UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

I will be valuing the framework debate above all. Whoever is most effectively able to mobilize their value framework for their side is an effective strategy to appeal to me as a judge.

Other important factors:

• Clearly sign post and stick to them in speeches

• Utilized points in CX or in case must be clearly referenced to be considered (When I asked question B in CX, my opponent said C, which is important because..)(My opponent conceded Y in CX)

• Define and articulate impacts and voters (The impacts for voting aff are…, this is important because…) Articulate voting issues and which one’s you win, articulate why you win the debate. Make sure to WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH!)

• I can only consider points that are brought up by the debater (Such as something conceded in CX)

• First time judging so please bare with me when I adjust my flow between speeches. I would also prefer that speakers do not go too fast.

• If you have any more questions please ask before the round :)

A little bit about me: I debated at the Bronx High School of Science for 4 years, where I was one of the captains of the PF team and broke at Gold TOC in my junior year. I am now a senior at Princeton University on their debate team as well. I consider myself a relatively flow debater, and so I will also be judging on the flow.

TL; DR

I am a pretty standard flow judge; if you debate well, both in terms of the technical aspect and persuasion aspect, that will make me happy. To take from my partner Tenzin Dadak's paradigm, the only equation you need to know is: Warrant + Weigh = Win

For the email chain and any questions, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.

Extended:

The way I evaluate every round is pretty simple- I look to weighing/framing first, and whoever I think is winning the weighing, I look to their arguments first. Then, if I think that there is a plausible risk of offense on that argument, I vote for that team- I don't even look at the other side of the flow. It's that simple, so it should inform you on what to prioritize in the round to get my ballot.

More things to do to secure my ballot:

1. Collapse. Too many times teams spread themselves too thin by trying to argue that they are winning every argument in the round, which makes it even more difficult to just win one; towards the later speeches, please whittle the round down to one or two major pieces of offense/voters for me.

2. Extend offense and frontline in summary and final focus. Pretty simple- if you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument still holds true even after their rebuttal, the likelihood is that I will not vote on it.

3. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. Warranting, for me, is the most interesting part of debate because that is where your logical reasoning and understanding of the world comes into play- just asserting a statement to be true or just reading a statistic is nowhere near enough to make me believe your arguments. Please explain the reasoning behind each step of the argument- even though there are massive time constraints in final focus, please still include it in a condensed form.

4. WEIGH. This is probably one of the most under-appreciated aspects of debate, and to become a great debater, you need to be able to compare your arguments to your opponents and explain why yours are more important to consider in the round. Just saying "We outweigh on scope because we affect more people" is not fully fleshed out weighing; you need to give more reasoning and also compare the clashing weighing mechanisms in the round. Weighing makes my job easier, and will probably lead to you being more content with my decision.

Miscellaneous:

1. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION: Personally, I believe that a lot of progressive argumentation does not have a place in PF, and will always prefer topical arguments over Ks and theory UNLESS there is clear abuse. As for my position on some norms, I lean very strongly paraphrasing good, slightly lean towards disclosure not necessary, lean RVIs good, and default reasonability. I do not know much about this type of debate, so please slow down and explain it thoroughly if you do choose to run it in front of me, and I will treat it as any other argument. Trigger warnings are a necessity, and if I feel as though you are running this just to win an easy ballot against a team that obviously does not know how to respond, I will drop you- progressive argumentation is supposed to correct the flaws that are in this activity, NOT to be weaponized.

2. I base speaker points on your speaking skills and presentation AND on how technically sound you debate. Because of this, if the tournament allows me to, I will give a low-points win. I will start at 28.

3. Please don't be overly aggressive or mean in round; light-hearted humor is wonderful, but be wary of the line where it crosses over from being funny to disrespectful. Oh and also, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That will automatically make me drop you- I have no tolerance for people who make the round an unsafe space to debate.

4. I am tech>truth, but not entirely. I will vote on any argument if it is well-warranted and well-executed in round, but as the argument becomes more outlandish, my threshold for a good response goes down and I am more likely to believe simple logical responses.

5. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.

6. Please signpost- tell me which argument you are talking about, where in the argument you are, etc. This just makes it easier for me to flow the round.

7. Speed is fine, but don't go excessively fast (this means no spreading!!!)- if I need you to slow down then I will say "clear".

8. About crossfires- I fall in the category of people who really enjoy listening to cross, but anything important that comes out of cross that you think is necessary for me to take note of has to be put into a speech, else it will not affect my decision.

9. Please make the round enjoyable; then we can all have fun and that would make it a great time. This activity is meant to be both fun and competitive- please try to make it so.

10. ABOUT TURNS: Since everyone is turning to the idea of dumping turns on all arguments without any proper warranting, this section is now warranted. I despise blippy turns, so unless you spend >10 seconds on one turn AND extend an impact on that turn in that same speech OR weigh your turn in that very same speech that you read the turn in, I will think of it as blippy and I will be very sympathetic to the other team's responses. Other team, please point out that they are blowing up a blip. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR SECOND REBUTTAL TURNS. Tread lightly.

FOR NOVICES:

I do not expect too much from y'all; I remember when I was a novice myself I certainly would not oblige to what I have mentioned above. That being said, here is some of the clear stuff that would make the round better and make me happy:

1. Signpost in every speech- this is a good practice generally, and allows you to stay organized and me to understand what you're saying.

2. Give voters in the back half of the round- it is not enough to tell me why the opponents should not win; you need to explain why you win and why I should vote for you.

3. Warrant and Weigh- Give me the reasoning behind your evidence and why your arguments logically are sound, and then compare their importance to those of the opponents.

If y'all got through all of that, then y'all are some real ones. If you want any speaker point boosts, call the pro's contentions as PROtentions (+0.5 speaker points). Thank you for reading this- if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts, and I will be happy to answer them. If you want to reach me, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Some background stuff about me that you don't need to know: I debated for Winston Churchill High School for four years, obtaining eleven bids to the tournament of champions. I octo-finaled the 2022 Gold Tournament of Champions and reached late elimination rounds at 2023 NSDA Nationals. I've coached at NSD/Delta, Public Forum Academy, VBI, and Potomac Debate Academy.

Short Version:

Please give me good warranting, implicate your arguments, and PLEASE weigh. Like seriously- please weigh.

Feel free to go as fast as you want, but if you spread, just send a speech document.

If you do not extend your link, I will be sad.

Extend defense in summary.

Things I Do Not Like:

- rude or offensive behavior (i.e. sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.)

- complaining about your opponents calling evidence because it "slows down the round." It's not their fault if you don't have your cards organized

- new overviews in summary

--- SOME RANDOM STUFF ABOUT WEIGHING ---

Probability weighing is kind of fake.

--- SPEECHES ---

Crossfire:

I will listen to crossfire, but I won't vote off of anything said in cross unless brought up in another speech.

Signposting:

Do it, please. Thanks.

Rebuttal:

Im fine with a ton of offensive/DAs, just please warrant, weigh, and implicate them. Weigh links. Second rebuttal NEEDS to frontline.

Final Focus:

First final focus can do new weighing (within reason).

--- LOGISTICS ---

Speech Times:

Please say within speech times. Going 5-10 seconds over is alright if you are finishing your thought. Do not go, "can I finish my sentence?" and then proceed to "finish" the longest sentence in the word.

Content Warnings:

If you plan on reading something potentially triggering, read a content warning. Please read an opt-out of a triggering case. Have an alternative case ready to run.

Post-rounding:

Do what you want... I don't really care.

--- HOW TO GET HIGH SPEAKS ---

- show me your cat before round. if you don't have a cat, you should get a cat. 10/10 recommend.

- if you hold a pet during speech, you will get a 30 (probably).

- a reference to the Lorax.

- make a dad joke in a speech or in crossfire. (i.e. Q: what did the fish say when it swam into the wall? A: dam. don't poach this one, use your own)

- Flow in crayon.

--- PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ---

Theory:

Go for it.

Kritiks:

I haven't run Ks in the past, so run these at your own risk. I am NOT the best judge to run Kritiks with, though I will try my best to evaluate them. I am most familiar with imperialism and security Ks, but I'm willing to evaluate other Ks.

Tricks:

I have no idea how to evaluate these, so if you run them and I drop you, its your fault.

If you have any questions about this paradigm, feel free to ask before round.

For PDA summer camp tournament:

- You should be flowing throughout the round

-YOU SHOULD GIVE THE BACK HALF SPEECHES OFF OF YOUR FLOWS! (I will boost speaks for those who do)

Hi everyone! My name is Leavy (pronounced lee-vee). I debated for Poolesville.

Please add me to the email chain: leavy.hu8@gmail.com

--

-Tech > Truth

-Please keep track of your own time. Hold yourself and your opponents accountable.

-Please signpost for me!

-Off-time roadmaps!!

-Don’t misconstrue your evidence.

-Comparatively weigh- ex. not just "our impact is big" but "our impact is bigger b/c x y z"

-Speed is fine, but quality>quantity always. You should collapse in summary!

-2nd rebuttal should frontline 1st offense (at least the turns)

-I don't flow cross. Tell me during your speech if you want me to flow it/extend it.

-Be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and I will tank your speaks (so please be nice!!)

-Most importantly: have fun!!

-theory/prog args: not really comfortable evaluating them

--

have fun!

I care about strong organization and speech structure. Within that structure I look for well evidenced warrants that move the debate along by fully engaging in clash. If you explicitly outweigh and tell me why you win, I will greatly appreciate that.

rubyshea.m@gmail.com

hi im lily I’m a senior in highschool varsity debate.

I DONT HAVE A LOT OF BACKGROUND TOPIC KNOWLEDGE FOR THIS TOPIC- explain things that may not be common knowledge to me please

keep track of ur own time pls

write my ballot for me (aka tell me exactly why you win) in your final focus

you can run progressive arguments at your own risk i know how prog args and theory work but im super rusty. also dont run prog or theory if ur opponents arent familiar w those types of args.

pls do comparative weighing I’ll give you high speaks

second rebuttal should at least frontline offense

defense is sticky(first summary doesn’t have to extend defense ONLY if it wasn’t responded to. first final focus should bring it up again if u want me to vote on it tho)

speak as fast as you want but if I say clear slow down

everything in final focus must come from summary

pls collapse in summary

don’t be rude have fun

extend and weigh

12th grader at BASIS Scottsdale: PF for 4 years since 9th grade, BQ debater before that in 7th grade

If this paradigm does not answer some of your questions, ask me in the round and I will answer it

TLDR:

• Be equitable however you can

• Tabula rasa, tech over truth, 4 year PF debater and I did extemp speech for 2 years, pretty techy, good with speed, decent on theory

• Weigh your voters

• Good warrants and weigh

• Happy to answer any questions/give feedback after round.

Most important thing to start: be respectful to everyone in the round. Any exclusionary comments/actions in the round, e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia will be dropped.

I am tabula rasa in round, and am extremely tech over truth (tell me the sky is yellow and it goes unresponded to, and I will believe it and evaluate on the flow for the round). Of course, make sure that your arguments are well-warranted, as that will impact how well I buy stuff, and obviously there are certain things that require a higher burden of proof. It is impossible to be completely non-interventionist in judging a debate round, but I do my best to minimize any biases and act in accordance with norms.

My background in high school is 4 years of PF debate, where I was a pretty techy debater but on a lay Arizona circuit, so I think I got decent at adapting to lay norms.

I am good with speed, but try to signpost.

The way that I evaluate arguments is based on whether they are weighted or not, and weighed against others. The voters that are weighted the best and have good comparative weighing are highest on my ballot. Again, I try to stay non-interventionist and the best way for me to do so is for you to tell me what matters in the round.

Generally, I vote on what the final focus speeches tell me to care about, and I think framing is a really good way for me to understand the round. Give me a lot of good warrants and weigh.

Off-time roadmaps are cool.

General Stuff:

1. Tech>truth in general: basically means that I will vote for arguments that are best extended, not necessarily more true. BUT make sure your arguments are warranted well, as if they are not, I will be more likely to side with your opponent

2. Frontline stuff you want to extend in second rebuttal

3. Weigh: do the comparative of the two arguments in the round and prove why yours is stronger

4. Signpost during your speeches

5. Collapse on one argument

6. I will not be flowing cross: anything conceded in cross should be brought up in speech

7. I will be timing you, and I will stop flowing if you go 10 seconds over

8. Reading cards off prep unless you call for an excessive amount, if you want to me to call for a card, tell me during speech

9. wear anything, sit/stand however you want... speech and debate should be fun and relaxing

I will almost always give really high speaker points, unless you are unnecessarily rude or exclusionary.

I will most likely be disclosing after the round is over, and I will give you feedback on your speeches/round strategy. Feel free to ask me questions about the decision or the round afterwards.

Good luck everyone!!