, minimal spreading. In other words, you may go fast but don't overwhelm me with rapid-fire arguments or try to trick the other side into missing what you have said.

Be respectful and avoid using POIs as weapons to disrupt your opponent simply for the sake of throwing them off. I value POIs as strategic questions used to lay the groundwork or further a team's argument or counterexample.

The feedback I give after the round is meant as a way to help you grow and improve your debate techniques. Please do not view anything I say as criticism. Take what helps and leave the rest.