Hey y'all! I'm Sunay. I'm a Captain on the Bronx Science Debate Team, and this is my third year doing PF. You can consider me a flow judge: I'm very generous with speaker points, so 28.5 for an average speaker.

I flow and am tech > truth. When judging, I'll vote for the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Email for evidence sharing and/or any questions: chawlas@bxscience.edu

General preferences:

- Frontline in second rebuttal (at a minimum, turns and terminal defense)

- Collapse (go for one contention in the back half)

- Extend the argument you are collapsing on (with warrants! Card names are not required)

- WEIGH starting in summary (please do comparative weighing. For meta weighing, it needs to be interactive and warranted instead of just saying "prefer probability over magnitude")

- Defense is not sticky (extend your defense if you want it to be evaluated)

- No new arguments after 1st summary (this includes new warrants. Backlines in 2nd summary & new weighing in 1st FF are both fine)

- Implications are important! (what does a response/frontline mean for the argument?)

- Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow. I don't need off-time roadmaps as long as you tell me where to start and signpost as you go)

- Warrant everything! (warranted analytic > card with no warrant)

Other in-round stuff:

- Please cut your cards

- Ev exchange should not take more than 2 mins. If you plan on calling for a lot of cards, just call for a speech doc.

- I won't pay much attention during cross, but cross is binding and anything said in cross must be brought up in a speech if you want it to be evaluated.

- Spread at your own risk. Some speed is fine as long as it's comprehensible, but if you go policy-fast I'll prob miss stuff.

- If you go overtime, you can finish your sentence but I'll stop flowing after approx 10 seconds.

Progressive arguments:

I'm not too comfortable with theory and/or Ks. Don't expect me to understand super niche prog arguments.

Speaker point boosts:

- Make a Drake reference +0.5

- If you are a soccer fan:

- Guess my favorite league: +0.5 (If you guess my favorite club, you’ll get an auto 30)

Hello Debaters

I am a junior in high school and this is one of my first times debating an official round, but this is the third year that I have been active in debate. I will judge you on how you weigh so it is super important that you tell me when you are doing so.

Contact me at 26adriscoll@cpsd.us

I will be flowing so I can see if an argument was answered or if it was extended (so do not lie).

No new evidence in final focus or in second summary unless you have brought it up in cross - I will be listening in cross but I will not judge based on the arguments in cross unless you bring them up in a speech. I am fine with new arguments or rebuttals as long as they are backed up by evidence you have already fully spoken out.

Obviously, do not be racist or sexist or any of the other bad things and do not shout at each other during rounds.

As I said before, make sure to weigh, and collapsing can be nice to simplify and stress one argument you think got through.

Good luck and have fun!

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com. Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Coached and judged since 2020 freelance, then Delbarton, and now as the Director of PF at Bronx Science

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you slow down on taglines. Send a speech doc if you are going fast or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

Evidence

- DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department. I also will evaluate para theory, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for it.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive).

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two well-resourced programs bashing each other over the head with theory and/or there was a serious violation, carry on.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

- "try or die" is not comparative weighing. I think it's a massive logical fallacy the debate community partakes in.

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently subjective and somewhat biased-- I will evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

1. Keep Calm.
2. Speak Loud And Clear.
3. Maintain Proper Body Language.
4. Keep The Topic On Track.
5. Respect your Opponents

Hello, my name is Calvin. I debated on the national circuit frequently during high school, and have been involved in PF since 6th grade. I'm now a first-year student at Drake University majoring in Law, Politics, and society on a prelaw track. I am also an assistant coach at Roosevelt.

Add me on the email chain: calvinj.goldsberry@gmail.com

When I am judging, you will have my full attention. I will not be on social media or other websites (Yes, even during crossfire).

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

I am tabula rasa/tech>truth. This means i will enter the round as if i have 0 topic knowledge, and will evaluate anything I can understand. If your opponents say the sky is green and you drop it, the sky is green.

I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc that I can follow.

Defence is not sticky.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence will result in a TKO.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

How to win my ballot

SIGNPOST pls bro im begging

Clarity>speed

Collapsing is important if you want to avoid judge intervention. It can be extremely difficult if not impossible to weigh 3+ pieces of offense in 2 minutes.

I won't vote on crossfire, but that doesn't excuse being rude. You can be aggressive in cross, but please treat your opponents with respect.

If something important happens in cross, bring it up in the next speech or I won't flow it.

One well-warranted analytic is better than two blippy pieces of evidence

Good COMPARATIVE weighing will probably win you the debate.

Make your evidence comparison more than just "we postdate" why does postdating matter? Get creative with it.

Implicate your responses.

Efficient evidence exchanges facilitate a faster debate, fair competition, and a less annoyed judge.

Preflow before I show up.

Kritiks

I love K debates. I think these debates are extremely important for the debate space and are highly educational when they are run well. I am somewhat inexperienced in evaluating these so please explain things in simple terms so I can understand the warrant-level debate.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

I struggle to evaluate RVIs, they do not make much sense to me. Why should you win for being fair?

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Making the round less messy is as simple as collapsing on a standard, just like you would collapse on a link in a substance round.

Tricks

These are uneducational and impossible to evaluate, please don't read them.

Just don't.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks. Being condescending/demeaning in cross loses speaks.

Less than 25: You intentionally did something abusive/offensive. I have probably contacted Tab.

25-26: You are SERIOUSLY grinding my gears.

26-27: You made some mistakes.

27-28: Average.

28-29: Pretty good!

29-30: One of the best teams at this tournament.

Other stuff
If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.

Be "Good people who happen to be good speakers"

Qualifications: 2 years of high school debate, 2x NCFL Grand Nationals, 1x NSDA Nationals, 1x NSDA Nationals Extemporaneous Debate, a few National Circuit tournaments (TOC was never my cup of tea, but I respect the commitment)

Email: hopeg3615@uwec.edu - Please add the other team and myself to email chainsbefore the round

Background (if you care): Previously debated at Edgewood (Madison, Wisconsin), currently a Political Science major. Consider me a flay (flow + lay) judge in terms of style, as I'll be voting off of the flow unless the argument you're running lacks evidence/internal links. TLDR if your argument doesn't make any sense, you won't get my vote.

Public Speaking: Public Forum is meant to combine traditional debate with an emphasis on public speaking. I strongly discourage spreading (speed reading), as I will generally weigh a few well thought-out arguments over a barrage of unrelated information. Some good practices include making eye contact with the judge, speaking at a reasonable pace with good pronunciation, and speaking with expression.

Etiquette: Be respectful. There is a definite difference between being aggressive and being rude. Taking down your opponents' case aggressively is a great strategy, but ANY sort of insult in-round will lead to you getting dropped (including to your partner!) and any use of slurs/hateful speech directed at your opponents will lead to a conversation with your coach. I will give you 10 seconds after time at the end of your speech to stop; if you fail to stop by then I will cut you off (politely) and if you keep doing it throughout the round you'll lose speaker points. I will time your speeches and prep time, but you should also be timing yourself as a good practice.

Types of Arguments: Argue whatever you want. Debate is kept interesting because the students that participate in it write creative, new arguments. If you don't write your own arguments, I encourage you to try it! That being said, keep a few things in mind.

1. I LOVE when people run arguments that are realistic. Take a real problem from the real world and tell me about it; you'll be much more likely to get my vote.

2. Argue extinction if you want, but understand that these arguments are inherently unrealistic. Unless your opponents drop the ball, these arguments are unlikely to win you the round.

3. If you're going to run theory, run it well and don't use it to stomp newer teams in local tournaments.

Evidence: I get that chopping up evidence is common practice, but my biggest pet peeve is when your blocks look like this:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum"

You should be reading most of your evidence instead of surgically extracting words to support your claim. If your opponents are ,misrepresenting their evidence, point it out!

How to Win:

1. Organize your arguments (called signposting in the debate world). EXAMPLE: "Moving onto their second contention of X, they say A. However, B, C, and D." This will help me take notes and will help you stay on track during your speeches.
2. You should be weighing your arguments starting in rebuttal. If you don't know how/why to do this, PLEASE ask me before or after the round.
3. Take a deep breath before every speech. You've got this!

Finally, I'm here to help you learn! PLEASE ask me any questions about how/why I voted the way I did and I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability. I know how frustrating it can be when a judge seemingly votes for no reason, so I'll be happy to give as many tips as I can.

Have fun out there! Debate is an amazing way to learn about the world around you.

hey! im a vars captain @ newton south, and this is my fourth yr debating

add me to the email chain: chloehu1919@gmail.com

For novices:

don't worry, you guys are doing great! ik that debate can be very daunting, but if you have any questions, email me or add me on facebook

extend, collapse, weigh (weighing is the most important to me)-- don't worry too much about it tho, but reach out if you have questions! im here to make your experience as fun as possible

For everyone else

have fun, debate is a game tech>truth

if both teams agree w it, I can evaluate the round as a lay

collapsing will make the round clearer, but i won't drop u if u don't (i will take off speaks if ur in varsity and ur not extending your case bc it's offense + i have nothing to vote for if no offense)

weighing is one of the first things I look at when evaluating a round -- make it interactive and comparative pls for the love of god + link-ins, short circuits, prereqs are all v v nice

spreading is fine but nothing >1000 words and send speech docs

be nice during a cross, nothing offensive + no mansplaining or i will dock speaks (ty!)

terminalize + contextualize your impacts

my knowledge of prog is pretty limited (I've hit it a few times), run if u want, but no guarantee that I will evaluate it properly.

if you misconstrue your cards on purpose and multiple times, I will drop you

defense is not sticky

turns/das/any offense needs to be implicated, weighed, and have an impact for it to count as a unique piece of offense

docking points if you don't time yourself b/c it's not my responsibility, it's yours.

if you bring me any good candy or food i will boost speaks by +1

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and occasionally LD.

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

Come learn debate from me: NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate. We have a stellar staff including Bashir Eltyeb (Iowa City West, TOC semifinalist), Michi Synn (Canyon Crest, dozens of bids), Devin Lester (Lakeville North, 3x TOC), and Ingrid Alg-Liening (Theodore Roosevelt, 3x Gold TOC). We support students of all experience levels, from brand-new novices to national circuit contenders.

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

More in-depth 2024-2025 judging record for your convenience and for transparency: Parker Klyn judging record

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa (I was also a double 2[!] in the most local policy debate circuit of all time) and had no exposure to the national circuit. Since becoming head coach at Roosevelt we've had state champions and TOC qualifiers every year.

Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm...

Public Forum: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive."

Lincoln-Douglas:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of case & all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge. "Intervention" is the scariest word in debate. I flow line-by-line on my computer usingFlower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, impact turns, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framing, layering, and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want. However I will not have the speech doc open other than to peruse evidence I have not heard before (usually during prep time). It's your responsibility to be clear.

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards; let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience. My email is open for this purpose as well. Multiple debaters have told me I look intimidating/scary during round and then turn into a nice guy afterwards; I'm just tired.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." I will bump your speaks slightly if you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

People get scared when they see a primarily PF coach in their circuit LD judge pools -- I promise, I can handle what you're throwing at me as long as you do the effective work in judge instruction. In any debate event, capable judging is a must-have, and I will live up to that expectation.

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Love scouring the opencaselist for unique, creative arguments. I am not confident in evaluating performance, academic philosophy, or postmodernist arguments -- these would probably require lots of warranting and explanation, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me. Ultimately, I'd rather see a team perform an advocacy they're confident in than over-adapt.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're flowable (I will not flow off a doc; this is the one place where it's up to the debaters to adapt, not the judge).

I value the intellectual freedom that debate provides -- running arguments and justifications that exist outside the academic norm is one of the event's true benefits. The only arguments I will not vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad."

Iowa circuit: Run whatever you want. I'm open to "traditional" Lincoln-Douglas but you need to meet the bare minimum of argumentation in extending framing (your value/criterion) and weighable offense (your contention(s)) for me to vote for you. I don't fill in any gaps, I often presume aff/neg if one side establishes that the status quo is currently good/bad because neither side extended any complete arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

If you do not add new argumentation or refute previous speeches you will not get a rank, regardless of how "good of a speaker" you are.

It is difficult for me to rank POs higher than those who provided strong argumentation -- if they are tied, I will always go with the people who actually debated.

–––––––––––––––––––

Speech

Just like debate, speech is very hard. Because I value your long hours of preparation, I promise I am fully invested in your performance and will evaluate it to the best of my ability. I would consider myself a competent Extemp (coached multiple state champions) and Platform (coached a NIETOC semifinalist) judge and a middling Interp judge -- UNLESS it's POI, in which case I definitely know what I'm doing. I look forward to seeing what you have prepared!

Extemp: Don't just answer the question accurately, but implicate it -- why is this even question being asked? Confident facial expressions and humor are always appreciated.

Platform (OO/INFO): Topic selection is massively important. No matter how technically proficient you are, if your thesis boils down to "we should be nice to each other" or "here's some information about something" you will probably not get a high rank. I put strong emphasis on actually taking a bit of a risk for your topic selection and eschewing "safer" options.

Interp: I do not have much expertise when it comes to these, although I adore POI as the work involved in crafting a strong program feels far more intellectually robust than simply performing a dramatic or humorous piece. All interp performances should feature believable acting, clear storytelling structure, distinct characters, and intentional blocking. I do NOT value excessively traumatic topics in DI; they feel very cynical and almost exploitative to me. HI should obviously make me laugh. The interplay between performers in DUO is fun. And in POI, the most important thing I'm looking for is a clear theme or thesis that ties your program together.

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

1) Flow. It is so easy to tell when you're not flowing.

2) You should not need a marked doc when only a couple cards were skipped.

3) This idea that "spreading has no real-world benefits" is so blatantly and obviously false to anyone who has actually engaged in fast debate. Worse argumentation presented in a pretty manner is indisputably less academically robust and pedagogically valuable than more in-depth argumentation presented at a speedy pace.

4) Everyone should always be willing to proactively disclose all evidence read previously in a debate. People who don't do this usually fall into a few camps: (1) genuinely being uninformed (in which case adjusting to disclosing is an easy fix), (2) strategic reasons (i.e. those who know deep down disclosure is good and utilize disclosed evidence in their files but do not disclose themselves to prevent prep-outs), or (3) coaching (i.e. their coach won't let them, tells them it's bad, etc.). All of these reasons fall apart if debate is to be taken remotely seriously as an academic endeavor. If my debaters can disclose every constructive and rebuttal card in their extremely personal Black Nihilism K you can disclose your stuff too. (Note that this does not mean I am a disclosure theory hack.)

5) Despite the time and energy I spend in this wonderful activity, I am a glorified volunteer. I teach literacy to struggling readers and my stipend averages to about $2/hour. Many debate coaches, even those at the highest levels, are in similar situations -- be good to them.

6) Be kind and reasonable to everyone in the activity, whether you are a judge (don't bully children in your RFD, don't arbitrarily change speaker points because they brought you food) or competitor (welcome novices with open arms, practice epistemic humility, thank the adults in your life who have allowed you to find a home in debate). If you are someone who indicates in their paradigm that they increase speaker points for anything unrelated to debating or norm-setting, I actively think less of you as a member of our community and feel immense second-hand embarrassment on your behalf.

7) Stick with debate. I emphatically believe is the best thing you can do with your time in high school.

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm good with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care, as long as you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- K's are fine

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

Hello!

I am a senior at Lexington High School, I've competed in Varsity PF for 2 years and Varsity LD for 1 year. I am still actively competing, so you can treat me like a tech judge. You can add me to any email chains or speech docs:kennethlu7@gmail.com

General Info (tl;dr):

In general, I'm fine with you reading any argument in the round as long as everyone in the round is being respectful and people aren't being overly heated or problematic. Just remember - at the end of the day, it's just a debate tournament.

I'm pretty comfortable with speed but you should definitely be making sure everything you say is clear and comprehensible. I'm fine with spreading but if I don't catch anything, it's not going to be evaluated on the flow. I will also shout "Clear" or "Slow" if you are going excessively fast, but I will almost definitely be able to keep up with the speed at this level.

Tech > truth - I'll evaluate any argument on the flow as long as it isn't problematic in any way. In terms of what counts as problematic - just use common sense, if you have to think about it, it probably is. I'll vote off whatever arguments win on the flow. This doesn't mean you can ignore warrants though. Just because you say "this leads to extinction" doesn't mean you do have an extinction impact. You need to warrant out why you lead to an extinction impact.

Speaker points are based on articulation and just being a nice person. If you articulate your arguments in a way that is easy to understand and treat everyone in the round nicely, you'll probably get good speaks. I like to think that I am pretty generous with speaks.

Feel free to ask me before round on any of my preferences and after the round if there was anything about the round you had questions on. I'm always free to clarify anything you're confused about and help you in any way possible.

Generally keep your own time, I'll probably be timing as well, but it will be your responsibility to keep time. I'll probably cut you off if you are grossly over the time limit though.

If you are debating novice PF: Please don't run progressive arguments unless both sides agree to it and even then I would prefer if you don't.

General argumentation stuff:

I evaluate the round layer by layer - if there's theory/t, K's, or anything pre-fiat, that is evaluated first unless I am told otherwise. I then move on to substance by evaluating weighing, then looking at links and clear warrants.

Extend and collapse in the back half of the round - Make sure you are always extending through only your strongest pieces of offense or defense in the last few speeches. You probably won't have time to extend through everything in your first few speeches and if the last few speeches end up being "extend through my first contention, the Smith 13 card, ...", I probably won't evaluate those extensions. You need to be at least bringing up all the warranting from uniqueness to impact.

Because this has been an issue in rounds, I'm reiterating this: please remember to extend. "Extend our c2 on climate change" is not an extension. At the very least, I need uniqueness, link, and impact extended with warrants.

Always weigh - You should be telling me how to view the round and which impacts to prioritize, I can't evaluate a round if both teams have access to impacts and don't weigh at all. It ends up just being based on strength of link, so it's your job to make sure that you tell me how to vote.

Evidence debates - I won't look at evidence unless it becomes a major point in deciding the round. For sharing evidence, I'm fine with whatever is convenient for both teams, speech doc, email chain, whatever works. If there does end up being miscut or power tagged evidence that the other team points out, you will lose speaks and potentially the ballot if the other team gives a strong enough warrant.

I won't flow cross, so if anything important is conceded, you have to bring it up in a speech.

I would prefer to see you line by lining down the flow so you touch on all the points of the debate.

You should be signposting so that it is clear where you are on the flow. You shouldn't be jumping around on the flow and making me confused where to flow which argument, otherwise I might not evaluate an argument how you intended or I might miss it altogether.

You should be reading off evidence, I would prefer it if you read tag, citation, then body.

I presume Neg - If somehow, the entire debate has no offense standing for either side at the round, I presume neg unless either team makes a presumption argument telling me otherwise. Rounds probably shouldn't come down to this if teams are debating reasonably though.

PF specifics:

Considering I will probably be judging novice, I would really prefer if you don't read progressive arguments in novice PF. Especially if it's clear that something like one team has an extensive background on theory and is reading it against first-time debaters is happening, I will at the very least dock speaks and you could lose the ballot depending on the situation. If both teams are fine with progressive arguments, I'm fine with evaluating those sorts of rounds. I am completely fine with you reading something like an SV framework, it's just arguments like K's and theory that I would prefer seeing less of at this level. I also believe that a lot of more progressive arguments such as K's don't have much of a place in PF given shorter speech times and structure of the style, but I am still willing to vote off it.

Frontlining should be happening in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary, weighing and collapsing should happen as early as possible, there can be a little by 2nd rebuttal and should definitely happen by 1st and 2nd summary. I won't evaluate new responses, so all your arguments and implications should be on the flow by summary. Also, in the majority of cases you should not be making new arguments in 2nd summary, 1st summary should be the last speech with completely new arguments otherwise there isn't a real chance to respond.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and final focus. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary.

I will evaluate the round based on the flow, but I would prefer to see a clear narrative at the end.

Also a lot of the stuff below on specific arguments probably doesn't apply to you, but you can still read it if you're interested.

LD specifics:

I'm fine with you reading whatever you want, I have a bit less experience with LD, but I'm pretty familiar with most common argument types on the circuit and almost definitely anything you might be reading. Most likely you'll be doing trad debate anyway, which I'm very comfortable with. I'm also fine with plan/cp policy debate.

You should be summing up the main voters and telling me how to weigh and vote on the major points of clash in the last speeches. Generally you probably shouldn't be reading anything new in 2AR and there should be very little that is new in 2NR and I really shouldn't be hearing new cards in these speeches.

If you want to engage in framework debate, make sure you are responsive to the opponent's framework and warrant out your own. I think framework is pretty important since it frames the lens I view the round under, but that doesn't mean you always need to contest it depending on the circumstances. I'm fine with basically any framework you want to read as long as you explain and warrant it out.

Specific Arguments:

Theory - I don't have an extensive history of debating theory, but I have some experience with it and am fine with evaluating it. Unless otherwise told, I default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater. I have a high threshold for evaluating frivolous theory - you can run it and I am fine with voting off of it, just know that I have a pretty low threshold for responses to these types of theory arguments. Remember to do standard stuff like weighing between standards and extending through the shell in every round.

T - Basically just theory except I have debated this a lot more.

Kritiks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

If you have a well developed IVI like an evidence challenge IVI, I can vote off of it as long as it is well warranted.

I am fine with prefiat framework - just remember to include cards and warrants to justify them. I have decent experience with things like general SV/Fem framework.

I am fine with you reading K's - I have some experience debating them but I don't have extensive knowledge on K-lit, so you might need to do some more work in warranting and explaining it, and you should know your lit base. As always, tell me how to evaluate the K, for example in a K v. K debate.

You need to tell me what I should evaluate first, otherwise I evaluate theory first, then K's.

Phil/FW - I don't have that much knowledge on philosophy and have limited experience in framework debates, so err on overexplaining. I can still evaluate these sorts of rounds, it just means I have less experience with them so debate these at your own risk. Make sure you have real warrants for framework justifications.

Tricks - I have very little experience with these, so if you want me to vote off them, they better be really well explained. If you are trying to spread through a million blippy one liners that aren't fleshed out arguments, I definitely won't be voting on them.

Policy/Trad/Substance PF debate - these are the sorts of debates that I have the most experience with. Nothing much to say here, just do what you normally do and follow the general argumentation stuff I have on the top.

hihi! i’m navaa (she/her), a varsity captain (pf) at newton south :D

YES! i wanna be on the email chain – navaamalihi@gmail.com.

if you have any questions, please email me before round!

right off the bat – any racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, antisemitism, transphobia, overt mansplaining/aggression etc will not be tolerated. automatic L + lowest speaks possible

speaks: if you do most of what I ask, you'll get a 28.5!

equity concerns: if there are any instances of abuse in the round or if you're feeling uncomfortable let me know me immediately (over email). i’ll likely notice and do something of my own accord even if you don’t!

novices:

y’all are doing amazing by just being in this space! just remember that your main priority should be learning + having a good time. there are three things i’d love to see you do: extend your warrants and impacts clearly, weigh a lot (don’t just say “we win on probability,” explain why and be comparative please!), and frontline properly (respond to your opponents' responses with clear and interactive warranting). finally, please be kind to your opponents during cross! if you have any questions, ask them before round.

varsity:

tldr: your average flow judge!

make my decision as easy as possible! my holy trinity is weighing *comparatively*, warranting *thoroughly*, and signposting *often* (if i don't know where you are on the flow, i will mentally check out). if you run absolutely wild args (e.g. nuke war on plastics) my threshold for responses will be super low. i hate intervening -- do everything in your power to make intervention unnecessary!

general stuff:

• evidence: evidence ethics are important! i'm fine w paraphrasing to a very conservative extent but if you fully misconstrue important evi, expect an L. if a piece of evidence sounds too good to be real + becomes really truly central to the round, expect me to call it. i won't buy something just because some author says it's true, so give me evidence + the warranting behind it. finally, i don't flow card names so don't just say "smith 21," tell me what smith says.

• i’m ok with speed but not spreading (>225 wpm), so if you spread please send docs!

• extensions: if you don’t extend your uniqueness, link and/or impact you don’t have offense, and responses must be extended in every speech. make fun of me all you want but debate is a public speaking activity so try to make your extensions sound good!

• weighing: all turns must be weighed or i can't vote off them! if your opponents don't properly weigh a turn point that out in addition to frontlining and you're set. also, please make sure you respond to your opponents' weighing! i cannot vote well if the weighing debate is a wash :(( by final weighing is all that really matters, don't get too caught up in the line-by-line!

• frontlining: please for the love of god put effort into frontlining and make it interactive. don’t group 4 unrelated responses on your case with a single blippy unresponsive frontline and call it a day!

• finals: i'm ok with a few new weighing mechanisms in first final but there absolutely shouldn't be anything new in second final. final should write my ballot for me so do exactly that!

• please please please do not run prog or trix. i have 0 experience running either so you're taking a serious shot in the dark. tbh from my experience i'm not a fan of most kinds of theory & i'm not opposed to k's but can't judge them well in the slightest, so i'd really prefer substance debates.

last but certainly not least, be kind, genuine, and civil or i'll tank your speaks!!

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means I will make the decision that requires no work from me unless neither team has a ballot which requires zero work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Flowing Practices

I flow 1AC and 1NC cross-x just in case it becomes important to the debate. For 2AC and 2NC cross-x I am mostly listening and writing feedback about the constructive. I will flow 1AC & 1NC with the speech doc open next to the flow. I am reading along with the speech and will catch if you do things like hide aspec so don't worry about that. For the other 6 speeches I am probably not looking at the speech doc. and just flowing what I hear. Don't read into it if I close my eyes or look up and away; I'm just trying to increase my focus to flow better.

Online Debate Update
If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. "Reject the argument solves all their offense" is an unwarranted claim and teams should capitalize on this more. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows holistically.

DA:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

CP:

For the neg I prefer that you have a solvency advocate. For the aff I think solvency deficits to the CP probably win most in front of me. I'm alright for competition debates if you are good at them. Spreading one liner standards in the 1ar and then exploding on them in the 2ar will make me have a very low threshold for 2nr answers look like. Similar for the 2nr, but I think the 2nr needs to flag the analysis as new and tell me it justifies new 2ar answers.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Please leave the cards in the file and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points. For aff v K perm is probably your best weapon, answer the theory of power especially if there is an ontology claim, and FW which outright excludes the K is probably weaker than a FW which just says the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. I'll vote on framework/topicality, for negs running it I think the "role of negation" is particular convincing and I need an offensive reason to vote, but defense on each aff standard/impact is just as important.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise. Perms test mutual exclusivity and I normally think they do this by resolving links through the perm. Multiple perms good/bad is a question to be debated on theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Complete line by line in the order that the opponents made the arguments
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Hi my name is Amethyst, and I’m a senior at Arlington High School and PF co-captain.

Lmk if you have any questions (or went against anybody from AHS today!)

Or feel free to email me at: amethystvy@gmail.com

• Please add me to the email chain!

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

General:

• Tech >> Truth

• I vote pretty much solely on the flow

• I can handle progressive arguments, spreading, etc

• I want clear voters towards the back half of the debate

• I'm a pretty flexible judge, so don't change your strategy for me
• Talk loud!!

Novice:

• Be nice to one another, you're all learning!!

• Ask for feedback at the end, I would love to share my rfd

• Same as general, but if you're going super techy make sure your opp can keep up or else it’s not a fun round for anyone :(

• I give speaks SUPER generously, so don’t worry about speaking as much as content!

This Tournament Specific:

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

Ok thats it!!

Have fun, and debate well!!

sophomore in college & I debated in PF during HS as second speaker - happy to give advice/answer questions at the end of the round.

for evidence- 1) add rv2529@barnard.edu to the email chain w this subject line: tournament name - rd # - school team code (side) v. school team code (side), 2) please send docs in the form of pdf (preferably)/word doc -- really don't like google docs/sending directly into the email chain bc it makes centralizing everything worse.

from there, these are things to keep in mind:

--while I can follow speed, please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. that being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

--TIME yourselves. I beg.

--for elims-if there's a lay on the panel, please please adapt speed/args to the lay and not to me. please make the debate accessible/understandable for them.

--in both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

--for 2nd rebuttal, frontline terminal defense & turns.

hint: I like link-ins from case & preq. args a lot. BUT I don't like when teams use their case args as the only response ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate. interact w the individual warrants and links.

--make it SUPER CLEAR what you're going for in summary & do all the necessary extensions (contentions, blocks, etc). weigh weigh weigh. meta-weighing is also great (tell me which mechanism is better).

--not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.

--tech or not: the final focus speech is a good time to SLOW DOWN and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.

--I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

--clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

--I prefer topical debates but I'm OPEN to theory and progressive arguments when ran well. that said, I'm not super familiar w a lot of these so run it to me like you're running it to a parent (make your points VERY clear & accessible).

I prefer arguments be delivered clearly and not too fast.

It is ok to be passionate. But please remember to be respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Please time yourself and let me know if you are going to take pre time.

Your overall performance, including the quality of arguments, evidence, and style, will help me determine the winner of the round.

My email is feiyang007@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain if there is one.

Please add me to email chains: tianyicyang@outlook.com

pronouns: he/him

Tech > truth. I abhor when judges interject their own personal beliefs into their RFDs (with the exception of when teams make arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc).

Top Level:

The below bullet point list summarizes my broader view of debate arguments.

Now a couple of things that will make me happy that I wish novices did more often -

1. Impact calculus and ballot framing in the 2NR/2AR is mandatory - not doing so forces me to intervene/make assumptions about your arguments. In sum, tell me why I should vote for you at the top of your speech.

2. Line by line refutation is mandatory - anything else makes decisions really messy and makes it really easy for me to forget key arguments that you want me to evaluate - THE CHANCE THAT I MAKE A DECISION YOU DON’T LIKE GOES UP SUBSTANTIALLY IF YOU DO NOT DO CLEAR LINE BY LINE

3. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT - jumping between flows sporadically without indicating that you are doing so is super annoying - I will definitely lower your speaks if you do this

4. DON’T DROP THINGS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THEM -It sucks that you’re facing a new argument that you’ve never seen before, but taking some prep time to figure out how to answer it is better than straight up dropping it and hoping the other team will forget they ever read the argument.

4. Clarity is a must - if you said something incoherently, I won’t have it on my flow.

5. Road maps before speeches are mandatory

Other Things:

1. Open Cx is fine

2. Please do not be rude to your partner or your opponents - being rude will be bad for your speaks

3. Please do not steal prep. If I notice that you are doing so excessively I will dock speaks. I understand that sometimes speech docs take forever to send out or save, so I'll try to be flexible.

4. Be confident! This will perceptually help you, and increase your speaks.

5. You can read basically any type of argument in front of me. On the neg, I've gone for DAs, CPs, Ks, T, impact turns, and various procedurals. On the aff, I've read soft-left affs, hard-right affs, and K-affs.

Here are some specific notes on types of argument:

DAs: I’m fine with politics DAs, I go for them all the time. @aff teams, you can often make bad DAs from the neg go away with a few smart analytics. You don’t need cards to point out that something is utter incoherent nonsense.

CPs: I love CPs that are from the aff's solvency advocate because they show that you (or someone on your team) actually read their ev. I'm fine with process CPs, but I'm even better for tricky perms. I’m also fine with generics like states, especially b/c there is basically 0 core neg ground on the water topic.

Ks on the neg: I'm alright with these, I'm most familiar with setcol and the cap K so with any other Ks a little bit more explaining will have to be done especially on the link level for me to vote for them. I do think that neg teams should win a specific link to the aff.

K affs: I probably won't judge a Kaff round, but just in case, I'll put some thoughts here. The most important thing in framework debates is impact calc - I need to know how I prioritize impacts and arguments. For K v K aff rounds, the aff probably gets a perm (no perms in a method debate never made much sense to me unless it’s dropped).

Topicality: The smaller the aff is, the more receptive I am going to be towards topicality arguments. I do think that reasonability is often a compelling argument IF EXECUTED CORRECTLY (especially when the T-interp is arbitrary), so T should probably not be your A-strat vs borderline topical affs unless you have nothing better to say (which, given the water topic, is an understandable situation to be in).

Theory (not including topicality) - My threshold for voting for theory is high-ish (I think reasonability or non-res theory bad tend to be quite persuasive against many theory arguments), but if they drop theory and you point that out and extend your argument I will vote for you.

Soft Left Affs: I've read these a bit, so I understand their appeal. However, I think that soft left affs are often run badly. Yes, your argument is probably true, but that doesn’t mean it merits a ballot if its not debated well. For example, a lot of soft-left teams say "conjunctive fallacy means no DA" and then proceed to poorly answer the DA, and that won't really work in front of me most of the time. I can definitely be convinced that the DA is so asinine that I should vote aff, but I won't reduce the DA for you.

Public Forum Specific:

I did policy debate in high school, not PF, so my experience in this area is quite limited. Haven't been in the debate space since April of last year so it'll take a bit of time to get used to how things are again. Most arguments should be fine but if you think I might have trouble understanding something make sure to explain it more in detail in your speeches.

LD Paradigm for Manchester:

This is my first ever time judging LD so do with that what you will. I would default to most of the stuff from the policy paradigm. NOTE: it's been some time since i have judged a debate that had spreading so my ability to flow it may be worse than before but speed should not be too much of an issue.