My name is Sakeena Agha

I have been doing debate since 4th grade, and I am currently in 7th grade

Email me at sakeena.s.agha@gmail.com for questions about the final result

I am strict with speaker points, so be confident, look up from time to time, and be prepared with the topic

A lot of my speaker points are based on time and how you fill it

Good luck! :)

i haven't had a ton of time to write my paradigm, but I'm a PF debater!

so i know how the debates usually go :D

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

• I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
• I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
• As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Personally I'm a second speaker so make sure you got a pretty strong rebuttal, but make everything strong too. I'm pretty lay, but like I'm gonna be a little tech. Make sure to impact-weigh in your speech somewhere, and if y'all do something to make me laugh in your speech I'm giving an extra 0.1 speaker point.

lay pf judge (hire) for about 1 year now
email: jayson.tgonzalez@gmail.com - *don't* add me to the chain unless I ask
please let me know who is who before we start

stuff:
please give me an off-time roadmap
fine with speaking fast but if you waste time stumbling over your own words I'll tell you to slow down
just assume i dont have topic knowledge
i will judge cross
extend your arguments through all speeches and frontline
explain your weighing
you handle coin flip amongst yourselves
please actually use FF to explain why you win not just summary 2: electric boogaloo :)
i keep track of prep and time and speeches but I EXPECT YOU TO ASWELL
also im pretty lenient with prep, within like 3-5 second margins I'll give it to you (don't abuse)

speaks rewarded/deducted:
if you're calm and coherent (not stumbling constantly) you'll *probably* get over 28.0
if you make me laugh +0.1-0.2
if you shout over each other during cross -0.2-0.3
infighting with your teammate -0.5 ( :O ) let's be civil y'all
stealing prep -1
if you accidentally say you affirm/negate when arguing for the opposite side -0.000000001

Hi, I'm Nandana a Varsity PF debater. I'd consider myself more tech>truth (lay). Sign posting and front lining are non-negotiables. I'd appreciate off-time roadmaps for your rebuttal and summaries as well.

Main Point: Speaking fast is okay as long as I can understand you. Clarity is key.

Rebuttal: Frontline if you're going second!! Make sure you sign post too so that I know where you are on the flow. I'd prefer you keep it as organized as possible.

Summary: Frontline if you're going first!! Impact weigh here or else I won't count it if you extend in final focus. No new evidence after first summary. This speech will be a main deciding factor in my final decision.

Final Focus: You can only extend on points you've already brought up; I won't count anything new. Please make sure you extend everything your opponent dropped.

Crossfire: This will be judged on when it comes to speaking points, but if you bring up something (like a really good point) and don't extend it in your remaining your speeches, I won't count it. Additionally, please stay respectful and don't harass your opponent. That being said, don't be afraid to stand your ground and speak with confidence.

Background: I am a Varsity level debater and have been debating for the past 4 years and I have lots of experience in PF debate.

General Tips:

-You can speak fast but make sure everyone can understand. Remember clarity > speed!

-Be respectful in crossfire and don't interrupt each other, and if you need to, make sure to do it respectfully

-if you can, weigh in response or closing

- try to keep your own time for each speech

My name is Aditi Hemanth and I am a 9th grader at Lambert High School. I've been doing PF debate for a while and have competed in different nationals. Here's what I look for in a debate:

Main Point: You need to speak well, have strong cases with credible evidence. I need to hear warranting; explain to my why each piece of evidence is connected or how your link leads to the impacts actually happening.

Cross: I do pay attention to cross, but it won't be a part of my flow. You need to be dominant and I notice if you can't answer a question. This doesn't play a big role in my decision, but it still does matter to me.

Response: If you are going second, FRONTLINE. Your responses must be signposted and I prefer an offtime road map. I don't like getting confused with what you are saying and putting it on the wrong flow. I really like seeing good analytics with logic behind them.

Summary: If you are going first, FRONTLINE in this speech. I want to hear impact weighing (ie. probability), case extensions, and either frontlining or extending responses. I am okay with collapsing, and think it is a good way to focus on what you think matters most in the debate.

Final Focus: This is your final chance to convince me for your vote. I want you to cleanly extend the cases you decide on as well as extend the weighing.

Speaker Points: I default to a 28 or 29, but will give you extra points for doing well in cross, speaking loudly, your general behavior, and your confidence while speaking. You need to know your own arguments and the topic well.

Overall, I consider myself to be a flay (mostly tech) judge. Good luck on your rounds!

Add me to the email chain: theodore.jeemin.kim@gmail.com

Be nice and respectful, it's too early/middle/late in the day to be at each other's throats. I appreciate specificity over generics, but anything goes I guess. I'm more of a realist, so try to interact with the topic/resolution reasonably (especially with impacts, make sure the links make sense and the uniqueness is unique.)

Let's hear all the weird theories and philosophies! I'm very interested in hearing about them and although there's a good chance you're going to lose if it's really weird, I'll give you extra speaker points.

Identity and framework arguments - I probably won't ever get one, but if I do, let's hear it! There's definitely value in these sorts of debates even if they aren't the 'traditional debate' educational value.

K - Love them, please run them, but explain them well and make sure they aren't ____-ist. Realism in a K doesn't make much sense but I prefer alt-Ks to in-round Ks, but anything is good.

T - Go for any T about any word/definition, but make sure it makes at least a little bit of sense.

Everything else also all good.

If there's a particular reason for me to vote for you, I expect you to point it out, explain it, and keep that point going – I'm not going to give myself extra reasons to vote for a specific side by thinking 'too much.'

Hey! Im a PF JV debater. I judge a round based on the impact weighing of both teams, how well the arguments are structured and defended, and how well the teams attack the opposing arguments. I don't mind fast reading as long as the words are clear and spoken loud enough to hear. If you don't weigh your impacts in the round (preferably using comparative analysis; don't just say that you are better), then that is a big reason not to vote for you. Normally I do know a lot about the topic so feel free to go into complicated/obscure cases- just make sure that it is well structured and has stuff to back it up. Also make sure to Frontline in your speeches and signpost before. Add me to any email chain to share evidence. Also make sure to not introduce new evidence late in the debate and time yourself.

Extra speaks if u give me food!

My email is kishorevridhi@gmail.com

Hello!! I've been debating PF for 3 years :D

Email for email chain: rsreek02@gmail.com

General:

- Speed is okay, but make sure what you're saying is still clear. No spreading please :(

- I will time speeches in case, but make sure you're still timing your own speeches.

- Be nice to your opponents. (No yelling, no cutting off in cross, no rude remarks)

Main Point:

- Signpost and state each contention's name before reading cards.

- Clear warranting; explain how your link evidence leads to your impacts.

Rebuttal:

- Signpost responses! Number them and make it clear when you're moving to the next response, and make it clear which contention you're responding to.

- You don't only need to read cards, but analytical responses must be backed with logic.

- If you're going second, make sure to frontline your opponent's response speech.

Summary:

- Make sure to frontline, extend responses, and impact weigh.

- When weighing, make sure to compare both sides' impacts, and weighing has to be clearly explained.
(Ex: You can't just say you win on probability because your impact is more likely without any sort of explanation.)

- Collapsing is not necessary, but it is a good way to focus on your most important argument in the round.

Final Focus:

- Make it very clear in this speech what the most important arguments of the round are, and why I should vote for you on them.

- Extend case and weighing clearly, just because it was brought up in an earlier speech does not mean you no longer have to explain it.

- I will not consider any new arguments in this speech.

Crossfire:

- I don't flow cross, but I will still pay attention to it.

- Cross won't heavily affect my decision, but your performance will affect speaker points.

Good luck debating, and have fun! :D

im a mix of lay and tech judge

preferences:

- don't read too fast cus i flow kinda slow

- include strong impacts

- try not to studder or say "um"/"like" and be as clear as you can

- be respectful to your opponent

if u bring be food i'll give you an extra speaker point

thats rlly it good luck!

Hi I am Medha Murthy and I am a lay judge. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. :)

EXPECTATIONS/GENERAL:

• No stealing prep

• No yelling

• No racism or personal attacks

• Be nice

MAIN POINT:

Please make sure to state the contention name before reading your contention. Make sure to read clearly and read at a good pace. If you have abundant or a bunch of time left over please extend your speech. Make sure your evidence makes sense and lines up with your contention.

RESPONSE:

Please explain your response and explain why it would happen. If you have extra time please weigh

WEIGHING:

PLEASE weigh or tell me why your case is better than your opponents in summary and final focus. I find this very important because you are explaining to the judge why you should win. Please explain your weighing. DON'T just say we weigh on severity because people are dying PLEASE explain it.

SPEAKER POINTS

I am very nice when it comes to speaker points.

GAIN SPEAKER POINTS:

• Speak clearly no matter the speed (just don't go too fast)

• Talk in a normal voice NO YELLING

• If you junko pose while speaking I will give you extra speaker points (optional)

• If you tell me a funny joke and I laugh I will give you extra speaker points (anytime but the end) (optional)

• Please stay polite

I will reduce your speaker points if you don't follow everything but the optional ones.

Good luck and have fun and at the end of the day it is just one competition!

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

• The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
• If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
• Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
• In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
• If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
• Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
• Speak as clearly as possible for you.
• Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

• DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
• CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
• K: I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer EVERYTHING, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.
• T: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
• Affs: Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
• Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

• If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
• I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
• I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
• Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
• I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
• If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
• You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
• Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

• Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
• 27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
• 28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
• 29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
• 29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
• 30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

Typing this on my phone the morning of so I'll keep it brief I'm an experienced debater with five years of PF, so any argument (san the obvious ones, anything -ist will get you an L26 + report to Tab, so don't try anything) is good with me, trust that I will be flowing everything in speech and will vote on anything on my flow.

I don't listen to cross so anything you want me to consider bring up in next speech.

Weighing is v important and unless you have it in summary, I'm not flowing it final focus, MAKE SURE ITS COMPARATIVE, weighing is at least half my ballot and will decide who wins the round 99.9% of the time.

Nothing is sticky, extend it verbally or it's dropped on the flow.

Speed is fine, but if you're going to spread send a speech doc or disclose online.

Turns should not be dropped

If you bring me food I'll love you forever and will maybe (okay definitely) give you extra speaks

Also if you email aanya2cool@gmail.com and tell her I'm cooler than her I'll give you extra speaks(show me the email)

If you make a joke that makes me laugh I'll give you speaks ????????

It would be helpful if the debaters I'm judging spoke at a pace at which I could understand them. A fast pace is fine, but a lightening-fast pace could mean I miss some arguments. Also try not to use extremely complicated terminology and speak very clearly. Thank You! - Abhay

Hi

extra points if you me free food. JK, definitely not.

Expectations:

Fluent, passionate, and convincing.

I will not tolerate any unprofessional language or racial comments.

I'm not biased I will vote for the person with the better case and argument.

Background: I have experience for 1 year

What I expect:

• Try and time yourself
• -Speak fast but make sure I can understand you
• Be respectful during your cross, and overall
• Please weigh 2

Hello! I'm Corinne, and I have been debating in JV for around a year. I am a first speaker, and my favorite speech is usually the summary (even though I really am not that good at it). Overall, in any debate of any form, there are a few key points that will help you win the round when I judge:

1. Signpost

Please make sure that you are clearly stating when you are transitioning to your next contention or response, and number your responses to make it easier for both myself and your opponent to understand. I would heavily appreciate an off-time roadmap at the beginning of your response and summary speeches, and I am more lenient with that on the final focus.

2. Speak loudly & clearly

If you do not speak up, or you don't enunciate/articulate, I will most likely lower your speaks. Make sure you are talking loud enough so everyone can hear you, and make sure you articulate so everyone can understand what you are saying.

3. Be polite and friendly

In a lot of practice debates during the crossfires, I see people talking over the other person or being rude to them when they ask the question or are responding. Don't cut the other person off (unless they are getting way, waaay off track) and make sure to maintain a professional attitude whilst debating.

Make sure to have fun and prepare! Don't give up!

Background: I have experience in PF for 2 years

What I expect:

-Speak fast but make sure I can understand you

-Try and time yourself

-Be respectful during cross, and overall in the debate

-Please weigh

sohamverma03@gmail.com - add me to the email chain pls

PF

Tech>truth - Front lining is also a must. These are key to winning debates and I vote for arguments that are clashed. If something is dropped by both teams I don't make my decision based on it.

If you drop a case that still has turn on it and the other team extends it, IT COUNTS AS OFFENSE. It's technically reverting their point toward them therefore it is an offense and is a valid point to argue for. If you flesh out a turn well you can very likely win the debate because of it. Impact weighing is key and for me to evaluate it you must relate to any of the weighing mechanisms. Most teams just talk about their impact but I need you to compare it for me... so like saying why their impact is bad. If a team frontlines a response and the other team does not respond to the frontline I will count that response as dropped. please collapse flesh out warrants well.

Policy

Your speech should probably follow along the border of this:

1AC - Aff reads plan and advantage.100% just reading the evidence

1NC - Reads DA's and advantage answer.- 95% evidence, 5% analytics. Some people include analytics on cases or mention things that were said in cross-ex (CX)

2AC - Extends 1AC to explain why 1NC case defense is wrong & reads answers to DA's - case is all extensions NO CARDS unless absolutely necessary, answers to DA's are 95% cards, 5% analytics that you think of or come from CX

2NC/1NR - Extend DA's and advantage answers --- 50/50 cards and extensions you want to extend 1NC cards and then support them with more evidence

1AR - Re-extends what was said in the 2AC on the case & choose the strongest arguments to go for on the DAs (Can't go for everything b/c 1AR is 5 minutes vs Neg block which is 13 minutes) - -- 80% extensions, may need a card here or there for new things read in the block

2NR - Makes final decision on what the neg is going to go for. For example, if reading 2 DAs, 2N has to choose 1 to all in on. Do impact calc on the DA vs the advantages - 100% ANALYTICS AND EXTENSIONS

2AR - Makes final decision on what the aff is going to go for. Only extend 1 advantage and do impact calc on the ADV VS DA - 100% ANALYTICS AND EXTENSIONS

Just make sure to clash a lot and win dropped args and ill end up voting for u

Hello! Please be patient as I am new and may make errors.

I value confidence-- I believe that a good rebuttal or argument should be spoken loudly and clearly.

I don't mind spreading as long as you speak clearly and don't repeat yourself a lot.

Tentatively tech > truth, though it may vary based on topic.

Hey,

My name is Jai (pronounced “J”). I’m a little of tech and lay. Please don’t drop points; follow thru. For speaker points, talk fast and clear. Please don’t yell unless it actually helps your case - most of the time it is harmful. I decide at the end so make sure you give it your all!

For evidence my email is

I am a student with experience and have done national tournaments as well, so I am a tech judge. Keep your own time. I am okay if you speak fast but I only flow what I hear so if you are unclear then that is on you. I flow everything so respond to everything. To win, you need to defend your impact really well and attack the opponent's impact as well. You should be collapsing. Overall, just try your best and make it a fun round.

To get better Speaker Points:

• My speaks are based on clarity and volume.
• Stand up
• Don't say "um" or use filler words
• Try to speak fast but clear