My name is Alex Brevde (she/her), and I am a senior at the Waring School in Beverly. I am in Varsity PF. So I come into the round with a guarantee I've done research on the topic and an understanding of the in and outs of Public Forum Debate.

> If you are offensive in any way, even if it's a "joke." I will report you to tabroom and you will lose the round.

> Respect Public Forum in its essence. What I mean by this is that PF is supposed to be accessible and should be understood by any person from off the street. Therefore if you spread (talking so fast that your words blend together), I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but just know you've lost some of my respect (and speaker points). Additionally, don't overuse debate jargon, because you are actively making debate less accessible.

> Please signpost, I'm begging you. What I mean is that tell me what you are saying. If you are responding to a contention please tell me that so I can flow it.

> Refrain from running Theory of Kritiks. I will listen to them but just know I very much dislike them. I think they are a cop-out for actually debating the resolved and I will think less of you. If you love Theory or K you should join Policy or Big Questions, because that's not what PF is about (PF actually emerged as a response to this!).

> Evidence ethics are important. Don't make up information, you should always have evidence.

>Don't mansplain, and let your opponent answer in cross please. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When someone asks a question in cross and then proceeds to answer it themselves rather than letting the opponent actually answer. Just be respectful and kind, it's not too much to ask.

I do PF debate at Newton South.

key thing to win my ballot: if the word nuclear isn’t in the resolution, it shouldn’t be in your speech, my vote and your speaks will further clarify that if need be!

Onto the other stuff… I flow the round. I am nicer than my paradigm makes me seem (just don't run nuclear war).

If you want feedback, I'd be more than happy to give you some after round!

Truth ---------------------------------------------*--------------------------------- Tech

stuff (tl;dr - just be reasonable, it's called public forum for a reason)

• Be nice, do not be the person that makes the debate space an unpleasant place to be. That is not appealing.

• Don't bring up new evidence when you're not supposed too. Likewise, don't burden yourself by making your entire speech about the new responses. A simple "it's new evidence so drop it" is enough; I flow after all, let me evaluate if it's new evidence.
• 10 second grace period, then I stop flowing.
• Try to have substantive, direct responses, and stray away from responses like 'this response just doesn't make sense'

• Please time your own prep!
• Tournaments are long, so please make the round interesting/funny and ill give everyone 30's. (don't run nuclear war though)
• You're given a few minutes per speech, use all of it, it exists for a reason.
• At the end of the day, it's your round, have fun, I am just your judge! (but don't run nuclear war)

Pop quiz, should you run nuclear war?

TLDR:warrant extension, quality>quantity, zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind

Hi! I'm Adam (he/him) from Milton, with 3 years of PF experience.

I’m very easy to read over Zoom. If I look confused, it's because I am.

Wear whatever makes you feel good, hoodie or suit, as along as it respects yourself and others.

- Speed is fine, just make sure I understand you.

- Extend warrants throughout speeches for your case or defense. Avoid mere one-liners for defense.

- Prioritize link weighing over impact weighing.

- Ideally, use summary and final to extend and collapse. Quality weighing > three mediocre contentions.

- I won't flow cross, but I'm listening.

- Default speaker points are 28, but make the round enjoyable, and points go up.

My email is pramsuchivukula@gmail.com, if there are email chains I would prefer to be included in them.

Hi, I'm a sophomore at LHS and have debated LD for a year. I mostly read policy arguments and sometimes theory. In your speeches, please speak clearly and signpost. Always give roadmaps before speeches. I'm fine with any speed as it's reasonably clear and understandable. I can't vote off of something if it is not on my flow.

Preferences:

1. Theory

2. K

3. Framework/Case

4. Tricks

All arguments need to be warranted. I'm fine with anything as long as it's warranted. Use good evidence to back up your claims. Make sure all your arguments are extended in each speech. No new args in 2NR/2AR. Make sure to weigh in your last couple of speeches, and please collapse to what you think you can win on. I vote for the best weighed, and warranted args. Tell me how to vote and why.

Theory:

I don't have any default paradigm issues or voters, so make sure to warrant your paradigm issues. Make sure the violation is clearly stated in the debate.

K:

I'm not as familiar with Kritiks, but I can vote off them as long as they are clearly explained and linked to the round. Make sure you have a theory of power and a clear ROB so I can vote off of it.

How to get good speaks:

Please be nice to your opponent. Don't be racist, sexist, or very offensive. Speak clearly, use CX effectively, and answer questions well to get high speaks. I hate when good points are brought up in CX, and then not used in round.

For PF:
Just speak well, and weigh. Same thing as if you want to get high speaks. I'm not as familiar with PF.

Hi! I debate PF at Newton South High School!

If u have any questions feel free to msg me on facebook messenger or email me @drormia@gmail.com

creds to janani ganesh <33

general stuff

a. i think weighing is like THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a round pls weigh and give a strong narrative

b. tech ----------------x-------------------------------------- truth

speed/speech:

- u can speak fast but not like extremely fast, try to go like conversational speed

- if u have a speaking disability (ex. stuttering) lemme know before round or msg me but if you dont feel comfortable telling me im not gonna tank anyone speaks for stuttering [the same applies for any other like disablity, i want to make debate as inclusive as possible]

- if ur opponents tell u to slow down, pls slow down there are many factors why ur opponents may ask u that

however if u r spreading send me and ur opponents a speech doc

content

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. DO VOTERS (ex. "there are 3 places ur voting for us in this round") i want to spend as little time after the round deciding who won (unless if theres clash ofc which is rly good) and i rly dont want to intervene

- weighing is so crucial. if there is not weighing i will default whoever's narrative is stronger.

- i hate theory so pls try not to run it. try to treat me like a lay with theory. if ur rly pressed about running theory/k's ask ur opponents first if they are comfortable cus not everyone has the resources to learn about these kinds of things

- make sure to point out which arguments are conceded/dropped but don't lie or i will be sad

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

- make sure ur not just asking clarifying questions but attacking their stance as well

- if both of yall run out of things to say just ask ur opponents how their day was

- dont be rude but be assertive pls i wanna see confidence!!

Debate should be a safe and inclusive environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before or during round pls feel free to reach out to me at my email: drormia@gmail.com

I'm excited to judge all of you! Let’s make every round a fun round!

Profound believer of Jesus H. Christ, proud marxist, leninist, , LENIN IS THE GOAT, anti-vaxxer, supporter of bataillle’s cult of facism, and practitioner of human sacrifice.

• I don’t want to hear any of this uniqueness this, uniqueness that. You are not unique. You are a government sheep, and I will treat you as such.

• I studied economics after ‘Nam, and I proudly & singlehandedly instigated the ‘08 recession. Do not tell me about the inflations.

• I do not understand the turns; you are sitting still. I don’t want children dizzy on my watch.

• IMPORTANT!!!!!!! Please do not mention the word corona virus on round. Coronavirus is not real, it is a myth. Propagated by venezuelan government, made to let government people go on vacations by implementing government shutdown 🙂

• No “warrants.” Justice is blind and so am I.

• You LOSE if you mention a “cards.” I do not condone gambling.

• Do not tak about the debt ceiling my ceilings are very high and my pockets are very deep

dont take anything before this seriously plz I swear I'm joking + I'm an athiest

general stuff (tl;dr) :

• I'm annie. 4 years of pf at Lexington. LHS '24//UChicago '28.

• My job is to adapt to you! This paradigm gives you a guide to my default style but if you have any preferences feel free to ask me to adapt to them. This is just here so I seem like a serious person

• Don’t be a dick! I understand rounds can be heated, but there’s no need to get mad over robo dogs in Mexico. Also, if your actions end in -ist, I’ll be the destructionist of your speaks

• No need to speed!I’m fine with spreading but for the love of Sheryl Kaczmarek please do not spread if it’s going to be screechy mumble rap. It’s not necessary and bad spreading just makes the round harder for everyone

• Tech>truth: This means that I will be okay with voting on any arguments as long as they aren’t problematic or exclusionary, if the argument wins on the flow I will sign my ballot for it

• Ask Questions! There might be a bit of jargon in my paradigm that might not be easy to understand so if you aren’t sure how to do something, need clarification on certain parts of my paradigm, or want feedback after the round I’ll be more than happy to help!

• Your arguments did not fall from a coconut tree. They exist in the context of everything that came before the speech which means you need to do extensions in the backhalf

Substance round:

• I evaluate rounds level by level: I start with the weighing - whose impacts are more important? Then, I ask who wins the best link into that argument? That’s where I’ll sign my ballot

• Please extend and collapse: Choose your best piece of offense (contention or turn) to go for in the backhalf, and when extending the case (giving a quick narrative summary of your argument) in summary or final, please please please actually extend the argument instead of just reading the card name ie “extend smith ‘22” is not a full extension, explain it from uniqueness to impact

• We could be weighin but you playin (in other words, please weigh!): I know this comes up a lot on paradigms, and it’s because weighing helps judges determine which impacts are more important. If both teams win links into different impacts, it’s up to weighing to determine which impact is to be prioritized

• Evidence Ethics/Calling for Evidence: I generally won’t call for evidence unless I think it’s important or if someone in the debate tells me to. I prefer evidence shared on docs because then teams won’t spend too much time sending evidence over the sub-par wifi, but it won’t affect my decision. Miscut evidence would hurt your speaks and, if miscut enough, might lose you a few arguments

• Defense is NOT sticky: sticky defense means that if a team reads defensive arguments or responses in rebuttal, second rebuttal or first summary doesn’t need to respond to it. This rule was made back when summary was only 2 minutes long but now that it’s been extended to 3 minutes there is no reason for defense to be sticky

• I presume First: If nobody wins any arguments at the end, I will presume (vote automatically) for the first speaking team. would prefer rounds not to end this way

PROG STUFF:

Important: if you are an epsilon team reading more than one shell against a novice/low lambda team i'm unlikely to be very happy. y'all don't need to flex your theory knowledge on some first-time freshmen/middle school novices

Theory (if you must):

• I have no theory biases except trigger warnings are good and disclosure is good, I won’t hack for either of these but if you run theory otherwise you might want to keep that in mind

• If you make a trigger warning you should use a trigger warning form that is anonymous for respondents, I generally think that war/poverty impacts don't need trigger warnings (but you can argue otherwise and I will consider it like any other argument) but you do need trigger warnings for anything else that could be potentially triggering (feel free to ask me if you want me to clarify) eg trafficking, genocide, mental health issues, etc

• Quick defaults: CI, no RVIs, Theory/T>K, theory should be speech after abuse, blippy theory have low bars for reasonability arguments but I default to reasonability

• PLEASE WARRANT YOUR THEORY SHELLS!

• Extend the full shell through every speech otherwise it’s considered dropped, I am very suspect about “spirit of the shell” especially if it’s frivolous theory

• I'm not a fan of people reading 3+ shells in a PF round. Not only do I not want to toggle so much paper but also because bruh, stop avoiding clash and just respond

Ks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

• I will treat evidence challenge IVIs as round ending issues, but if I vote on an IVI I need it to be developed and warranted instead of a 3 second blip about why they should be voted down for doing X

• I am alright with prefiat frameworks but it’s better for them to be warranted in addition to the cards so the reasons why your framework means you should be voted up make sense even to debaters who aren’t familiar with prefiat arguments.

• I am suspicious of “link ins are not allowed” arguments, not that I automatically vote against them but reading these arguments need a lot of good warranting for me to be open to it

• If Kritiks are read, they need to be slow and warranted, the same applies to T and perm do boths if you choose to read them in response

• If neither side wins or weighs between K and theory, I default to evaluating theory first but that changes depending on how you debate the round

• I’m not entirely comfortable voting on identity Ks against debaters of that identity, I won’t vote you down for this but it could potentially affect speaker points

Speaker Points Guide (I tend to be SUPER lenient about speaker points my coach yelled at me for giving too high speaker points so take that how you will)

29.5-30: debating was excellent, very well articulated, no big flaws in debating or strategy!

29-29.5:I thought your debating was good, maybe a few minor mistakes but nothing particularly bad

28-29: average, good debating overall but some mistakes, but not too bad (this is a pretty big range so the extent of a mistake or speaking style is going to impact where you fall on this scale)

27-28:made some pretty big strategic mistakes in this round

sub 27: There were a lot of large mistakes in this debate, or you were very unclear

I won't go below 26.5 but if you say something problematic. Then, I'm dropping your speaks to the lowest possible in the tournament .... just please don't UwU. We want to keep this a welcome space for everyone! If you feel unsafe please please please let me know ASAP - your safety is more important than a random high school debate round!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!!!!!

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Anya, and I am a Newton South High School PF debater! My email is anyak726@gmail.com.

For Middle School Debate:

When speaking:

• Speak clearly!
• Be respectful to your opponents! Being rude during cross or any speeches is not ok and will result in low speaks.
• Use all of your time! I cannot stress this enough, I want to hear what you have to say! Even if you think you don't have anything more to say, just dive deeper as I promise you there is always something to say!
• I will time you, but also please time yourself. At the end of your time, I will hold up my fist. I will allow a 5-second grace period, but afterward will stop flowing.

Content:

• If it's not in summary, it's not in final focus.
• WEIGH(pretty please)
• Extend your arguments during each speech, and remind me again the basics of your argument.
• Collapse during summary! Choose an argument to focus on, and tell me why I need to prioritize it over your opponents.
• Final focus should write my ballot for me. Tell me why I am voting for you versus your opponents.

Progressive arguments:

• Run at your own risk. Not the biggest fan of it in general, I don't really think it belongs in PF.

You are going to do great :)

Hi there!

I was a Public Forum Debater at the high school level for two years at The Bronx High School of Science.

I'd just say please be nice to each other during cross and in-round-- I don't like watching it and we don't want your competitors to be discouraged.

I'll be taking some notes on the round and I will take those notes into account when making my final decisions, so please try to be clear and straightforward and carry your arguments through the round.

Do your very best to speak CLEARLY!!!! I don't care about speed as long as I can understand what you're saying and follow your arguments.

If you'd like, I can keep track of prep time and speech time as well.

Good Luck!

Hi! My name is Forest Lanciloti, my pronouns are he/him/his, and I do varsity PF debate for Newton South High School. My email is flancilotiwork@gmail.com, please include me on any email chains and feel free to email me after round for more feedback.

EVERYONE

> Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc is an auto-lose + 25 speaks

> Please time yourself! But I will also time you. After the speech time ends, I will put my hand up. 10 second grace period, and then I will stop flowing.

MIDDLE SCHOOL/LUMOS:

> Your arguments should make sense and be well researched. Don't make up evidence.

> Voting

• Tech>Truth
• EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND!! The easiest way to win with me is to extend everything and WEIGH.

> Time:

• Be aware of prep time.
• Use all of your time!

> Presentation:

• Be confident, loud, and clear!
• Be nice/respectful to your opponents.
• You can speak as quickly as you want, as long as you're understandable.
• If we're in person, please stand up for your speeches.

> Content:

• No new responses after first summary. No new weighing after first final.
• Collapsing in summary is highly encouraged.

Good luck!!

P.S. Shoutout to Ariel Lin best partner

hi! i’m ariel and i am a sophomore with two years of debating experience at newton south

add me to the email chain or ask me any questions: ariellin8@gmail.com

first and foremost: attack the point, not the opponent. i will not tolerate any rude, offensive, or hateful behavior and will dock your speaks as a result.

♥ ♥ ♥

preferences (by no means do you have to abide by any of my preferences, just do what makes you comfortable)

- introduce yourself! please tell me your name and speaking position before your speech/the round starts

- signpost! tell me where you are on the flow to keep the round clear for everyone

- extending! 1. please collapse in order to clear up the round (if you don’t know what collapsing is don’t hesitate to ask) 2. i don’t flow card names so don’t just say “Baker 23” tell me the context of the card 3. defense must be extended through the round for it to be evaluated

- weighing! why am i voting for you? make my life easier and hand me the ballot on a silver platter

- cross! i don't flow cross and it won't affect my decision unless brought up in following speeches, but please be polite because cross will affect your speaks

- generally truth>tech

- no new evidence after first summary please

Andy (he/him) - email etc: tzurkang@gmail.com

If you have any questions or if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible and fun for you.

I like debate and I think debating about things is good. If you do anything to make me dislike debating (being any sort of -ist) I will not be happy and your speaks will reflect that

For novices, feel free to ask me any questions you have about debate rounds/what I want to see. I want to make the round as educational as possible, and if that means a quick reminder on a specific part of debate I'd be happy to help.

On that note post-round as much as you want – I never want the reason for my decision to be unclear.

Speaks start at 28 and depending on how good the strategic decisions you make are or if you make people happy I will go higher or lower. IVE or SVT references might also boost your speaks.

Hi hi I'm Taban (she/her/hers), a 3rd year public forum debater at Newton South :) Pls include me on the email chain.

Debate should be a safe and accessible environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before, during, or after round pls feel free to fill out this anonymous form or reach out to me at my email tmalihi1@gmail.com (I'll be checking it regularly during rounds/tournaments I judge)

On that note, be respectful or your speaks will suffer. In speeches, cross, when asking for evidence, always. If you read a triggering case and don't read content warnings that everyone in the round (judges included) can anonymously opt out of, it's an auto L with the lowest speaks I can give, same goes for bigoted arguments/rhetoric. General guideline: read warnings for suicide, domestic violence, sexual violence, and graphic descriptions of violence & suffering.

Disclosure: I can't disclose for LS but I'll be giving comments.

Panel tips: If I'm on a panel please adapt to the other judges' needs--I can follow a lay round, but lay judges can't often follow a flow round. Basically, just go FLAY: keep a narrative, but use efficiency+rhetoric to win on the flow.

Below I've separated my paradigm into a Novices section, Varsity section, and Everyone section. Feel free to read as much or as little as you'd like--basically I'm your standard flow judge.

তততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততত

Novices! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

I do my best to evaluate the round based on the defense and offense I have written down at the end of the round, and I really don't like having to intervene to make decisions. It's your job to tell me clearly why you win a round--write my ballot for me :)

General strategy things I like:

1. I care about your presentation, but as long as I can understand your points it doesn't matter what your speaking style is. I encourage you to try out new things and not worry about things like tripping up, stuttering, etc.--these are all part of the learning process and it's my responsibility as a judge to make sure y'all have a safe space

2. I highly recommend that you "collapse"--that means that in summary and final focus, you're going to choose only one of your arguments to talk about. For me, a single well-explained argument is ALWAYS better than two or three barely-explained arguments. The earlier in the round you collapse, the better!

3. Weigh your arguments! This tells me where to look first to evaluate arguments. Win your argument, win the weighing you used with it, and I'll 97% of the time vote on it

4. Point out things that are conceded or dropped by your opponents (if they don't respond to it in the speech after it's introduced, it's conceded/dropped. This means you probably win it, but please! If you want me to vote off of it, you HAVE to continue to explain it in every speech after that.)

Feel free to email me after round if you'd like more in-depth feedback or have questions :)

****************

Varsity! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

TLDR:

Here’s how I evaluate the round: Framing --> weighing --> offense --> default 1st speaking team

• You need to win your offense to win the weighing :)

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, judge intervention is not a fun time for anyone, do the analysis and write my RFD for me <3

• I’m a flow judge

• Tech>Truth

• Topicality>Theory

• Disclaimer: might not be the best at evaluating progressive arguments, Kritiks and non-frivolous theory (including in-round violations) are ok, but def not a fan of disclosure/paraphrase theories (regardless of my personal beliefs on debate norms)

• Please don’t run stuff just to win rounds because you know your opponents can’t respond to it. I am especially inclined to believe performative contradictions (ex: that disclosure shell one might read on a pair of novices in JV quarters, but didn’t read in a single other round, is probably not on-net helping debate norms, which makes me doubt the motives behind it). However, if it’s clear you’re reading your argument because it genuinely means a lot to you and/or exposing more people to its content would be beneficial, I will do my best to evaluate it in any round.

• Point out things that are conceded or dropped (including defense--it’s not sticky)

⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆ S̶̙͔͚̪͉̲̼͙̆̓͛͂̿͂̆P̴̧̳̤̰̟̘͚̘͙͇̚E̴̗̰̎̂̈́C̷̤̹̯̥̟͌̃̌̋̔͝Í̸͈̱͍͇̻̲̔̂̄͒̂̕̚͠F̷̛͚͍̼͍̣͉̣̱̟̠͂̊̊̓̉̌̽Į̴̣̟̜͔͈͚͙̠̃̐́̓̐̃̃͘̕͝ͅC̸̢̤̮̒̒̇̔̄̋͆̓̕Ṣ̶̡̲̮͓̫͉̲͑⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆

*THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY*

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread in any speech but if you do:

1) check with your opponents if it's okay with them

2) send everyone a speech doc with everything you read in round

*********************

Evidence:

• Don’t misconstrue evidence--paraphrasing is fine but please make sure you have good evidence ethics. I won't drop you for badly misconstrued evidence unless your opponents read args as to why I should, in any case I will probably just not evaluate the evidence/argument in my decision

• I’ll only look at/call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision

• When you extend evidence throughout every speech in the round, please extend the actual logic/warrant and not just the author name -- I value the content over just flowing the card name and date

*********************

Cross:

• I will be using this time to figure things out on my end, set up my flow for the next speeches, and write up my comments, so I won't flow during cross

• Please be respectful. If you're rude, aggressive, or consistently speak over others, your speaks will suffer.

*********************

Rebuttal:

• Please signpost/tell me where you are on the flow, off-time roadmaps are ok but pls keep them concise

• Well warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants/logic ("Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO." -EK)

• Second rebuttal should at least respond to offense (turns, disads, weighing, etc.) and terminal defense

• All turns/disads need impacts, or else I don't know how to evaluate them. Weighing can come in summary.

**********************

Summary/FF:

• Summary + FF should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL FOCUS, everything you extend in final focus should have been in summary, from the warrants to the impacts to the weighing)

• First final can have new-ish responses to new stuff in second summary, but second final should have nothing new at all (I will know)

• Collapse however you like, but quality over quantity--if I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote on it.

• WEIGHING is key--tell me why your arguments are more important than/matter more than theirs :)

• Weigh case/turns/disads

• Interact with your opponents' weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded. NOTE: just because your weighing is conceded doesn’t mean you stop explaining it, please warrant it out every time

• Meta-weigh (weigh your weighing mechanisms over their weighing mechanisms)

***********************

Thresholds for new responses:

- Offense (turns, disads): second rebuttal at the latest. First rebuttal, they don't need to be weighed, but second rebuttal, please weigh to give your opponents time to respond in first summary.

- Weighing: second summary by the latest, I'm good with meta-weighing in first final if it involves previously existing weighing in response to your opponent's weighing. The earlier you start this, the better <3

- Defense (in response to their case): second rebuttal

- Responses to their defense/frontlines/backlines: in the speech after it was introduced, otherwise what they say goes conceded, and the last I should hear of these should be first final focus at the very, very latest (and even then it's a little late)...second final focus should have nothing new at all, please

**********************

Speaker points: I base my speaker points on how well you balance technicality and maintaining a solid narrative! If I can understand your arguments and you're respectful, you will get a minimum of 28 speaks.

• +0.5 speaker points for a speech doc for every speech (even when you don't spread)

• Collapse in 2nd rebuttal! You choose ONE argument to focus on/vote on this early in the round, I give you +0.5 speaker points. Win-win.

-----｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆----‧͙⁺˚*･༓☾ ⊹ ‧̫‧ ⊹ ☽༓･*˚⁺‧͙---- ｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆-----

i agree with these paradigms

Enya Kamadolli: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Andrew Li: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=99668

Zach Diar: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Michael Chu: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Joy Taw: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

I use she/her pronouns.

For some background, I'm a first year college student and I have experience in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Here are some of my preferences/expectations:

General Important Stuff (everyone):

Be polite! Remember that debating =/= arguing; you should not be yelling at your opponents. I'm typically generous with speaks, but if you aren't civil to your opponents, I will dock points.

If your case discusses sensitive topics, you must read a trigger warning and make sure your opponents feel comfortable. Remember that the issues you debate about more often than not affect people in the real world. This means that discussing certain topics can be more stressful and personal to certain debaters.

If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, antisemitic, islamophobic, etc. I will automatically drop you.

Don't misgender your opponents! Mistakes happen, but make sure you correct yourself and apologize. If it continues, I will drop you.

Debate is supposed to be a fun an engaging activity. Don't make unsafe spaces for people!

Public Forum Stuff (everyone in PF):

Flow ---|------ Lay

Tech ----|-----Truth

I vibe with a good narrative and consistent rhetoric.

Signpost!!

Speed is fine, but warranting>card dumping with little explanation.

Please have your evidence ready so there aren't delays.

Frontline in second rebuttal! Second summary is too late.

Other than frontlining in first summary, there shouldn't be new responses or offense after rebuttals. If there are, I won't flow them (with the exception of new weighing, which is fine before second FF).

Crossfire is pretty irrelevant. If you want a concession on my flow, mention it in a speech.

I probably won't call for evidence, so if you want me to look at something, say so in a speech.

When two pieces of evidence contradict, explain why your point makes more sense, or why your evidence is better. This is always smart, even if you're completely sure their source is unreliable or misconstrued.

Make sure to weigh all the arguments you collapse on, including turns. Don't forget to tell me why your weighing is better than theirs. I'm way too lazy to do analysis for you, and it probably won't end well for you if I have to.

Progressive Argument Stuff (not for novices):

I very limited exposure to progressive debate, so if your opponent does something problematic, it's much more strategic for you to tell me in your own words than read theory or a K.

With that being said, if you do choose to read theory or a K, generally stay away from more obscure jargon if you want me to understand. Since I don't have much experience, it's in your best interest to warrant and weigh thoroughly. Explain to me exactly what decision I should make and why.

Other Stuff (everyone):

If you do a spin while saying turn, bring me food, or make high quality puns, I will give you 30 speaks.

I prefer chill and friendly rounds with lighthearted banter.

However, if someone mansplains, whitesplains, or is overall rude or condescending, feel free to sass them back. I will give you high speaks for roasting them.

Fist bumps are the move.

I'm like 19 so I will probably cringe if you call me "judge" or anything formal.

Please try to come to round with preflows so there aren't delays.

**i want to emphasize that I was a pretty traditional PF/LD debater and my experience with theory/other progressive arguments was very limited. i won't evaluate any progressive arguments (including disclosure theory). for LD, treat me like a lay judge**

1. I vote on the flow, with that being said if it is not said, I can't vote on it. However, if both teams are not doing the work, I'll have to do it alone, and you might not like my decision.
2. Respond to everything if you are going for an argument. If you don't respond to it, it's conceded.
3. Whenever you extend a case you need to extend the entire link chain, not just the argument. This includes extending authors, warrants, and impacts.
4. Don't speak fast.

I've debated PF for two years in HS now. I'm cool with pretty much everything, as long as you aren't objectively doing or saying bad things. Be a good person, and we won't have problems.

Specifics:

If spreading, send speech docs, but I don't expect or require your opponents to do so unless they are spreading.

Not a fan of theory debating, avoid if at all possible (I find that debate is better on substance)

I don't care about cross unless someone brings it up in a speech

Fun stuff:

+0.5 for every Star Wars or Cars reference you make

+0.2 for any other music or movie references that I catch

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

my name is olivia, i coach debate and do mock trial and love public speaking. i am a chill judge, and am very experienced, i’m fine with speed, i like when you outline your arguments specifically as you move throughout your speeches, and when you spend time weighing and outlining which arguments were left unresponded to or dropped. don’t be mean to each other during cross :)

I am a student debater that has been debating Varsity Public Forum for 4 years. I am also head of the Public Forum at my school.

What I expect:

• Respect throughout the entire round.
• Fluent talking, I can flow at all speech levels but believe smooth talking is the best way to debate.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)

Rising freshman @ Columbia, previous PF captain @ Bronx Science.

dmsmirnova1@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

I will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check-in time and if you do not show up preflowed.

If you don't cut your cards, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).

I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

General

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.

Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Metaweighing is great, do it.

I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.

Ks

I'm most familiar with non-T identity Ks (fem, asian, queer), cap and sec. I read non-T fem on the circuit. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.

Theory

I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. That being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me".

If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments!).

Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)

Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev

Other things

Dont be rude

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.

Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene

Parent Judge.

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

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

Have Fun!

I'm Ka'iulani, a sophomore from Newton South High School.

I’m proud to be samoan/filipino/kanaka maoli:)

I'm a flow judge, I flow relatively fast but then again don't speak TOO fast.

Feel free to ask me any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Don't go overtime.

I won't vote off of cross but I will pay attention and take into account claims from cross that are mentioned into speeches.

Make sure to signpost, it helps me keep track of what you're responding to.

Don't bring new information in final focus please.

DO NOT be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will automatically give you the L.

------ If you give me a Cocomelon reference in your speech or bust a cool dance move, i'll give you +.5 speaks. (if your dance wasn't interesting enough, I won't give any extra points)-----

I'm a college sophomore at McGill University.

I did LD in high school for 3 years.

Don't spread, stick to substance for the most accurate decision but I can handle pretty much anything.

Be nice :)