Hello Debaters,

My name is Anant Agarwal, and I can't wait to get to know about all the cool arguments you guys have prepared.

Please treat me as someone who has no prior knowledge for any topic, and make sure to explain everything thoroughly, don't blip any arguments.

I am a truth over tech, if you tell me something absurd like the sky is green, I won't believe it unless you give me a solid link showing that it is green. But I value logical arguments over random arguments that have no chance of happening or are simply not true.

Try to speak at a moderate pace, I will be flowing but if you speak too fast I won't be able to get anything down and its just going to be bad for you in the end. When responding to the opponent in your speeches make sure to give me sound reasoning as to why what you are saying is true, rather than just saying something and moving on. Most points should be supported by evidence (unless its plain logic), and rebuttals should be reasonable and with a good explanation and contentions are coherent.

Make sure to keep a healthy environment for all the debaters and judges, if I notice any inappropriate behavior it will reflect in your speaks.

JUST HAVE FUN! AND MAKE SURE TO BE LOGICAL AND GIVE ME A REASON WHY YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE OPPONENT IS WRONG! REASONING REASONING REASONING!

Hello Debaters,

My name is Div, I am a parent judge and excited to learn more about the topic from you.

I believe all participants should do their best. I am a flay judge and will try to follow the flow. If your debating skills paint a picture, especially - points are supported by evidence, counterpoints that are reasoned and contentions that are coherent. If you can do these, I will be happy to give you the points you deserve.

I look towards a healthy and respectful debate between contestants and inappropriate behavior - derogatory, inflammatory, demeaning remarks will impact your speaker score and result.

Most of all I encourage you all to have fun. Debate is an opportunity to learn and grow and more often than not paying careful attention to your opponents arguments will help you do that.

I wish you all the best and leave you with - "You may disapprove or disagree with your opponent, but you will defend their right to speech"

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topic knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech.

Hello Debaters,

My name is Nidhi, I am a parent judge and excited to learn more about the topic from you.

I believe all participants should do their best. I am a flay judge and will try to follow the flow. If your debating skills paint a picture, especially - points are supported by evidence, counterpoints that are reasoned and contentions that are coherent. If you can do these, I will be happy to give you the points you deserve.

I look towards a healthy and respectful debate between contestants and inappropriate behavior - derogatory, inflammatory, demeaning remarks will impact your speaker score and result.

Most of all I encourage you all to have fun. Debate is an opportunity to learn and grow and more often than not paying careful attention to your opponents arguments will help you do that.

I wish you all the best and leave you with - "You may disapprove or disagree with your opponent, but you will defend their right to speech"

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 06/04/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

TL;DR VERSION

I don't want to read your cards or be on your email evidence chain. I hate homework/spam.

I don't buy crazy low probability impacts like global warming and nuclear war unless you work hard for them: multiple warrants, proper link chains, and a demonstration that you've read more academic literature than I have is typically required. If you say "The impact is nuclear war: 100 million die" followed by author name and without any further warranting, you will likely lose.

Spread over 250 wpm: YOU DIE.

Read only author last names and year for super important/critical cards: YA DIE.

Last speech of any debate: focus on voting issues. If you continue/only debate the flow: YOU DIE DIE DIE.

Run BS Theory & Play Stupid Games: You win stupid prizes. And... YOU DIE.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's. I signed up to judge a debate not do extra reading homework.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence when it comes to your most key/consequential cards. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case.If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence. (Author last name + year is fine for small stuff)

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- Global Warming / Nuclear War / Extinction Impacts: Good luck with those. I rarely if ever buy any of those exaggerated / overblown / 1% probability impacts unless you explain thoroughly and in great detail how 10+ million plus people are going to die. You can't just say "China will get mad and nuke Taiwan and then we all die." I have a Chinese Tiger Mom. I've personally seen Chinese aggression up close: thrown slippers and passive-aggression hurt. They don't hurt that bad.

- Capitalism Ks: LOL!You're gonna read me something off of a Macbook Pro that you were given by your hired debate coach while competing for a private school that charges Stanford tuition prices. Didn't your parents drop you off at the tournament in a Tesla Model S? That nice suit you're wearing better not be Armani.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle. (I now donate in cash... don't make the same mistake I made kids!)

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

Judging Paradigms for Debate Competition

As a judge, my approach to evaluating debates is rooted in a balanced appreciation of both the art of persuasion and the science of data and relevance. I believe that successful debating lies at the intersection of these two domains. Here are the paradigms I will use to guide my judgments:

1. The Art and Science of Debating:

• I view debating as a unique confluence where the art of persuasion meets the science of data and relevance. This means that I will value arguments that are not only compelling in their delivery but also robust in their factual and logical foundations.
  
  

2. Balance Between Persuasion and Data:

• Debaters must find a harmonious balance between emotional appeal and logical reasoning. While eloquence and rhetoric are important, they must be supported by credible evidence and sound logic. I will reward speakers who can skillfully blend these elements.
  
  

3. Purpose of Debate:

• The core purpose of debating is to change minds and engage in meaningful conversation. I will look for debaters who can effectively challenge existing perspectives and present new, convincing viewpoints, thereby contributing to a dynamic and thought-provoking exchange.
  
  

4. Respectful Engagement:

• A respectful tone is paramount in any debate. Debaters should demonstrate respect for their opponents, the audience, and the debate format itself. I expect participants to engage in civil discourse, even when disagreements arise.
  
  

5. Voice and Professionalism:

• Debate is a powerful tool that gives a voice to individuals and teaches us how to engage critically and professionally. I will favour debaters who exhibit professionalism, maintain decorum, and articulate their points with clarity and conviction, always aiming for constructive progress.
  
  

6. Challenging Societal Notions:

• Debate serves as a platform to challenge societal norms and enable the public to learn and engage with diverse viewpoints. I will appreciate arguments that push boundaries, question the status quo, and encourage the audience to think more deeply about the issues at hand.

In summary, I will judge debates with a keen eye on the synergy between persuasive art and scientific rigour. Debaters who can seamlessly integrate emotional appeal with factual accuracy, engage respectfully, and challenge societal notions while fostering meaningful conversation will excel in this competition. My goal is to recognize and reward those who embody the true spirit of debate: a pursuit of knowledge, progress, and respectful dialogue.

As a lay judge, my primary focus is on clarity and comprehension. I come to the debate with an open mind but limited familiarity with debate jargon and speed.

• Speed Limit: I have a strict speed limit of 150 words per minute. If you exceed this speed, I will drop you. Clear and articulate speech is crucial for me to understand and evaluate your arguments effectively. Please speak slowly and clearly to ensure I can follow your points.

• Clear Explanations: Please explain your arguments thoroughly and in a way that is easy to follow. Avoid technical jargon or, if you must use it, ensure you define and explain it clearly.
• Structure: A well-organized speech with a clear roadmap is highly appreciated. Signposting your arguments helps me follow along and understand the flow of your case.

• Impact Calculus: Rather than a barrage of impacts and blocks, I prefer fewer, well-explained impacts with clear weighing. Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's.
• Sources: Use credible sources and explain their relevance. Good sources that are well-integrated into your arguments will weigh heavily in my decision.

• Weighing: Effective weighing is key. Tell me why your arguments are more significant in the context of the debate. Comparisons between impacts (magnitude, probability, timeframe) are very helpful.
• Relevance: Make sure your arguments are directly relevant to the resolution and the round. Avoid tangential points that do not contribute to the core of the debate.

• Respect: Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor towards your opponents and me as the judge. Courtesy goes a long way.
• Engagement: Show that you are engaged and listening to your opponent's arguments. Refute them directly and provide counter-analysis where necessary.

By adhering to these guidelines, you'll help me make a fair and informed decision. Clear, well-explained arguments with a focus on weighing and credible sources will be most persuasive in my evaluation.

I am a parent of a Myers Park High School speech and debate student and have two seasons of experience judging Public Forum. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas once. I am a retired accounting professional. I prefer for debaters to speak at a moderate pace rather than a very rapid one. I value argument over style. I will view overly aggressive debaters, and especially disrespectful ones, less favorably. I find weighing by debaters at the end to be very helpful. I provide some feedback in person at the end of debates but do not typically indicate which side won the debate, and in some cases I may need to go through my notes and do more thinking to determine who won. I do not consider any information not mentioned by the debaters in reaching my decisions.

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 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no 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.

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. 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 wholistically.

DA/CP:

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.

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. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

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. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for 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
  • 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.

I am looking for debaters to engage in constructive dialogue, present well-reasoned arguments, and address the key issues of the resolution. I expect both teams to adhere to the rules of Public Forum debate, including maintaining respectful conduct, avoiding spreading, and staying within the time limits.

I will be evaluating the quality of arguments based on their clarity, relevance, and strength of evidence. I expect debaters to provide clear definitions of key terms, establish logical frameworks for their arguments, and support their claims with credible sources. I will pay close attention to how debaters engage with their opponents' arguments, including the ability to rebut and refute effectively. Key point for me is WEIGHING, don't forget to weigh your arguments.

Debaters should strive for clear and organized speeches, with well-structured content that is easy to follow. I value effective use of signposting, transitions, and summaries to ensure that arguments are presented coherently and comprehensively. Additionally, debaters should maintain good speaking demeanor, including strong vocal delivery, eye contact, and appropriate gestures.

In the final focus speeches, I expect debaters to crystallize the key issues of the round and explain why their team has won the debate. I will base my decision on which team has provided the most compelling arguments, effectively refuted their opponents, and best upheld their burden of proof. I will strive to provide constructive feedback to both teams, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

I encourage all debaters to approach this round with professionalism, respect, and a willingness to engage in meaningful discourse. Remember to focus on the substance of the arguments rather than personal attacks or rhetoric. Good luck to both teams, and let's have a productive debate!

First, don't worry about this paradigm, just debate and have fun!

I debated for Sierra Canyon from 2019-2023 in WSD, BP, Parli, and PDP (Public Debate Program).

Most of the events I participated in were heavily focused on style, and I consider speaking skills to be equally as important as strategy and argumentation, so make sure you make an effort to present your case and rebuttals engagingly with strong public speaking.

Most of all, be ethical, clear, and present yourself well. Make sure to weigh.

Ok that's it bye

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John

info:

i did 3 years of public forum debate in high school; 3x national pf champion in china
yangivy@sas.upenn.edu

but to reiterate, for pf, i:

• will flow
• tech>truth
• accept spreading (send case if >350wpm)
• accept t/k (not my favorite if you cant execute it properly)
• ask that all new offense is presented in the first half of the debate (before summary)
• want you to have fun (if you make the debate fun for me too, ill give you rly high speaks...im so serious give me some fun arguments please please please) with the assumption that its actually a smart arg

as for ld, i evaluate trad rounds the same as pf; for progressive rounds, im mildly familiar with the common fws/ts/ks and ill try my best to follow but you should probably try to treat me as a lay judge oops