I have learned the most in debate from asking judges dozens of questions about things I didn't understand in their paradigm. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

---------------------------------

Henry Anastasi (He/him/his)

Currently, a Senior at J. R. Masterman HS and have debated since freshman year under Masterman AW, AE, and most notably two different Masterman ACs

TLDR-I'm Tech I can judge you do what you want, I appreciate speech docs with cards greatly (not Google docs)

Immediate warning-any and all teams I will not vote for you if you´re hateful in any way. Any rhetoric that is Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, Transphobic, ect will lose you my ballot.

Debate is fun keep it fun. If you are rude to a team because you think you're better than them I will tank ur speaks even if I vote you up. You are not god, you are a teenager in a suit, I've seen too much of this recently.

General

-Go as fast as u want, I would like a speech doc over 1000 words, I think you will generally benefit from slower back half speeches

-tech>truth but that doesn't mean saying 'the sky is red' has as much legitimacy as 'the sky is blue'

-Defense isn't sticky it is 2023 (I lowkey don't even know what defense is sticky means)

-signposting good

-my partner and I do a lot of 'you didn't extend this properly' claims when we are losing rounds but I don't actually think it's that valuable. If your link into extinction isn't contested I don't need all the warranting behind it. TLDR, good extensions are valuable but I am not that stingy.

- Most rounds are won on the offensive layer, if you are torn on whether you should extend bad defense or read more weighing, read weighing.

-In that same realm, I will almost always vote for the argument that outweighs if some semblance of a link is won unless claims are read that I should prefer probability or prefer a less mitigated link

-Probability is a function of winning your case, and goes in tandem with defense

-Probability weighing is not an excuse to read new defense. It's so funny how far people can stretch probability analysis in some rounds. I think other weighing is preferable anyway because weighing should presume both arguments are won and probability is a facet of how won your link is.

-Early weighing is awesome and meta weighing is awesome. I think everyone is getting the point

-I think it's more interesting when things don't just impact out to extinction. I don't mind you doing that cuz sometimes it is just the best strategy (I read extinction constantly) , but it is so much more interesting to be able to do impact-weighing

Theory

-I like theory, Open-source disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and round reports are good. I think content warnings are important for safety. I won't hack for any of this issues, your fighting an uphill battle responding to them but obviously I'll vote on the flow

-Drop the debater and other paradigm issues aren't a given so you need to make those arguments, you absolutely can lose a round where you are ahead on the theory level but don't extend dtd

-The current state of RVIs is bad. 50% of people think RVI's are any argument that you can win the round off of when responding to theory and the other 50% actually know what they are ????. Say no offense garnered if that's what you mean, say no RVIs if that's what you mean.

Ks

-If your K is serious take yourself seriously, if it's not then don't pretend like it is. I don't care what a random dude from 100 years ago thinks I care what argument you extrapolate from them.

-i'm good w non-topical, set col, IR, securitization, and anything that's considered common in pf.

-real alt pls not "reject the aff" THATS LITERALLY WHAT THE NEG ALREADY IS

Speaks

-Pitch me a real reason u deserve 30 speaks and I'll give you 30. It can be personal, if there's someone you want to outspeak you gotta spill the drama

-1+ speaks if you don't have a coach, 25 speaks if you lie about it

-Speaks will generally be good dw abt it

Fun Stuff

-An authentic Philly-related line in a debate round will get you high speaks. This doesn't mean you have to be from Philly but it also doesn't mean Google Philadelphia and use the first thing you see.

-If both teams agree to read cases from a dif topic I will give everyone 30s regardless

Misc

-I'll presume for the squo unless other claims are made

TL;DR:tech>truth, speed is fine, read any argument you want

Debated at NSU (‘24) and finaled at Glenbrooks, UKSO, TOC Digital, Ivy Street RR, qualled to the TOC (octas junior and senior year) as well as 15 bids, a no.1 national ranking, and Florida state champion.

Add me to the email chain and send all docs:iarias@stanford.edu

if you make the round fun, you'll most likely get perfect speaks...

Substance:

i love impact turns, you don’t need to extend their link if you go for it

win the flow, win the round

spreading fine, j send doc

roadmap and signpost

preflow before or speaks go down

collapse

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

weighhhhh (comparatively)

framing is cool

final shld mirror summary

defense not sticky

i presume neg

Progressive Debate:

theory - disclosure is good/paraphrasing is bad. I ran disclosure theory countless times when I debated so I am EXTREMELY likely to vote on it. Same with paraphrasing but to a lesser extent. But actually win the debate if you read theory—I won’t automatically vote for you if you read disclosure. Friv theory (disclose rebuttal ev, bring stuffed animals to rounds, robot theory, etc.) is cool too, always down for a FUN ROUND

k's — i'm basically lay when it comes to these - feel free to read but don't assume I understand your argument because I prob wont if you dont explain it to me simply

******If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill, I will not intervene. Only valid if both teams are definitely breaking or definitely not.

******Don't shake my hand

I’m William. I currently debate PF at Durham Academy. Add me to the chain: williama0323@gmail.com

If you have any questions about ANYTHING in this paradigm or in general please ask me before the round. I will not discount your debate ability nor will I think differently of you for asking; if you do, I will bump your speaks up.

Debate should be fun. If everyone is nice, respectful, and chill about the round I will bump your speaks.

If you are discriminatory in any way I will drop you immediately, and round will be over.

if i'm judging you at a springboard or dsdl, feel free to ask me for detailed feedback! the role of judges is not only to evaluate the round but also to help you get better at debating. i want to do that for y'all so that you can succeed in other tournaments!

how to get me to vote for you (novice edition)

1. speak confidently. confidence is half being good at debate. fake it until you make it, especially in crossfire. however, be respectful of your opponents. don't shout and i have a relatively low tolerance for rudeness in round

2. i will give you higher speaker points if you use all of your speech time!

3. although i understand debate, treat me like a parent judge. explain your reasoning clearly and remember to speak at a conversational pace. why do your arguments matter in the context of the round?

4. i will be timing everything, especially prep time. don't go more than over the 10 second grace period i'll give you. also, have your evidence ready to send; don't waste everyone's time.

also if possible:

1. I need warranting and implication. If you don't have specific warrants, I will really struggle to vote off an issue no matter what happens in the round. For every argument, response, frontline, piece of weighing, etc. please please please warrant it (give reasonings) AND implicate it (explain why it matters in the round)

2. Please collapse in the back half of the round. Going for every argument you read means you cannot flesh them out as much as you will need to in order to win my ballot.
   
   

3. Please extend the argument you have collapsed on in BOTH summary and final focus. That means explaining each part of the argument in 20-40 seconds. You need to extend your arguments in each speech for me to vote on them.
   
   

4. You should weigh the argument you are going for. This should be comparative, saying our argument is more probable because it has happened in the past is not weighing, you must also compare it to your opponents and explain why theirs are less probable.
   
   

5. Don't be abusive in cross.

Unless you are a varsity PFer, that is the end of my paradigm, and good luck in round!

How to get me to vote for you part 2

TLDR 2: I will vote off my flow, but do not spread. 900 word case should be your max.

1. I'm really bad with spreading. Please keep it slow. (again, 900 words should be about the max).

2. K's are okayish. I don't really understand them to their fullest extent and you'll have a pretty large burden trying to get me to vote for a K. I don't want you to confuse your way to the ballot so I will be skeptical. That said, if you go follow the speed stuff, K's are fine. (Unless you're doing something with neg fiat; neg fiat makes no sense).

3. Probably don't read theory. The only time I would ever want to hear it is if something is actually abusive. (Like I probably won't vote off things similar to disclosure unless the practices are actually wild).

4. Anything you want to read in final should be in summary.

5. Please try to find evidence quickly, if you take too long I will probably dock speaks, and if you take so long that I think you're just finding evidence and cutting it in round, I'll laugh and then probably be upset.

6. You can have like a 5 second grace period once your speech time, I go over like every speech so don’t hold your timer up at 4:00. (I have a weird thing with grace periods. If you are just doing some implicating and finishing up a point and you go less than 10 seconds over, that's fine, but if you're over time already I won't let you move to anything new. Like, if you get to defense at 4:01, I'll drop it).

I do speaks basically off of pretty much solely on how easy you make the debate to judge, and how annoying (?) you are in speech/cross. Cutting people off in cross, taking too long to find evidence, and just being rude will get you lower speaks.

hi

truth>tech

if you run fem you win the round. 30 speaks.

play 21 savage, kendrick lamar, ice spice for 30 speaks.

email chain: amundogreen@gmail.com

ryandebate7@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Ryan. I've been competing on the national circuit for almost a year now at Jasper High School in Texas, mainly reading philosophy and policy arguments. The way I judge is fairly simple, so the rest will be some notes that I keep on updating as I gain more experience in debate.

• I like debates centered around the resolution and its questions, whether that's philosophically, critically, etc. Convincing me that debate itself is bad or unfairness and being non-topical is good will be difficult for you. I will still vote for these positions, but unhappily and at the cost of your speaker points. As much as I try to prevent my biases from influencing how I judge, that's just how I feel.
• When judging, I look towards impacts first, so you should weigh.
• Stay organized and speak in a way that is understandable and efficient. I can handle whatever speed you're going to go, but I won't evaluate what I can't understand, so slow down if you notice me losing you or not really flowing anymore.

If you have any questions, you can shoot me an email or ask me before the round. Have fun!!!

Hi! I'm Caleb, a senior at Durham Academy. I've been debating for like 3-4 years on the national circuit and I've had some decent enough success so I'd like to believe I'm pretty experienced.

Paradigm:

IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT. PLEASE EXPLAIN, WARRANT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IMPLICATE EVERYTHING WELL

Copied from Alex Huang: (Alternatively, you can read Ben Hodges or really any other Durham debater's paradigm I think we all think about debate relatively the same way)

For novices.

I think DSDLs are a fantastic opportunity to learn and I want to help y'all do that to the best of my ability.

So ask questions! Probably not during the round, but before and after the round definitely.

And most of all, be nice! We're all just here to learn and have fun, so help me do that, help your opponents do that, and help yourself do that.

This is how you win my ballot:

Collapse- There is not enough time in summary and final focus to talk about every argument in-depth, so please choose one of your contentions to focus on (collapse on, or "go for). This should be the one you extend.

Extend- Make sure in the back half of the round (the summary and final focus speeches), you re-explain the argument you are "going for" and collapsing on. Tell me in detail what will happen when I negate/affirm, and why that's a reason to vote for you!

Warrant- Tell me why. Make sure you give reasoning for all of your arguments and responses! It will be very difficult for me to vote for you if all I have to work with is "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession." So tell me why it will cause a recession, e.g. "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession because ____ which means _____ which causes ______ because of ________.

Implicate/Interact- I know from experience that often times while debating, it is very clear to me how all the arguments relate to each other and respond to one another. However, that doesn't mean it is clear to the judge. So make sure you go the whole nine yards and be very explicit in explaining to me how your arguments fit into the round. This means telling me why your responses take out your opponents argument, why your opponents argument doesn't take out your argument, and why I should prefer your responses over your opponent's.

Signpost- Piggybacking off of the implicating explanation, your responses and speeches might be super organized in your head, but that doesn't mean it will be organized to me, the judge. Instead, please signpost, i.e., tell me what you are talking about before you talk about it. If you are talking about their argument, maybe say "on their argument," but then say "now on our argument," when switching to talking about yours. Also, number your responses, e.g. say "on their argument about _____, we have four responses. first, _____, second, _____ etc."

Weigh - Compare your arguments and tell me why yours is more important! To do this well your weighing needs to be warranted and comparative. It will be difficult for me to vote for you if you just say "our argument is more important on magnitude." Instead tell me something like, "our argument is more important because it results in deaths, something that cannot be recovered from, whereas their argument only concerns an economic downturn, which the economy can bounce back from."

Make a Basketball Reference for Boosted Speaks!

Langley '26 | PF for two years

Add me to the email chain: chunconnor@gmail.com (he/him)

While I come from the incredibly lay Virginia circuit, I have a decent amount of experience on the natcirc. I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer...

Hard Prefs

Stolen from my friend Tobin- There are not enough people yelling clear or requiring their students be clear. Yes kids today don’t flow because they just look at the speech document- but guess why they do that? Because no one can understand what the other team is saying [...] even when I say “clear” people totally ignore it.

Here is what it means when a judge says “clear”: I cannot understand what you are saying, therefore I cannot count any of the arguments you are making. Without arguments you will probably lose.

What kids hear: “LOUDER” “1% slower please” “Can you enunciate for like 5 seconds and then go back to mumbling?”

-

That being said, there are a few (pretty obvious) things that are absolutely set in stone, so you should definitely read this if you want a quick summary of my preferences. These are more lenient in novice/jv rounds (excluding respect)

1. Be respectful. Any bigotry or blatant rudeness will get you a quick L20.

2. Speed is fine- be coherent. I hold a high value in clarity because realistically if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments. Send a doc if you're going fast, but even then I prefer not to use it.

3. Obviously keep track of your own time. I will also be timing and stop flowing once the timer hits zero, give or take 3~ish seconds.

4. Evidence exchanges have a tendency to take way too long. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to grab a card your speaks will suffer. I'd prefer it if you sent cut cards before speeches or at the very least before constructive.

5. Theory is fine, but I shouldn't be trusted to evaluate K's very well.

Other Stuff

Top level I default util, but have ran lots of SV and Extinction framing. Reading carded frameworks in first summary is iffy and reading it in second summary is way too late unless you're responding to your opponents' framing. Pre-fiat "discourse" arguments aren't the most persuasive.

Make my job easy by explaining your clear path to the ballot. Collapse on your case, collapse on their case. Debate is quality > quantity so rather than going for five unweighed turns it makes way more sense to go for one with good weighing and a strong link chain.

If an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there.

Weigh. Lots of round come down to whoever is winning weighing. Do lots of it, but have good warranting and explanations if you want it to be a voter. Probability weighing is just another way of explaining why you are winning your link and is often just new defense in the summary speeches. If you go up in summary and say "we ow on probability because their argument about nuclear war is stopped by MAD," that's new defense I won't vote on.

If I look confused I probably am.

add me to the chain, rebeccaclark08273@outlook.com (outlook acct. weird, right?)

feel free to ask questions!!!

PREF SHEET, bear with me:

1- larp (aff v k on the lit from 1/2, larp v larp) this is usually the kind of debate that I typically do & think about the most.

1/2 - k (kaff v larp, best for racial/semio cap, setcol, lib, anthro, generic security, Baudy but less the other pomo authors, etc)

2 - T/Th

2/3 - kvk on any of the lit from 1/2

3 - other k lit in order of most familiar: psycho, heidegger, pess, deleuze, and then anything not listed. Tread carefully with kvk & slightly limit the jargon

4-Phil in order (Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, Locke, Levinas, and Rousseau.) I've read some of their work-- including parts of The Leviathan, the Critique of Practical Reason, Justice as Fairness, etc-- and I have to engage with them in debate, so I know basics like the veil of ignorance, the state of nature, fleshy objects and tailoring maxims, etc.

5-Other Phil lol

5-tricks.., im just bad for this

Misc stuff:

LD small school debater. I'll compete under Equality Independent RC, Clark Independent RC, or CD Hylton RC. Look to the paradigms of (in order of who ill reflect the most): Anirv Ayyala, Sean Wallace, Lydia Wang, Parker Traxler, and Vishal Sivamani.

tech>truth

Is debate just a game? idk, you tell me

I dislike judge intervention

cross is binding

i do not care if you flow the final speaking team if you're done debating, but dont start playing around on your phone. You can sit still for 2/3 minutes.

i have one round i think i judged incorrectly (it was unnecessarily messy) and that haunts me to this day -- it was ages ago and i think about it regularly. I want to be good for you, so i'll think my decisions through bc i dont want to think about your round in months.

please don't try and suck up to me for the ballot... it's super obvious and unpersuasive

ev ethics matter and im willing to stake the round on them... but please consider whether it's worth my ballot. If you arent sure, urging me to drop the card will be much more persuasive.

Do what you want & have fun, I'll vote on almost anything (except stuff that's disrespectful or threatening.)

I love it when the 1nc is super specific to the aff & when you show me you're actually reading their cards, can extrapolate something out of them, and are not talking to a wall.

also, i think more 1ars and 1ncs should put analytics onto the case page... Have cards for what needs them ofc, but an 8 point response w/3 crucial cards and 5 analytics makes me happy. remember that a dropped arg is a true arg and debaters are getting increasingly worse at the lbl

I'm split over whether an NC should be quality>quantity or vice versa. I wouldve said "the NC is 1 off" is scariest a while ago, but 5-7 off NC w/good flow analysis will win many rounds when the 1ar inevitably drops something. I will say however to please still develop the case page... I think good case pages are very persuasive and frequently mishandled in the 1ar. If this means sacrificing an off, I'd say pull the trigger.

I TAKE JUDGE INSTRUCTION SERIOUSLY. If you tell me "vote of xyz first because blahblahblah," I will genuinely vote off it if the warranting is conceded

^^ i dont mind you reading generically progressive stuff against more traditional debaters, but there is a limit. Flay w/extinction impacts? Yeah of course. Must spec military presence? ehhhh... ill be lenient. Indexicals, spikes, and unheard-of paradoxes? no.

Also, I wont flow if you're completely inaudible, but you should have analytics in doc if you're hardcore spreading them

I default to around a 28.5 and go up or down based on what you do right. II used to be a speaks demon but my opinion has changed and speaks are pretty discriminatory. Please don't put me in a bad mood and make me question that. I'll adjust to the tournament rubric regardless.

If both opponents read and extend 30 speaks th, I'll give all 30s :) ... the interp and warranting both have to be extended though.

You should 100% collapse in your final speeches, but if you're seriously winning & dont need your full time, I dont mind you ending the speech early or splitting the time just in case.

Everything aside -- Don't be mean to new debaters or people that you think are "worse" than you. That's disgusting, and I'll tank your speaks and/or vote you down for it :)

^^ let me clarify because somebody clearly didnt read this. Do not scoff, roll your eyes, or laugh at your opponents. Stop making so many judgmental faces while they speak. This is a sliding scale, and I am the one who decides whether you are being egregiously rude. if you really think you're better, keep it to yourself or leave. Don't say your reactions are natural or throw a fit... a natural jerk is still a jerk and the only thing benefitting from your behavior is your ego.

Theory:

okay so I like theory debate -- if im judging pf and you think this is the time to read shoe or clothing theory, i will eval it, but any turn on objectification is going to be VERY persuasive and I will subconsciously think that you dont think things through(there are exceptions -- friends hitting each other and goofing off is funny.)

regardless, ive been going for th and ivis a lot lately (as of reaching the end of janfeb WANA 2024) so keep that in mind.

Unless told otherwise, I default to: Th is highest layer, no RVIs, reasonability, DTA if possible, in round abuse, and safety>all.

Also, I don't mind friv, but it should be against an opponent that seems fine with engaging. friv v friv is super funny and extra speaks for making this activity more fun :)

FOR DISCLOSURE SPECIFICALLY, I STRONGLY BELIEVE this is a good norm. "New affs dont have to be broken!" is not warranted or persuasive. I also wont NOT vote for disclosure because "the aff is generic/larp/trad"... I will be subconsciously inclined to hack against you because if it's so generic, there was no good reason to NOT disclose.

^note, I think those interps about posting certain websites on your wiki are stupid. Forcing somebody to endorse an organization with the threat of reading theory is pretty messed up

that said, idk if this is just an LD thing, but please stop NOT reading paradigm issues. if you dont read prefer norm setting & you're reading tsubsets to an iraq syria aff, they pretty much have to say "iran is literally main offense & all of their DAs still link" for me to not vote on T

i know pfers generically never read topicality because plan texts arent allowed, but it would be so strategic if you guys did.

also, a good 2nr on th/t is impressive to me -- touch on subjectivity, tell me how to frame the round, preempt extra 2ar explanation, collapse on & weigh a standard, etc. ("i extended the interp and violation, i collapsed on a standard & lbl responses, i extended paradigm issues... and i'm only 2 minutes into the 2nr. what do i do now???")

Also IMO pfers should read disclo. If the tournament is even somewhat prog, they dont have contacts on their wiki, and I'm judging your round, you should probably go for it.

finally i WILL eval spec th. i dont think it's nearly as bad as judges claim... and if it is, that should make the response easier, so there's a natural checkback.

T

I probably prefer that you at least have some connection to the topic, but that can really be said about anything so read whatever you think you can win. I lightly presume the aff should be topical, i think tva is a valid argument with examples, you should pls go slower on non t lit if it isnt generic, etc.

^^ it is impressive to me if an NC can beat a kaff without relying on T. Do whatever will make you win though

please have good responses to the impact turns on t and the subjectivity flows. Ballots fail, alt causes, state heuristics, negating identity bad, state progress possible, policymaking good, whatever.

Please read and frame TVA/SSD. They're pretty persuasive & if you win them, I'll judge T as an aff burden.

K (general):

im most familiar with cap (racial and semio,) setcol, anthro, baudi, lib, generic security, etc. I'm kinda familiar with psycho & heidegger lit but not with debating it, so take that as you will. The biggest value of the k in my mind is your subjectivity, so ill be happy if you read solid stuff... and if i'm not familiar with your lit/it isnt listed above, please slow down.

also method v method debates are cool but often very messy… check the pref sheet

I dont know if it's my experience with people not going for it against me, but it'd be nice to see a good 2nr (or... final PF speech? idk what those are called) that's going for the k

check pf section for specific notes

Tricks:

I am not a tricks debater, and i would def say to NOT go hard on them if I am judging, (maybe just dont read them at all,) but I understand absolute generics. "calc solves" is an acceptable response to xeno and most other paradoxes. indexicals?? please do not spread these logical tricks that go "if p, then q, but never q if p, which means q cannot be true, which means p cannot be true, which means nothing can be true so you'd think presume neg, but you actually vote aff instead because of the decision-making paradox." im fine with them but at least give me a second to catch up

(only go for tricks if you think it is the only way you'll win the round)

PF:

I don't do this event, but the main purpose of PF is to be accessible anyways.

JUST ASSUME I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YOUR TOPICS. If you're using some niche acronym, read the full title the first time. I'll try my best, but that's on you if I have a ton of question marks on my flow.

Cross: Grand-cross weirds me out. This and all other cross-ex-es are binding but not acceptable as answers on flow. If you let somebody dominate cross-ex and it hurts you, I might lower your speaks. Also, I'm cool with dropping grand-cross for prep.

why dont pfers read presumption leans aff/neg triggers? or presumption at all? what? you should probably do this.

Ks: Ks in pf are weird. I'll be holding you to the same standards as a non pfer. Give me good framing, provide a clean link, tell me how to do my job, etc, and I'll try to be a good judge for you. Show me why you go for the kritik, aside from it just being strategically good in some places.

idk how to eval alts for the sake of this event...I just assume that I should teach them as a question of uniqueness and not solvency.

I have heard about PFers reading fake authors thru Medium (Day 24?) (Lincoln Douglas is one of your fake authors, really?) ... this is fine if we're in friv v friv rounds like mentioned above, but I will give you the lowest speaks possible in a serious round and not eval the evidence if you're caught.

Lincoln Douglas, Robert Day, Junaid Ali, Daquavius Daquavion Howard (ok that one is pretty funny), etc?????

ANYWAYS

LD

Ks and theory: go to general notes

Phil: Show me your understanding of these philosophers. If you are reading Locke, you should know what Locke says (outside of what you're just reading.) Be specific. Justify your value premise. Why should I prefer it? Also, I won't auto-affirm or negate on phil unless the mechanism is clearly explained in the constructive & extended ofc.

also, a lot of trad and flay lders read phil without any knowledge of it. If you are reading kant, you need to know what a priori means. If you are reading rawls, you need to know what the veil of ignorance is. If you go for phil and the opp goes hard into the lit against you, even if you are more traditional, i will be happy to vote on it. it is your burden to research your philosophers

Follow the rules of competition

Respect the other side and all team members and their position on topic.

Track your time

Speak Clearly

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

Hi!

PF

Do whatever, Flow judge. perception probably matters more. If you want a prog round- read the LD paradigm below

LD

If I'm judging you then you are probably a novice debater,

Ethos=Logos>Pathos

For Progressive

Quick Prefs (My confidence in my ability to judge these rounds)

Larp-1

Kant-1

T/Theory-1

K (cap, setcol, baudy etc.)- 1

Pure Phil (Heidegger, Intuitions etc.) -2

Tricks (warranted) -2

There's nothing I won't listen to but if I don't understand it, it's not going to be good for you.

Send cases if you are toc/natcirc-spreading and be clear when spreading- I can flow any speed just be clear

I will NOT vote for anything that says vote for [x] debater because they are [y] marginalized/minority population e.g. vote aff because I am Chinese

Reading Skep, Determinism, or Indexicals against a novice/trad debator will result in high speaks and me being in a good mood.

From William Trinh:

"I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. This paradigm is more so to let you know what my understanding of arguments may be or what predispositions I might have, but I promise I will do my best to check them at the door. If your best 2AR is on trivialism, do it (just highlight the Kabay 08 card more smh)."

How many times I've sat: I

For Trad/Lay:

Things I look for

1. Clash (For more info look at Taite Kirkpatricks Paradigm
2. Understanding of what you are reading (Nobody wants a first-time novice reading Setcol)
3. Strategy (If you are clearly losing on an advantage then just kick out, don't try and win a losing battle)

PLEASE SIGNPOST AND BE ORGANIZED

Feel free to ask any question about my paradigm before the round starts-if you don't know what it is: it probably doesn't apply to you

Appeals to 'think of your children' or 'do it for the/your children' = +.5 speaker points

30 speaks

-if you tell me a joke that makes me laugh-if it doesn't then your speaks are capped at 29

-find a smart way to include bears (includes pandas), penguins, or any Winnie the Pooh character

-30 spksth but only if there's a good warrant

25>

-You are morally repugnant in round (-isms, condescending, misogynistic, etc.)

-your evidence is 1] not cut correctly, 2]not cited correctly, 3] is fake, 4] miscut

I will check so don't try

-card clipping

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Post Round me all you want.

Other than that, Good Luck Have Fun.

I'm a varsity debater in high school, I have 2 years of HS experience and did some middle school debate. I know how PF debate works and I'm chill in round. Consider me a flay probably. Please keep your own times, though I will also time speeches to keep track.

For any evidence/case exchange, please add me: daniella88gan@gmail.com

I'm fine with any argument as long as you explain it so I understand.

What I'm looking for:

> Clear, moderate speed

> Signposting

> Numbered responses

> Clear impacts connected to your framework (if you have one- Util is default)

> Weighing (starting from at least summary)

> Clash

> Off-time roadmap

> Respectfulness to opponents, judge, and partner

Have fun!

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

Hi!

Add me to the email chain: awemazinga@gmail.comand aagup27@icstudents.org (please add both to the email chain). I prefer speech docs to be sent before round since it makes evidence exchanges so much easier, but that's not something I will require of you.

Here are resources to get better at debate (mainly compiled by my coach).

Important stuff is bolded.

PF Paradigm:

I am a FLAY JUDGE, I have some experience on the national circuit and do well at locals.

I debated the February topic (single-use plastics) at one tournament so I have some background information,please explain abbreviations at least the first time you say them.I haven't debated the April topic at all so please avoid abbreviations or confusing topic language (obviously you can say things that are common knowledge like calling "United Nations" the UN).

For the Iowa City middle school tournament -- don't worry too much about the stuff in this paradigm. Just do what you do and you'll be fine :)

Tech > truth

If you tell me the moon is pink WITH WARRANTING then the moon is pink until it's responded to. However, I will feel better voting on an argument that makes sense rather than a blippy squirrely contention

Evidence Stuff:

Evidence exchanges should not take more than a minute or a few minutes MAX.Miscut evidence is an automatic loss.I'm not going to say that I'm anti-paraphrasing but I will say that if you do paraphrase at least be able to point out where in the article you got your information from. If I have to read an entire article I will be very unhappy and your opponents can probably convince me to strike the card of my flow fairly easily.

I do not listen to cross.

PLEASE WEIGH. Also, please do comparative, warranted weighing. I like frameworks but they need warrants and weighing.

I want you to write my ballot for me. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think about my decision and the less likely it is for me to intervene and make a mistake. If you don't tell me where to vote, I will vote off the least mitigated argument that is weighed the best on my flow. Absent weighing I look at the argument with the least defense.

Please SIGNPOST and give off time roadmaps because they help me flow the round. I will not extend offense/defense for you and I expect good extensions (reiterate the parts of your argument in a concise manner) in every speech for any argument you want me to vote on (barring rebuttals).

I love good analytics.

Good card + good warranting > good analytic w/o card > good card w/o warranting

Frontlines should be in second rebuttal. Collapsing is always a good idea. My pen goes down at 10 seconds over time and your speaks go down if you're over 15 seconds over time.

Please preflow and set up email chains BEFORE round if possible (I understand that tournaments can get delayed but try your best).

My wpm is 225 or less, if you go faster you should able to produce a speech doc for me to follow along with. The faster you go, the less I can flow. I prefer slower rounds over fast rounds. I am an emotive judge, you will see if I am confused (except if it's online because my camera can get blurry). I will yell clear if I do not understand you, and if you do not slow down/enunciate more then I will probably not have a very good flow and you will probably lose.

Please project your voice and enunciate. Funny rhetoric/Taylor Swift references are good for your speaks.

Progressive Debate (if you're competing at a potomac intramural you can ignore this):

I am not the ideal judge for a K/Theory round. I will try my best to evaluate any argument you present but your chances of getting screwed are pretty high if you decide to read any sort of prog. I feel somewhat confident in my ability to evaluate a disclosure/paraphrasing round, but that's about it. Spark, dedev, etc is fine with me but probably send a speech doc.

For LD, Policy, etc -- I am a lay judge.

If you ignore the things in this paradigm, don't be surprised when the round doesn't go your way.

To quote tabroom, "be mature, and good people"

My coach for the past two years has been Sophia Gustafson so if you want more info, check out her paradigm

I am totally cool with giving a verbal RFD and answering questions before/after round if you want me to! Post-rounding is fine with me as long as you are respectful (complain about me when I can't hear). Good luck and have fun!

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

Hello
I am a debater in highschool currently, so I would say I am a tech/flow judge and am generally fine with anything you guys run.

General things:
Don't spread(speaking fast) because your opponent probably won't understand and won't be fair to them
I want to see signposting and good organization in the speeches.

Have actual arguments against your opponents as I don't want to see debate rounds where both sides read contentions and then don't have any clash, so I don't have anything to vote off of.
Make sure you use up all your time
Also I would prefer if you guys keep track of your timings for speeches and prep time, but if you can't, I will do that.

I copied this from Ishan Dubey's paradigm, as its really good at explaining things
Tech > Truth:I tend to believe truth islargelydetermined by the technical debating in round.Debate is a game about persuasion. You still need toconvince me.The goal of my paradigm is to give you the necessary information to effectively do so.Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge isusuallya safe bet, though not a lock.Most of my preferences/biases can be overcome by good debating, though not all.

Judge instruction is very, very helpful and underutilized. Tell me how to evaluate the round: ballot directive language, thresholds I should establish, when and/or whether I should grant new arguments, if I should err one side or another, gut-checks when appropriate, how I filter what is about to be said, etc.Putting stuff into perspective simplifies the debateand makes my decision more predictable.

Extensions are a yes/no question. Extend, yes, but it's not as important to me as it is to others. I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. I won't go fishing for details nowhere in the last speech but present in previous ones. If something is conceded, my threshold for extending drops significantly (though, again, effort could be useful). Nit-picky details only become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.



BQ:
I want incompatible to be defined as generally, this is where most arguments come to.

I also want a clear link about how your arguments either show incompatibility or compatibility as if there isn't a clear link to the resolution, then either its untopical or I will have to make the link for you, which you don't want to happen.

PF

Public Forum Prefs:

1 - Theory/Tricks (Just because it is fun to judge, read below on what I find acceptable in PF)

2 - Policy/LARP Args (Plan/CPs) and Topical Ks

3 - Traditional PF

Everything else below this (Philosophy and Non-Topical Ks)

However, I am chill with plans and counter plans in PF to some extent. This is due to NSDA's new rules for PF that were introduced recently ("Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions."). Don't make it explicitly a plan or cp and I will evaluate it (I like policy args too much).

I am of the opinion that theory is important for the category of PF. PF has a lack of evidence ethics which makes it an abusive space. Personally, PF needs a mechanism to combat abuse, so I am fine with theory in PF.

Weighing Mechanisms:

Default to Timeframe >= Magnitude > Probability > Reversibility

Meta-weighing is advisable if you want to change my opinion

Hi I’m Aidan (he/him)!

Currently I’m a junior at University School in Ohio - I’ve competed in PF the national circuit for the last three years.

Add me to the email chain please :) - akrishnaney25@us.edu

Quick Stuff:

1. Tech>Truth
2. Will evaluate p much whatever that’s not offensive
3. Read content warnings w/opt out forms
4. Go as fast as you want but plz send speech docs, preferably in pdf, google doc, or word doc form
5. If you’re at a varsity tournament, you should be able to deal w tech/prog debate
6. Plz do clear layering in prog rounds

Substance

• I’m a stickler for extensions - plz extend ur args well in summary and final. If ur opps call out a bad extension or there just isn’t one I won’t vote for the arg.
• Plz weigh :)

T Ks

• I run a fair amount of Ks I guess
• I really like Ks, but I’m not familiar w a lot of lit besides some queer theory
• If I cannot understand the K at the end of the round I won’t vote for it, so plz be able to explain it well
• I’ve run these before so I generally understand how they work
• I do think its a little weird to just have your alt be a full-on CP, but Idc unless there’s some kind of theory arg made against it
• If your alternative is rejection I will be sad
• In my career so far I've read imperialism, reproductive futurism, cybernetics, object-oriented ontology, and surveillance capitalism

Non-T Ks

• I’ve never run one but I’m pretty sure I can evaluate
• To vote for you I need to know what voting for you does to the debate space

Theory

• I DESPISE THEORY DEBATES, so plz don’t make me want to cry unless there’s an important violation in the round
• I kinda suck at evaluating theory anyway so… run at ur own risk?
• That being said, if you do run friv I won’t drop you, but the threshold for responses is super low and I’ll probs give you low speaks
• Disclosure is probably good and paraphrasing is probably bad, but I won't hack for theory - although I would definitely be open to a disclo/para theory round
• I refuse to vote on silly misdisclo shells i.e. if someone accidentally puts a corrupted file for one round
• I am very open to defaulting to reasonability, esp if the debate gets super complicated
• Complex theory debates hurt my brain

Tricks

• These args are funny, I guess I’ll evaluate them (probably not super well though tbh)
• Threshold for responses is super low
• I ran them like one time

If you want a reference, I largely agree and strive to judge like Katheryne Dwyer

hi everyone!!! i do pf currently (im a soph)

tech > truth

i think an email chain for ev sharing and/or case docs and speech docs is great esp if ur spreading (kunnatha@students.svsd410.org)

make sure ur not going insane light speed pls - i cant give u good speaks if none of what u say clicks to me

plsplsplsplspls cut ur cards im not tryna listen to 3 paragraphs of things u dont need.. also ctrl f any evidence bc taking like 15 minutes to search for a card mid round is absurd and i WILL start crying on the spot (im half kidding i think)

then just basic stuff, i'll drop speaks if ur blatantly disrespectful in round, its lowkey its never that deep. dont do any of the isms or i'll drop you

make a taylor ref and i'll give u full speaks btw

theories/ks

i'll eval it im js not well versed w it so its not the best idea but things like disclo are fine to run

create an email chain before round and add me: andrewli19002@gmail.com

please don't be a jerk in round. we're here to debate, not get harassed.

TL;DR

tech > truth. run whatever you want, if you're racist, sexist, (any type of -ist), i won't hesitate to drop you with the lowest speaks possible. i'll look to the weighing first when voting.

---

send cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. there is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. evidence exchanges in pf take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send docs. also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't i will just err towards that team on evidence questions.

defense is not sticky, 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything you want to go for

extend everything you want to go for in summary and final fully with warrants from the UQ to the link to the impact, it makes evaluating rounds so much easier -- if i can't explain an argument back to you i can't vote for it.

sufficient extensions + clash within a round should mean you collapse. i do not want you to go for 4 arguments in the backhalf, my brain will hurt.

make your weighing comparative, not incoherent!

i do not care that much about evidence but you should cut cards for what you read and have them ready if your opponent asks for them. if you can't produce a piece of evidence, i can't produce good speaks for you and the claim becomes an analytic. if evidence is actually a problem then you should make comparisons in speech and ask me to call for it, but either way i would much rather you explain warrants yourself or make smart analytical responses than simply dump low quality cards

cross is binding but bring up concessions in speech for me to evaluate it. cross is for questions, not mini-speeches.

i default neg without offense + other presumption warrants read

speed is fine but i refuse to flow off a doc.

i try to intervene as little as possible, but in 90% of rounds i have no choice :(

---

theory - i think i'm pretty comfortable evaluating theory. friv theory is fine too since it can make debate fun every once in a while. but, i'm not too big of a fan of theory when it's run in a way or on a team that is obviously meant to be exclusionary.

ks - i don't have too much experience with these, but i'll probably be able to follow along if you just explain your arguments well.

---

i'll give speaks solely based on strategy and they'll probably be high unless if you did something atrocious

30s if the round is efficient and ends in < 45 mins

+0.5 speaks if you email zhongluke606@gmail.com a screenshot of your 15 second wpm and show me before round: https://monkeytype.com/

speaks boost if everyone addresses each other as "friend"!

-0.5 speaks if your off-time roadmaps are longer than three words - please just signpost

postrounding is fine just don't make it personal. also please ask me questions about my paradigm before round if it's confusing!

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.

email: dma2147@outlook.com - put me on the chain

Tl:Dr - 1 year out, tech but not hyper tech, have fun. make me laugh.

5 Years PF, mostly under Westfield DM. - Graduated 2024

Edit for PDA May Intramural. Unless you're MS Varisty or above all you need to know is that I know what I'm doing.

Feel free to email me with questions about the ballot or debate in general - you can also ask after/before round. Doesn't matter if I judged you or not tbh, always happy to help.

send docs if over 1k words, or if you are reading tricks, k, Theory, anything like that. Put me on the chain.

Tech>Truth, but like everyone else says, if you say something that sounds patently false, my bar for responses is going to be really low.

Conceded defense is sticky, frontlined defense isn't

If I call clear and you don't slow down or speak more clearly, you're dooming yourself.

I prefer to judge substance but I know how to eval most theory, Ks, tricks and phil, just make sure you aren't doing it to kids who have no clue what Prog or non-trad stuff is please. Its not fun for anyone. If you run any prog on novices I'll drop you immediately. Don't be that guy.

If you want the exact order

1. Impact debates (Spark, Dedev, etc)
2. LARP/Trad
3. Friv theory
4. Topical Ks
5. All other Theory
6. Non topical Ks
7. Anything else

Send any and all ev you read in the chain. Pf Evidence Ethics is non-existent and I will drop you for it if your opponents call you out on it. (If they don't I just tank speaks and get sad)

Weigh, metaweigh, link compare, implicate, all that good stuff. The more and the earlier the better.

For the love of everything good in this world please signpost

Auto 30s if y'all read any kind of fun impact turns or make the round not boring in general. You will make my day and likely the entire week. I don't think I hack for anything but extinction good, Climate change good, nuke war good, etc etc just make my life better.

If you're a novice and didn't understand any of that - don't worry its not a big deal - if you're interested in learning more - ask in round or send me an email.

I default Util, No RVIs, Competing interps. I presume neg on policy implementation and first on "do the benefits of x outweigh the harms". Give me a reason otherwise for any of those and I'll be willing to vote for it.

Also - this isn't TOC elims, this isn't a bubble round where if you lose you die, your debate career doesn't end with a loss here - so don't get too serious. Debate is something we are supposed to do for fun. Have a sense of humor, crack a joke, be nice to everyone. Some of the best rounds I've had are ones I've lost, but gained friends in the process.

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

Hi, I’m Dylan (he/any). I competed in PF at James River(‘22) mainly on the VHSL circuit and a few online natcirc tournaments. I was a mediocre debater but I love this activity and my coach (Castelo) is awesome. My email is mcentyredylan89@gmail.com. Reach out if you have any questions or if there’s anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

General

- I evaluate rounds from an offense-defense paradigm and you only need one piece of offense to win. Rounds come down to either A) one piece of offense and who has the best link in or B) two pieces of offense and which outweighs. The difference between these rounds is that round A comes down to link weighing and round B comes down to impact weighing. Either way, all rounds come down to weighing. Saying “we outweigh on magnitude” is not real weighing. Please do the comparative analysis and tell me why your world is preferable over your opponents.

- Judge instruction is the best way to ensure a decent decision. I’ve made bad decisions before and don’t want to again. I will think my decision through and do my best not to intervene because y’all deserve it and I don’t want to think about this round for months.

- All arguments need to be warranted and implicated. A response may be good but it won't matter if you don't tell me what it means for the round and my decision.

Specifics

- Extensions don't need to be super in depth, but you should be extending each part of the argument you collapse on even if it’s functionally conceded.

- There shouldn’t be any brand new analysis in the final speeches.

- If you want an argument to be evaluated then you should say it in each speech with the obvious exception of restating case arguments in rebuttal

Speed?

- I flow by ear and you should not trust me to flow well off a doc. I can keep up with ~275 wpm but not with real spreading

Speaker points

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be somewhat generous. I start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Kritiks

- If you read a K, I need to know who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Now, my opinion on whether or not Ks work well in PF does not matter at all but I’ll add this..if the rules of the event do not let you specify who does the alt and what doing the alt entails then I don’t think the K is the best strat. Speech times also make it difficult. I think framing and kritikal-esque arguments can work but the specifics of K debate become strange in PF. I think this is probably because the format was designed to not let K debate happen. Are kritikal arguments important? Yes, definitely, but I think they work better in LD and policy.

Theory

- Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I really don’t care if you do either as long as you have cut cards and aren’t a douche.

- If the problem could’ve been solved by contacting tab or your opponents then it’s probably not worth our time. If you contact them and they still violate the interp then go for it but you should have screenshots. You should also be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

Hi! I'm a junior at Horace Mann School. I have been on my school’s PF debate team since 8th grade. Please include me on the email chain and send speech docs if you're going to spread (nikita_pande@horacemann.org). BRING ME FOOD FOR AUTO 30 SPEAKS!!!!!! Below are my judging preferences:

• Tech > truth nine times out of ten. I will always vote off the flow.
• Be organized during speeches, please please please signpost so I can follow you on the flow.
• Nothing is sticky! If there's something you want me to evauluate, it must be extended in every speech. Also, don't just extend contention/response taglines—remember to extend the actual warranting as well.
• Turns should be extended in the same way a contention is: uniqueness, warranting, impact, and weighing.
• Weighing is the key to winning my ballot. My favorite mechanisms are prerequsite and short circuit. Use specific numbers when doing scope or magnitude weighing.
• Do not bring up any new responses starting second summary. It is abusive to your opponents who do not have adequate time to respond in first final focus.
• I will be timing all of your speeches and prep time. I will allow max 10 seconds overtime to finish your thought. Anything mentioned after going over that time limit will not be written down on my flow.
• If you and your opponents have conflicting evidence, explain to me why I should prefer your evidence over theirs (date of publication, author credibility, etc.) If there’s still an evidence clash, tell me why I should prefer you on the warrant level.
• If you make me laugh, I will raise your speaker points. Debate should be fun and should not be taken so seriously!
• Crossfire is my favorite part of the round because it fosters a low-stakes, quick exchange of ideas that is truly in the spirit of debate. Thus, I believe crossfire should not be flowed. If you would like a point made in crossfire to be recorded on my flow, mention it in a following speech.
• Your evidence should be in cut card format, not just a link.
• If you are able to, you should stand up during in-person debate while speaking and during first/second crossfire.
• Although not opposed to it, keep in mind that I have minor experience with theory and progressive debate. You can definitely run it, but don't expect me to know exactly how to evauluate it unless you explain it in speech.
• I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points if you're being rude, condescending or belligerent. Remember: attack the contentions, not the opponent.

• ^ I am happy to answer any questions!

pf:

for experienced debaters:

• MOST IMPORTANT THING IS BEING RESPECTFUL TO UR OPPONENTS.
• im cool with prog in pf
• i'll evaluate theory but pls PLS dont spread theory shells. slow waaaaay down, like lay debate speed
• cross is a speech! open cross is fine but if one person is hard carrying, the other is prolly not gonna get great speaks
• paraphrasing is gross, dont do it, pls read cut card
• i dont like nuk war impacts unless theres some good good warrant level debate
• if it wasnt said,it didnt happen, its not getting evaluated
• be nice during cross, if youre rude, its a really easy way to get low speaks
• flowing the doc and not the speech is silly
• good vibes get u good speaks
• pls pls have the email chain set up as quick as possible, and send out docs as quickly as possible. my email is at the bottom of my paradigm
• feel free to email me for my flows or questions on my RFD after round, my emails at the bottom.

for newbies:

• pls ask me any and all questions you have before or after round! im here to help

cx:

idc tbh, run whatever as long as its not problematic

PLS PLS PLS slow WAY down on theory shells/ blocks, or send it in the chain, and pls sign post super SUPER well

EMAIL:mari.g.pelaez@gmail.com

My views align with Annie Chen and Bryan Benitez

30 speaks if u run friv and both teams agree to it

send speech docs or auto 25s qianpingkang@gmail.com

silly stuff:

+0.5 speaks for kpop lyrics in speeches/cross

+0.5 if u address your opponents as "my little opps"

he/him | langley '25

I do PF at Langley High School. Tech > Truth.

Top-Shelf:

Treat me like an average circuit tech judge, though I've come to realize I put a premium on good, consistent warranting in the back half -- I have no qualms about dropping an argument in the second final focus whose warranting is brand new or, depending on the severity of the violation, the team reading it. This probably means I'm not the best judge for a final with a very late breaking new spin, but if you think it's your only path to the ballot you should go for it. I typically start my decision with the weighing so do a lot of it and break the clash on link-ins or i'll be forced to do it for you and that won't make either of us happy.

I realize that most of this section was just me expressing gripes but I want to have the debate you want to have. Debate is literally the most valuable activity in the world and we're all lucky to be a part of it--so fun rounds > aggressive rounds, always always always, and I'll do my best to render an educational and fair decision.

General:

You should be sending speech docs with evidence and correct tags for constructive and rebuttal no matter how fast the round is. You should be reading cut cards (or at least well-paraphrased ones with the cut cards at the ready). You should have good evidence ethics, and I think that can be a voter. Yes I want to be on the email chain -- and no, I don't want your locked google doc (debate.vishwarakasi@gmail.com). Do these things and your speaks floor will be quite high.

Speed is literally preferred -- some of the most educational and in-depth rounds have been the fastest ones I've done. But speed is not an excuse to be unclear, and you should slow down on things you want me to emphasize and important analytics. For me, a good backhalf speech can be any speed but some must-haves are organization, creativity, and clarity. Tell me how you want me to vote, and you'll be surprised by how often I'll vote that way.Be cognizant of the barriers that some have to speed, and have that debate if you need to.

Civility is probably a voting issue and I'm not even joking. Be nice.

Prog:

Again, I'm here to have the debate that you want to have. If that's a theory round, great! If that's a K round, you'll need to slow down a little and over-explain because I don't have enough experience. If you're winning your top-level claims about the world and the way things work, please implicate those to the round explicitly because if you leave me to my own devices there's a 50% chance I vote the way you don't want me to.

You should tell me what my theory defaults should be. Theory debates should have more depth than substance in a norm-setting model but they almost never do--don't forget about weighing and clash just because we aren't doing a "normal" round. "I don't know how to respond" is only a response in specific contexts--if we're at a local circuit tournament or if the tournament only has an open division, for example. For the most part, varsity debaters should be able to handle varsity arguments.

Final:

Postrounding is educational and worth my time but being rude is not. There is a line and I draw it. If we're running low on time, please direct your questions to my email, where I can give you a more in-depth response without causing the tournament to run late. I'm pretty expressive so that should clue you in on what I'm thinking in-round. Anything discriminatory is a drop with the lowest speaks I can give you without a second thought.

Debate is awesome! You are awesome for debating! Let's have a good round.

Hi, I've been debating PF for the past 5 years (Since 7th grade, currently in the varsity category). So you could say I've had quite the experience.

If you wanna add me to a email link chain heres my email - miarodri2210@gmail.com

IF IM JUDGING YOU IN D.R CIRCUIT:

General Stuff:

Please organize your speeches!! (Yes, this includes rebuttal, summary, and final focus)

It would be preferred if you make an off-time roadmap before your speeches.

In your rebuttals please signpost ( AKA; Mention, what argument you're refuting )

Articulate when you're speaking please. I dont mind spreading (speed reading) as long as I can understand what you say, but if I dont I'll simply drop my flow on your speech. :/

If evidence is asked for I wanna see it.

Please time your own speeches and prep time.

Im tech>truth.

Please be respectful, being aggressive in cross is not going to make you any better.

And most important of all, have fun!! make it a interesting round!! :)

First speakers

Please be clear and organized in your speeches. I don't have any preferences in your constructive as long as your argument has a claim, warrant, and impact.

In your summary, make sure to convince me on WHY you're winning the round rather than just a 2nd constructive. Please tell me your impacts, your responses, clashing points, etc… in order for me to weigh the round to the best of my abilities!!

Please remember that anything not mentioned in Summary will not be taken into account in Final Focus or my ballot.

Second Speakers

As a second speaker, a part of my ballot relies on this speech.

In rebuttal as mentioned previously, PLEASE signpost.

[For advanced debaters: If you're going to use grouping refutation, let me know while you're signposting. Whether you're using grouping to refute or line by line, just signpost!! (No one likes a disorganized speech.)]

When you're blocking an argument, don't just say "We block this because of *said response*". Explain to me how "*said response*" affects the argument or how it doesn't make it valid/plausible. Walk me through the response thoroughly.

Once again, if you're 2nd rebuttal it'd be strongly advised you FRONTLINE(Responding to the opposing team's rebuttal). If you're first rebuttal, I'd advise after you're done refuting to extend on your case. (Thats your choice though :-) )

On final focus try to not make it about the opposing team. Its your last speech to present your best points that were left in summary, so make it count!! :)

Again, if you dropped anything stated on summary I'm simply not taking it into account when voting.

IF IM JUDGING US CIRCUIT:

General stuff:

If you run any type of theory, you lost me :/. (Sorry, it just has a abusive nature)

I dont mind if you dont disclose case, its your choice.

If you're going to have a framework, make it a actual fw not just "vote for the team who has better impacts" Give me something I can actually weigh on. If not, that's fine too.

WELL WARRANTED tech> truth. If its NOT well warranted im simply not buying.

I'm okay with spreading (speed reading) I used to be a spreader too, so as long as you articulate what you say, I will be able to flow it. Unless you're reading policy level fast, then no, I'm not going to be able to flow.

Be thorough with your weighing, please!!! Don't just say "x matters more than y" or all of the things that go along with that and leave it at that, please expand , walk me through "why."

When ur DL'ing( De-Linking) an argument, turning, or saying its NUQ(Non Unique) please explain it.

If one of your terminals is mass extinction or anything that sounds like a hyperbole and its unwarranted, its very unlikely I'm buying it.

It would be very preferred for 2nd rebuttal to frontline rather than just extend.

Please be respectful in all cx's, I really dislike it when teams interrupt each other and are aggressive. I understand confidence, but theres a really thin line between confident and seeming disrespectful.

If the round boils down to a card debate, im calling it after the round is over and whoever was right about such card is getting the ballot.

1st speakers:

In summary, please weigh!! and I personally recommend to use IC!!! Its so important and so many debaters forget about it!!

In my opinion summary is one of the most if not THE most important speech in a round (can u tell I was a first speaker heheh) so please be conscious of what you drop, normally my ballot takes a lot of input from this!!

2nd speakers

for the second speakers :D (from a second speaker)

PLEASE signpost, wether your using grouping to refute or line by line, just signpost!! No one likes a disorganized speech.

When you're blocking and argument, dont just say "we block this because of x response" explain how "x response" affects the argument. Walk me through the response!!

Again, if you're 2nd rebuttal, FRONTLINE. If you're first then just extend on case if you're done refuting.

On final focus, don't make it about the opposing team. If you focus you're speech on how "the opposing team stated x, y, z" for the majority of your speech, then you kind of lost me.

If you dropped anything stated on summary, im not taking it into account when voting.

Same thing goes if you mention something dropped in summary in ff, not putting it into account

And most important of all, have fun!! make it a interesting round!! :)

Hi! My name is Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar (he/him). I'm a current junior at Ravenwood High School who has debated under variations of Ravenwood SM. I've had a decent amount of success on the local and national circuit. I've had a good amount of experience as well.

Email for Chain: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com.

I consider the most important rule in debate as being safe and respectful. In round, be chill, nice, and respectful before the round. If anyone is there before the round, the same rules apply. If I'm there before round, feel free to talk about anything.

Tech > Truth.

How I evaluate the round:

I evaluate the weighing first. Once I determine which team is winning the weighing, I look at their case first. If that team is also winning their case, the round is over. If that team is losing their case, I will presume for the team that is speaking first. I make this notion because first summary and final focus are objectively the hardest speeches in the round. However, if you disagree with me, feel free to make presumption warrants and I will evaluate them.

General:

I am mostly fine with speed. If you start going over 215 words per minute, please send a speech doc before you start the speech.

Please make evidence exchange quick. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to send a piece of evidence, I'm striking it from the flow.

Speech-by-Speech:

Case:

Feel free to read whatever you want as long as it's not excluding anyone. Make sure to give warrants for every argument that you're reading.

Rebuttal:

Feel free to read how many ever overviews/advantages/disadvantages in rebuttal. The only rule I have about that is being clear. It becomes a line where I prefer quality over quantity. Collapsing in second rebuttal is also cool.

Summary & Final Focus:

These are the most important speeches in the round, so it's important that you do them right. Extend your arguments properly."Extend Kumar 23" isn't a proper extension. Please weigh. Please make your weighing comparative. Please make sure that you respond to all weighing in round. These speeches also must mirror each other. I will not evaluate anything new.

Progressive Argumentation:

I would highly prefer that you do not read progressive argumentation. I do not believe that I have the sufficient ability to evaluate progressive argumentation to a high extent.

Speaker Points:

30: All Turns in Constructive

30: Turning in Chair when Reading a Turn

30: Referencing the Seattle Seahawks or anything related with cricket.

30: Referencing Kanye West, Juice Wrld, Playboi Carti, or Lil Tecca in speech. (Send song recommendations too).

Some of the debaters that have shaped my view of debate are Vedant Misra, Marcus Novak, Anmol Malviya, Ryan Jiang, and William Hong. Read any of their paradigms if you have any questions or preferences related to substance.

I know this was pretty short and doesn't talk about my views about a lot of things, so feel free to email before the round to see my views. You can also ask me in room.

Hi there debate besties!!! I'm from Eden Prairie.
I've done 3 topics of PF and 6 topics of LD, I haven't done PF in like 3 years. Because of that, I have a stronger preference for LD-esque arguments.

Yay love - Trad, Strong Weighing, Metaweighing, Extinction Impacts, Clear Link Chains, MEW/Util/MSV (LD), Crystallization/Voters

Umm Okay - Topicality, Cap K (on neg), Framework Clash, Weird Moral Frameworks (explain well, please)

i MIGHT vote on - Normal Theory, Extensive Kant, one singular trick, PF framework

:( you choose what you wanna do - Identity K, friv theory, pomo, Baudrillard, Tricks/Blippy args

Again mostly it's up to you. Also please speak clearly and drop cases on an email chain or speechdoc and add me please. Especially if you are spreading.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Hello! I'm Angad, I'm a Junior and I debate on the national circuit and it's my 2nd year in debate.

Email Chain: (angadkv1225@gmail.com) Send speech docs with cut cards

For Novices

1. Extend the argument you want to go for, by this I mean repeat the idea of the argument again which includes claim warrant impact, this is important because I need to know which argument you are going for in the round and why to vote on it.

1. Do Comparative weighing between your argument and your opponent's case. If you just say "We outweigh on magnitude" that doesn't give me a good comparison between you and your opponent's argument. A better example would be "We outweigh on magnitude because nuclear war causes extinction which outweighs the impact of a recession in the US because that harms significantly fewer people and leads to far fewer deaths". (This will make your chances of winning 10x higher and make the job easier for me as a judge.

1. Warrant everything. In PF debaters usually forget to warrant most of their responses and arguments, I need a warrant to fully evaluate it, by warrant I mean a reason for why it is true. Imo warranted evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > unwarranted analytics

Signpost. By this I mean tell me where you are in your speech, i.e "on their c1" "on their weighing". This will help me flow better so i can evaluate your arguments cleanly without missing anything.

TLDR

• Tabula Rasa Tech > Truth

• If you win the weighing debate you win the round, but please do good and comparative weighing, so I don't have to intervene.

• Signpost, It makes everything easier on the flow.

• Speed is fine but send docs

• Send speech docs for case and rebuttal with cut cards before you speak

• Extend properly (link, uq, impact)

• I stop flowing 3 seconds after times up

General

• I presume neg if there is no offense in the round unless given warrants to do otherwise. If the round is a progressive round, I presume the team that spoke first.

• If something is dropped in 2nd rebuttal then it can't be in summary.

• New Weighing in the 2nd summary is fine, but there is no new weighing in either of the FFs. Except new metaweighing is fine in 1st FF.

• No new responses in FF

• If both teams agree we can skip grand cross and I'll give 1 minute of prep.

• I default to Util/CBA as a framework unless given a framework.

• You must read trigger warnings if your case contains sensitive content. This is to make the debate space safe and accessible

Evidence

• Don’t take too long with evidence exchanges, please.
  
  

• You MUST read from cut cards, no paraphrasing, that is the only ethical way to present evidence in PF.
  
  

• Refer to NSDA rules for more.
  
  

• I rarely will call for evidence unless it's the center point of the round.
  
  

• Send speech docs with cut cards, however, you don’t need to send analytics.
  
  

Prefs:

• I'm a flow judge so I will be flowing. Tech > Truth to an extent, I'll evaluate whatever you put on the flow unless it is blatantly false or is severely unwarranted. I won't intervene.

• I tend to ignore Cross, but please try to be respectful.

• I prefer if you go line by line (grouping responses is fine too) but it's just helpful on the flow.

• Collapse, extend well, and SIGNPOST, please. You can go for 2-3 args if you want but please fully extend them (extend claim warrant impact)

• A few well-warranted arguments > a bunch of blippy arguments, if you are missing crucial warrants it's hard for me to evaluate your argument, even if I am tech >truth you still need a warrant.

• I'm okay with speed, I can flow up to 300 wpm but send docs to me and your opponents for case and rebuttal to make it fair.

• Don't be blatantly rude or I will lower your speaks. Racism/sexism/homophobia will result in me auto-dropping you with the lowest speaker points I can give.

• I'm fine if you whisper to your partner mid-speech i.e. summary but I won't evaluate what is said unless it is said by you.

[How I evaluate the round]

• I see if both teams are winning their arguments. If one team is winning and another team is losing, I'll end up looking at the team that wins. If both teams fully extend and get full access to their offence. I then look at the weighing debate.

• The weighing debate is what my ballot comes down to, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because nuclear war causes extinction" Please do good comparative weighing. Metaweighing is great and can help me decide my ballot faster and I will boost speaks for good weighing/metaweighing.

• Extend defense on your opponent's case and explain why it's terminal or why they lose their arguments, if you are winning your case and weighing the ballot can be easier for me to decide.

• You should be getting full access to your offense for the weighing to matter, for example, if your opponent is extending defence you concede saying "Nuclear war won't happen", I won't evaluate your “magnitude weighing” since you aren't winning the argument.

Prog

I treat theory as the highest layer. So generally theory up-layers substance and the K.

Theory

• I won’t evaluate theory on the local circuit

• Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad

• Default to Competing Interps > reasonability unless convinced otherwise

• Default to No RVIS unless convinced otherwise

• I won't evaluate blatantly friv theory and I will tank your speaks.

• You need to read a CI or we meet after the speech theory was read or you don't have offense on the theory layer.

• If I'm judging at a camp tournament, please do not read prog on novices/inexperienced prog debaters, it's unfair, and I will drop you with 25 speaks. But If both teams agree to a theory debate I will evaluate it.

Ks

• Limited experience with them.

• If you choose to read one, do it at your own risk because I'm not the best at evaluating them. Just do well with warranting and u will be good

• I'm good with stuff like cap, security, setcol etc. but a lil unfamiliar with nontopical ones

• pls specify a rotb/alt so It makes it easy for me to eval if u don't do rotb that's fine but would be helpful for evaling

Speaks

• Starts at 28 and goes up and down from there.

• If you're blatantly rude I will lower speaks.

• I'll boost speaks based on good strategic decisions in the round.

• I'll boost speaks if you do anything funny. i.e

• If you do a 360 when reading a turn

• Funny contention/tagline names

• Make jokes

• If you say "The earth is flat at" the start and end of every speech instead of "we affirm/negate, thus we affirm/negate"

After Round

• I will disclose if both teams are alright with it and If the tournament allows it.

• I believe postrounding is good since it holds judges accountable so if you want to postround feel free I won't tank speak but please try not to get too heated.

No pressure, it's just Debate. Good Luck and have fun!

hi.

im prisha and i've been doing PF for about 4 years now

you can speak fast if you'd like but please keep it in moderation. its not that cool to speak fast anyway

FOR PF:

add me to the email chain for cards: prishavora@gmail.com

please please please weigh and extend your arguments or else I cannot vote for them

things that will get you 30 speaks (your speeches also have to good)

• make a reference to formula 1 in any speech
• flow with a sharpie

things I don't tolerate: just like all other judges, under any circumstances do not be racist, sexist, etc.

please DONT

• dont do offtime roadmaps
• dont spend a crazy amount of time sending cards

just a heads up I do not flow cross but I do listen and will note if anything very major happens like if someone contradicts their own argument. also I do like heated crossfire but please be respectful. push yourself to ask questions that point out flaws in your opponents case. don't ask questions that don't help the debate or move it forward.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me why you win the debate and why your opponents don't or else you give me more of a decision to make which might not favor you at the end of the day.

if you have any question about my reason for decision or if you want any personal feedback please ask during round, but in any case if anything comes up after the rounds you can email me @: prishavora@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Leon Wang. I am the parent of a current Public Forum debater, and I am a volunteer judge. For some background information: I work as a statistician by day (which means I would love if you use numbers to back up some of your arguments) and a cellist by night. English is not my first language so please speak very slow (remember slow and steady wins the race! < 300 words per minute. Be aware, I will yell clear). Below are some of my preferences for the debate round...

1-larp & theory

2-topical K

3-non t K

4-phil/tricks

Please send all evidence in an email chain that is set up prior to the start of the round. My email is leonwang718@gmail.com

I love to see weighing, and I hate not seeing weighing. Weighing is the number one thing I look to when evaluating the round, it will most likely be the number one factor on my ballot!

I have never fully understood the point of "extending"; evidently an extension must be read in both the Summary and Final Focus speeches but they don't need to be thorough!

If you are ever in a sticky situation, you can always use your sticky defense. The only exception is if your opponents respond to your responses, then noooo!!!

Persuade me. Utilize pathos to it's fullest extent. This will make it a lot easier for me to determine who is a winner. Perhaps debate is a game of strategy, but it is also a game of persuasion.

I like to believe I am rather generous with the Speaker Points I assign to each debater following the round; I will always start this number at 28.5. If you are polite and persuasive, the number will go up. If you are rude and not persuasive, the number will go down.

This is my biggest critique of debate: a human judge is the one who makes a decision which means a winner is inherently chosen subjectively. Please feel free to ask me any questions after the round.

Last but not least I understand how much time debaters put into this lovely activity, so have fun. Enjoy yourself out there. I look forward to listening to your debates.

Lay judge, no spreading please.

Harvard ‘27

Debated for 4 years of high school and qualified for the TOC a few times

Prefer to judge substance rounds

i am a lay judge speak slowly

+0.5 speaks if u bring me lemonade

+0.1 speaks if u call everyone in the debate your friend

Hi, I’m Vivian (she/her). Senior at Ridge. I do PF and did Worlds with USA Dev’ 23 and LD for 2 years.

Add me to the email chain: vivianz5406@gmail.com

— HOUSEKEEPING STUFF —

• Setup the email chain before round starts and immediately when everyone is in the room

• Send case docs/rebuttal docs in the email chain BEFORE you start your speech

• All speech docs must be sent in either WORD, PDF, or paste the cut cards into the email

• Do not send Google Docs for speech docs or evidence-exchange. I need a record of what happened in the round if anything happens, email chains are always your best friend

• You should never be communicating with anyone outside of the round/room or any spectators. This includes messages and doc-botting. If I catch you for it, I will report your team and you may be potentially disqualified. Play by the rules of the game, there is no reason for you to cheat

• +1 speaks if you bring me a drink for in-person rounds. Literally anything: soda, sweet tea, snapple, gatorade, or even your favorite coffee order : ) Even better if you bring me food

— QUICK PREFS LIST —

1- Substance/Flow/LARP/Lay

2- Topicality/Theory

3- Kritiks (run at your own discretion)

4- Strike me if you run: tricks, phil, performance (I don’t like friv theory)

— HOW I EVALUATE THE ROUND—

• I first look to the link debate, this is the most important part for me. For me to buy your link, it needs to be extended properly and you should have good evidence for it. I don't care if your opponents concedes 3 contentions, if you don't extend the argument and the link, I'm not gonna buy it
• I also look to the weighing debate. Meta-weighing WRITES MY BALLOT FOR ME. Please remember that "we outweigh on scope and magnitude" needs a warrant. Give me reasons on why I should prefer your argument, and extend turns, pre-reqs in summary and FF. If you don't weigh, I'll have to judge intervene, and if you don't like the decision, womp :(
• I'll also look to case specifically. Extend and collapse. Also kick out of turns cleanly. In summary and FF, if you extend a delink and a turn, then the argument is a wash for me cause I'll assume the delink is true. If you're gonna extend defense, pick and choose wisely
• Speaks are decided by a couple of factors: did you bring me a drink/food (yes I care), strategy, extensions/backhalf, and narrative. If you were a jerk in round, I might dock your speaks so be nice :)

— GENERAL NOTES —

1. Flow judge. I flow on a computer so I’ll be typing. You don’t need to worry, I am paying attention to the round

2. Tech > Truth (unless you say something absurdly untrue and BS)

3. Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. If you are going to spread, you must send a speech doc, slow down on the tags, and be clear. If you’re unclear and I miss something, that’s on you

4. Do not be exclusive/discriminatory or __ist or else I will dock speaks/drop you. Don’t be a jerk and be polite and respectful. Debate is just debate, your life does not depend on winning a round, so please chill

5. You must read trigger warnings and/or provide an opt-out form if your case contains sensitive content. I do think there’s a difference between actually triggering and just uncomfortable, but it depends on the argument. You should always read a TW regardless, always make the debate space safe and accessible

6. Always extend and warrant your arguments properly. Quality > quantity

7. Signpost and please COLLAPSE, don’t spread yourself thin because you want to “generate more offense.” You are better off collapsing to one argument and spending more time weighing that argument than trying to extend three

8. WEIGH PLEASE. I love good weighing and meta-weighing, it makes the best debates and my job as a judge easier. I would hate if I have to judge intervene because no one weighed the debate.

9. New weighing in 1st FF is fine, but no new prereqs. No new weighing in 2nd FF

10. Regardless of lay/flow/tech debate, narrative always matters. I need to understand your argument before I can vote on it, if I don't get it then that's on you. I'm not going to hack for a side because you are more flow or put down more responses in rebuttal. Write my ballot for me: extend, weigh, tell me why it matters

11. Anything in final focus should be in summary. I won't evaluate any new responses

12. I consider anything dropped in 2nd rebuttal to be conceded. I don’t think defense is sticky. If you want me to evaluate something then you need to extend it

13. I give about 10 seconds of grace periods, anything over I’ll stop flowing

14. If both teams agree you can skip grand cross for flex prep

15. If both sides agree to do a lay round, I’ll be a lay judge and vote for the most persuasive sides and I’ll give everyone 30 speaks

16. I don’t flow cross, but I’ll (somewhat) listen. Always be polite and have fun, don’t scream or get mad, just be chill

— FRAMING —

• I love a good and unique framework. Most familiar with SV (and any variation of it), extinction first, conseq, and other generic ones

• If you are going to run FW please warrant and explain it properly. I am rusty on a lot of topic literature so don’t expect that I know everything

• If you read FW you need to explain why your case achieves that and why it matters

• I will presume util or evaluate the round under whatever weighing mechanism is given unless specific framing is read

• FW is your best friend in K rounds, don’t be hesitant to read one

— TOPICALITY/THEORY —

• I will evaluate theory, but I have a high threshold for it. If there is actual abuse in the round, go for it. If you’re trying to get the easy win, then don’t

• Go slow on the analytics, interp/counter-interp text, and paradigm issues/voters. If you go too fast I’ll probably miss something

• You must read paradigm issues and voters and give me the narrative on why there is abuse, why they violate, and why I should care

• You must EXTEND the shell and warrant it. You need to at least reread the tags and not just frontline. But rereading is not enough, extend the warrants and the why they violate and why I should care narrative

• “Vote theory because its the highest layer in the round” needs a warrant, just because you’re reading prog does not mean you can abandon the fundamentals of debate

• Weigh between standards/paradigm issues and tell me why the ballot matters and why the other team is being unfair. Again, give me the full story

• Everything needs a warrant, ie. why should I default CIs or reasonability. I don’t always default something because I think each round and each shell is different hence each ballot is evaluated differently

• I think some good norms you should practice are: disclosure/open source, round reports, contact info, and everything under the NSDA event rules. I will not, however, hack for these arguments, I evaluate everything on how its debated

• See more about paraphrasing in the evidence section of my paradigm

— KRITIKS —

• I like interesting K debates and I’ve run them in the past. I can evaluate common ones and I know enough/hit a decent amount of Ks to evaluate K debates in PF, but I’m not that knowledgeable on complicated literature/high theory Ks, so run it at your own discretion

• No ALT is fine in PF, but you need to read clear framing/ROTB

• You need to read why discourse matters and give me the reason why the ballot is important and key to your discourse

• EXTEND THE K IN SUMMARY > If you only respond to rebuttal and you don’t extend the actual K and ROTB itself, don’t bank on me granting you full offense of the K

• If you don’t understand what a K is saying and you are purely running it because you know the other team can’t respond, don’t run it. If you are going to run a K, you should be able to explain it easily

— EVIDENCE —

• Evidence Ethics: if you have an issue about your opponent's evidence you must BRING IT UP IN ROUND. If not, I will not evaluate any abuse of evidence. If you aren’t sure what the exact procedures for evidence citing/evidence abuse are, please read the NSDA evidence rules. Please note that evidence indicts are different than calling stop on a round for abusive/misconstrued evidence. Do not call stop on a round and challenge a piece of evidence just because you are losing, I think that's a horrible norm and thing to do. Just have a debate, but if there is real abuse and you think its worth it, than you do you. But I also pay attention to evidence and most likely will catch on if a team is presenting misconstrued evidence. Read more at: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

• Follow my rules on speech docs at the top of my paradigm

• Share evidence through email chains only, this applies to online and in-person debate

• I am fine if you paraphrase, but if you paraphrase you need to send both the rhetoric and the cut cards in the email chain. Paraphrasing also must follow the NSDA evidence rules, you cannot misconstrue evidence

• All evidence should be CUT CARDS. If you don’t have the cut card, you need to at least have the link, the part in the article you cited from, and be able to pull up the accurate link address immediately. If you can't pull up the evidence when asked within 1 minute, then I will cross it off my flow. You should always be prepared to show your evidence

• I will only call for specific evidence if I’m told to and/or I feel like its a need to decide the round

• You should always be RUNNING PREP when you are looking at your opponent’s evidence if it’s outside of a speech/cross and when you are compiling a doc. Compiling the doc always uses prep, sending the doc does not use prep

— LD—

• I did LD for about 2 years and I mainly did trad debate and can understand most LARP. I am still flow, tech > truth, but I will say I am rusty on a lot of stuff

• I love a good framework, so please read value, vc, and why I should prefer warrants. Always remember to prove why your case wins under the FW of the round

• Please EXTEND your arguments, especially the link and solvency. I have judged a lot of LD rounds where arguments are conceded but not extended properly. I need to know how your side solves/how the aff doesn't. If you read plans, CPs, ROTB, alts, perms, etc. you need to explain why you solve and why you solve better. Front-lining isn't enough
• COLLAPSE. A lot of LDers like to run a bunch of advantages and disads and then go for too much. Instead of spreading yourself thin, its best if you collapse to one thing (adv, disad, shell, etc.) and weigh that argument
• No new responses in the 2NR and 2AR. If an argument is dropped in the 1NR, then I consider it conceded, the same goes for the 1AR
• The 2NR and 2AR should really write my ballot for me: tell me why your case wins, why you win the FW, and why your impacts outweigh. I love meta-weighing, it makes my job easier
• For theory, you need to specify if your shell is condo or non-condo some point in the round. If you're going to read theory, refer to the theory section of my paradigm
• For Ks, I am pretty rusty on a lot of topic literature. I can probably evaluate some common ones, but I can't promise I'll evaluate correctly. If you're going to read one, you must read an alt, ROTB, and solvency warrants
• I can handle speed, but if you're going to spread please send a doc

— WORLDS/PARLI —

• I love clear framing in the 1. This means clear definitions, a good contextualization of the motion ie. what does the status quo look like right now and/or what the world would look like on your side of the house

• Run counterfactuals/counter-models at your own risk. You’ve probably heard this from any experienced Worlds coach/judge/competitor, only run a model if you need to, don’t run it because you can’t think of another argument on the opposition

• I think countermodels should be mutually exclusive, but not always. It is up to you to prove to me why or why not the model is good or bad

• Remember that Worlds is your most traditional event: no progressive arguments, no evidence unless prepared motions, you should use analysis and examples to make comparative claims

• Comparative worlds weighing is the best! Tell me why your world is more preferable, give me the full narrative, and why the world on your side of the house is better

• Always signpost and tell me where you are at on the flow, regardless of how you organize your arguments

• The 3 and the 4 should NOT be the same speech! It should mirror each other to some extent. The three should really tie up the loose ends and do the comparative for me. I think good 3s are typically in the questions format or the macro/micro level analysis. The 4 should crystalize the round and really use ballot-directing language

• Principal > Practical, but you need to do the analysis for me to buy this. Remember to keep an eye out for principals hung on the practical