junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 1 in seven lakes AR, I copied this from my dear compañera Siri) anshika12agrawal@gmail.com

2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier

i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.

tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters

this is how i go through the round:

i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.

don't do isms

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have towarranteverything

i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls readcut cardsand have good evi ethics

progressive args

i like prog args

for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap

if you run framework, use it to actually frame the round!

paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, round reports are meh

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.

have fun and learn (ignore that but not really - ill tell yall in round)

Attended Nationals and District Finalist for PF

Finaled in Extempt speaking

PF/ LD

I lean more towards Tech, but make sure to back up your arguments effectively. No vague link chains please, I will pay attention to how well you explain them. Focus a lot on weighing and not dropping your arguments, this is almost an automatic vote for the other team. Don’t be afraid to ask questions or for clarity from me, I will not mark you down for it. I can understand spreading for the most part but please keep it to an understandable pace so I can fairly and effectively judge your arguments. I do listen to cross, but I don’t cross apply it to your arguments made during speeches so if something is said during cross make sure to touch on it or it will not be counted.

I am ok with spectators but keep in mind that they are your responsibility and will reflect on your speaks. They should be absolutely quiet throughout the entire round, including prep time. Be assertive but not agressive keep it respectful. There is a fine line between debating and just being plain rude. Your attitude will reflect on your speaks as well.

I will remain relatively uninvolved during the round, but Clarify beforehand if you would like me to keep time, otherwise it will be up to you.

Speech Events

I pay attention to variation in tone, fluctuation in movements, appropriate changes in volume. Avoid taking excessively long pauses and remaining monotone throughout your entire speech. Keep movements understandable and relevant.I am ok with spectators, but you are responsible for making sure that they are quiet throughout the entire round and it will reflect on your points. I rank you higher based on the believability of your performance.

Good luck in your rounds!

Hey! So, speech and debate...

Speech: Idrc if you have boards BUT if you do, they should show moderate effort

- good voice modulation and pacing (bring out emotion, but it's ok if not dramatic --> convey your passion for the topic)

- appropriate hand gestures (not repetitive or stiff)

- variety of reputable sources (I might choose to fact check if it's questionable)

- keep it simple (good vocab but should be easy for everyone to understand --> explain complicated concepts)

- analysis with depth and insight that isn't repetitive (should be unique and a new perspective)

- don't pause even if you forget cuz that makes it obvious (I won't know otherwise lol)

Debate: NOTE I'M NOT A DEBATER

- don't spread cuz I won't be able to keep up

- make it easy for someone like me (who doesn't know anything) to follow along

- be respectful to your opponents ofc

- BE CONFIDENT...but don't make stuff up cuz I'll prob know

Hey! So, speech and debate...

Speech: Idrc if you have boards BUT if you do, they should show moderate effort

- good voice modulation and pacing (bring out emotion, but it's ok if not dramatic --> convey your passion for the topic)

- appropriate hand gestures (not repetitive or stiff)

- variety of reputable sources (I might choose to fact check if it's questionable)

- keep it simple (good vocab but should be easy for everyone to understand --> explain complicated concepts)

- analysis with depth and insight that isn't repetitive (should be unique and a new perspective)

- don't pause even if you forget cuz that makes it obvious (I won't know otherwise lol)

Debate: NOTE I'M NOT A DEBATER

- don't spread cuz I won't be able to keep up

- make it easy for someone like me (who doesn't know anything) to follow along

- be respectful to your opponents ofc

- BE CONFIDENT...but don't make stuff up cuz I'll prob know

tech judge, have 2 silver bids so i know what i'm doing

be loud

have fun ill give good feedback trust

ill give pretty high speaks as long as you try and give the best speech you can (typical average is around 28-29)

pls add tharoon.eswar@gmail.com to the email chain

tldr- add me to the email chain ashwikaganti2@gmail.com

tech>truth

- i evaluate the link + link weighing before anything else, if there’s no link weighing it will default to warrant weighing then probability/timeframe weighing

- going for less + explaining it well> going for everything + blippy explanations

- i will vote off the flow but good comparative weighing> dumping defense/offense without weighing and warrants

general

- framework debates are good. shaping the round with impacts makes the weighing debate always easier to vote, i'm familiar with structural violence and util- anything else explain well and i'm open to vote off of it

- spreading is fine, just send docs

- i won’t evaluate cross but i will give higher speaks if you make cross fun in a respectful way!

- extend your case in summary if you want me to vote off of it, that means uq, link, impact- the same goes for conceded offense/ turns

- speaks will start at 28- and go up or down based on strategy

T’s/K’s

- theory shells, friv theory, and K’s are cool- keep in mind the implication needs to be good for me to vote off of it- don’t just extend and expect the implication is made off the extension

- i’ve debated against Ks and Ts, the ones i am familiar with are, theory: disclo, anything else explain it well and i’m open to vote off of it, K’s: cap, fem, set col, security ~ anything else needs really good explaining

- ivi’s are cool, don’t be abusive with them

learn and have fun!

Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)

I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)

has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)

and attacks the opponents case the best

If the round has gotten messy, there’s two opposing claims and both sides haven’t cleared up which claim I should vote on, I’ll vote on turns and weighing.

3rd year debater at Seven Lakes

always extend args and remember to have comparative weighing if you want me to consider them

tech>truth

speed is ok with me, but if no one can understand you, set up an email chain or speech drop and send a doc

no prog args (theories and Ks)

give a shout-out to “Tvisha Talwar” to make me happy

speaks start at 27

Overall-

Be respectful, to the judge and other competitors, being rude or disrespectful is automatically going to make me down. I don’t condone any hateful language or discriminatory behavior. Im probably not going to check evidence unless it really sounds absurd so do what you will lmao. Clarity is important, don’t make me think too hard. Lastly, have fun :)

Extemp-

a good agd is really important, especially when it’s followed through the whole speech. Overall I like entertaining speeches that still provide an understanding of what you’re saying.
please read the question fully and answer the question head on, don’t dance around the question.
Extemp is about presentation so be sure to use effective gestures and communicate your points clearly, please don’t make your speech confusing. I shouldn’t have to think very hard to know what you’re telling me.

Congress-

try to stand out as much as possible, often times people repeat the same points over and over, try not to.
engage in the debate. Congress isn’t a room of speeches one after the other, they’re supposed to clash. Try to make your arguments relevant to everyone in the chamber.
overall be as relevant as possible, and be entertaining to a respectful extent, congress is long.

LD/PF+ other events of that format-

I know these are debate events but I do like a clear presentation even though it’s not nearly as important as the argument presented -- stand when you speak.
I’m not a fan of spreading, but if you choose to do so please disclose your case with at least me so I can understand what you’re talking about.

don't sacrifice clarity for speed!
it’s important for everyone in the room, judges and competitors to understand your argument. Even if the argument is good if I cannot wrap my head around it then you probably need to explain with more depth. warrant!!
Don’t abuse your time

be respectful in cross, you can pin your opponent without being rude and not letting them get a word in.
Weigh in the round, make it clear why I should vote for you. Refutation is important, if you don’t respond to an opponents argument or theirs upon yours I’m going to see un-refuted arguments as standing+don’t bring up new Arguments too late in round

I think util is overused - will still vote on it but make sure the internal links are clear and actually make sense.

if you choose to call for evidence make sure its on your prep - dont stall the round.

Not a fan of progressive args (theory/Ks) unless they are actually warranted and are topical.
do not be rude, or interrupt the other side. be civil please

Speech-

I love a speech with a good structure, though it doesn’t have to be traditional per se.
I should know what you’re talking about, be sure to provide good explanations.
overall I like a speech that’s entertaining and funny, but still has that element of importance to the real world. if I’m falling asleep during your speech there's probably something to fix. Presentation is very important, use effective gestures, and communicate properly. Try to appear smooth and natural,
intros are usually the way to hook me in, a strong start is always a indicator of how the speech will go.

have fun guys :)

SLHS '25

3rd-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, broke at nationals in policy!

PFer

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask me questions before the round!

Debate:

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!

• Ev>presentation any day dawg - just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy.

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.

• Progressive debate:

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus

• No substantially new arguments in both

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides.

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

Speech/Interp:

I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool!

Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

2nd year debater in pf

make sure to extend your arguements through every speech- if it is dropped in summary and brought back up in final focus I won't consider it.

WEIGH!!!!!

any cards you read need to be implicated.

It's fine if you speak fast, just don't spread

I pay attention to cross- I like some friendly fire, but do not be mean- it will affect your speaker points.

Speaker points start at 27

TLDR: I would like to see a substance round.

Hallo, I'm the first speaker of Seven Lakes C[L]. We've gotten 6 bids to the TOC (3 gold) and reached late NSDA elims.

Here are prefs (1 = 50/50 decision unless you're obviously winning, 5 = hell yeah):

Substance: 5

Theory: 3

K (cap, security, set col): 3

K (everything not listed above): 1

Tricks: 1

khoanguyenle2007@gmail.com

Background Info: Hi there! I'm a varsity debater at Katy Taylor, thank you for checking out my paradigms! :)
>> I'm most familiar with LD and PF as I've previously competed in those events. However, I do have relative experience with other debate types such as Congress and Policy/CX but may not be as well caught up to their recent resolutions/topics.
>> Please time yourselves. I will not be timing.

My Paradigms:
[General]
>> I prefer debaters to not spread, unless in Policy. This does not mean I am completely against spreading, but if I can barely keep up with your arguments, spreading is not going to get you points from me. I value coherency and weighing arguments over how many arguments you can address. If you drop an argument from your opponent's case, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE. Don't stress, address what you can still address.
>> Please keep the debate respectful at all times. Personal attacking such as being disrespectful, calling your opponent underhanded comments like stupid in crossfire (yes it happened to me) will not appeal your case to me.
>> Being non-topical (or off-topic) in crossfire also will not get you points from me. I expect both sides of the debate to remain calm and educational to maximize the experience.
>> I do not mind whether you choose to stand or sit, your choice, whatever you feel more comfortable with.
>> If possible, please give off-the-clock roadmaps when you can. This helps me keep track of what's happening in the round when I am flowing.

[LD]
>> I judge based off how well you respond to your opponent's arguments and vice versa. Other important factors that I suggest you stress in voters is solvency and/or why your value-criterion is something I should prefer (as a judge) over your opponents.

[PF]
>> Do not spread. That is my #1 advice to all PF peeps out there. Don't do it, I definitely will not be giving you points for trying to bombard your opponent with a list of arguments. Basic guidelines are the same as LD but will be focusing on delivery of speech and impact weighing.

For Congress:

Talk Slow and Make Sense

For PF:

Debate at seven lakes

have fun and learn

Email me for any questions: felikslin77@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Kaidi (she/her)

Currently debating for Seven Lakes!

In general,

• Tech>Truth
• I'm good with speed, send a doc if spreading
• Weigh, collapse, and tell me why you're winning
• Signpost and be organized
• If you run anything progressive, explain it well. Probably won't understand tricks/dense phil and k's. Policy/larp is fine and theory if you're going slow.

Have fun debating and be respectful!!

Email chain: kaidicandy@gmail.com

email: rayaanmeghani13@gmail.com

PF

Tech >>> truth

For evidence comparisons: If you can't tell me why a postdate matters then it's not a response I'm evaluating. Do actual comparisons that tell me what makes your evidence better than theirs.

Prog: No theory except for Disclosure and paraphrasing or actual in-round abuse. Ks are cool but keep it low-lit like cap and stuff

Speed: Spreading is fine, be really clear, send doc.

Preferences: Weighing from 2nd rebuttal, responses shouldn't be blippy

Speaks: I'll give high speaks but good strategy and pretty speaking helps with it

Signpost!!!

Im Andres i'm a junior at Seven Lakes. 2x TFA qualifier, 1x TOC quallifier, PFBC Student Andrescasas0705@gmail.com the email chain.send speech docs with all cut cards before speech

tech > truth, The first thing i evaluate in the debate is if you are winning the link level debate because if you don't win your argument then you don't win the weighing, if both teams are winning their arguments i then go to the weighing, if there is no weighing i default to the best extended and or biggest arg of the round.

don't be disrespectful

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact. - This goes for turns as well, especially if your opponents dont extend their uq and imp for you.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, however (Quality > Quantity)

Arguments made in cross are not binding

Manage your own time i won't be timing you guys

progressive Args

I can evaluate but am not fully familiar and will not fully enjoy the round unless explained REALLLYYY well

K's im familair with are Cap, Col, Orientalism, and Fem.

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy, politeness, and presentation. (may help to be funny)

overall, have fun! i'll disclose and give feedback, feel free to ask questions about my rfd

I currently do PF/LD at SLHS

For email chains: courtney6129@gmail.com

Debate:

I understand prog/tech arguments but if your arguments are COMPLETELY improbable or just straight-up make no sense I'm probably not evaluating them.

I'm fine with spreading but please be clear. I flow.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!!!!!

Implicate so I know WHY I should care about what you're saying/the cards you're reading.

I love clash and when you're dominant in cx.

Speaker Points:

I start in the 28-30 range and as long as you weigh and implicate well you will get high speaks.

Speech:

I rank mostly on speaking ability and entertainment but pls don't lie abt sources during extemp :))))

I'm a LARP debater but I know K's, just make sure to explain more thoroughly if it's some dense K or phil. No trix. Spreading is fine with me, I will tell you, "clear", if I can't hear you properly. Please be on your own speech and prep times. You don't have to monitor your opponent's, but if they're stealing prep or overtime it's your job to call it out. Do not bully novices. Be respectful, be inclusive, and don't take anything too serious.

Hey all!

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging world schools debate, however I do understand the basic structure of world schools. All I ask is that you break down the motions to a level where I can understand, and speak at a conversational speed.

Good luck yall!

she/her | pf debater at seven lakes (the 2 in seven lakes AR)

siri@ramineni.name

tech > truth, links > weighing. every argument that you are going for needs warrants + impacts

its novice night – be nice to your opponents pls

i look at weighing, then links. winning weighing doesn't matter if you lose terminal defense on case. you can still win if you win weighing and lose not terminal defense as long as its implicated correctly

read cut cards!

i'm assuming novice night won't have much prog but a few notes

1. framing should be used to actually frame the round. i would prefer an extension but it's not necessary

2. i'm familiar w/ topical set col, sec, cap, fem + race ir

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy

i try to judge like bryce Piotrowski

slhs sophomore

main event: pf

last yr tfa state qual in LD, this year state qual in PF + 1 gold bid to toc

You can run whatever just explain it well--links, warrants, impacts and weigh

if you want to set up an email chain --> anikasud9@gmail.com

add me to the email chain- ameerahsuleman2008@gmail.com

I consider myself a flay judge. No new things in the final focus or 2nd summary. new stuff in 2nd summary is only allowed if you are responding to something in 1st summary.

You get a 10-second grace period if you go over time.

Analytics are kewl if you have warrants. No Ks or theories I still don't understand them despite doing PF for two years

Cross is binding. Tech> truth

I dislike prep stealing, when your opponents or teammate is sending cards/ a doc I don't want to see you prepping. Especially in online tourneys.

Spread at your own risk, there is a good chance that I won't understand what you're saying. If I don't flow it then it doesn't exist. Signposting is also important

I want you to basically sign the ballot for me and tell me why I should be judging for you. Good comparative weighing will get you my ballot

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc delete the cards you did not read

post rounding for clarification questions/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u should not.

speaks

If you're being a jerk to your opponents you WILL get downed for that.

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc

25 = You were a big jerk

27 = Below average speaking wise

28 = Average speaking

29 = Pretty good

30= Excellent, best speaking

My paradigm is the rectangular opposite of Bryce Piotrowski's.

I compete in LD at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit. I also dabbled a bit in PF and CX.

Please add vishalsurya0704@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, don’t be afraid to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear. I will try to be the best judge I can.

This paradigm is inordinately long; a brief skim should help you find the most relevant sections to determine your adaptation strategy.

TL;DR/General: I am fine with any strategy, but the best arguments are both technically strategic and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Patently untrue or overly esoteric arguments require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. Speed is fine but slow down when reading tags; be clear no matter what. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. I appreciate adjudicating debaters who are innovative in both strategy formation and execution.

Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The best constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I evaluate substantive arguments probabilistically: it would behoove debaters to utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if executed properly.

As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge of my age group. Extending the warrants, rhetoric, and context introduced in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. If its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, I will scrutinize evidence after the round, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that. Well-formatted evidence will be rewarded with excellent speaker points. Most analytics are incredibly shallow, but clever analytics can be persuasive.

I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. However, the burden of proof always comes before the burden of rejoinder. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out. If I have to, I will default my presumption in favor of the side that defends the less appreciable departure from the status quo. This is usually the negative in debates about the normative truth of the resolution, the side that violates the interpretation in theory debates, the affirmative in topical critical debates, etc.

Everything below is a non-exhaustive explanation of my views on specific arguments:

I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. I am not nearly as dogmatic as many other judges who arbitrarily presuppose a didactic framework for which case turns are legitimate. Especially in an activity where ‘technical’ debaters are unable to coherently explain why nuclear proliferation prompts immediate escalation, why economic growth assuages warmongering sentiment, or why global emissions circumvent adaptation, these arguments are excellent ways to force scrutiny onto the most uncomfortable corners of the constructive. I do not have any particular, similarly arbitrary ‘thresholds’ for how rigorously you must respond to these arguments. As with any other substantive strategy, evidence comparison, risk calculus, and judge instruction will win the round. Generally, if there is a well-established evidentiary base grounded in scientific and historical research behind your offense, then I am more than amenable.

I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are strategic. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. In a similar vein, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably invite intervention. As a side note, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach. I default epistemic confidence over epistemic modesty.

I am fine with debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to each part of the shell. Frivolous theory justifies frivolous speaker points. Harder presses on reasonability and ‘drop the argument’ can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense, and I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'; be willing to defend the violation.

I am at least vaguely familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding Capitalism, Biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), Security, International Relations (Feminist IR, Race IR), Settler Colonialism (Tuck & Yang), Disability Studies (Mollow, St. Pierre), Orientalism, Psychoanalysis, Afro-Pessimism (Wilderson), Fiat, and Death. I enjoy reading critical literature in my free time and actively think about these arguments the most, but I am far dumber than you might think.

You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my decision. Regardless, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal doc/backfile-botting. Corybantic bouts of incomprehensible philosophizing are difficult to flow, and strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating.

The best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize said criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Critiques that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive appeal and offense. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long, so (as with all arguments) critical debaters that simplify the round’s central controversy into a few lines of synthesis are significantly more likely to win.

I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives deploys the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly addresses the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear indication otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on the literature being cited and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof), with the latter informing its theoretical proximity to ‘counterplans.’

Finally, do not homogenize critiques. Not every critique functions as a ‘DA’, necessitates winning ‘out-of-round/ballot solvency’, criticizes ‘fiat’, or impacts ‘marginalized groups’. The distinction between ‘pre-fiat’ and ‘post-fiat’ is contrived and meaningless. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Read from cut cards and disclose when reading these arguments anyway. Impact turns, when morally applicable, are welcomed. I am waiting for debaters in this event to realize that strategic articulations of the ‘permutation double-bind’ and ‘links are non-unique’ are close to unbeatable.

Evenly debated, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, promote a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments, nor am I particularly less capable of adjudicating them, but I find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacy that is predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am relatively agnostic on questions relating to the best ways for debaters to respond. I have no major preference for fairness, clash, and skills-based impacts and am agnostic on questions relating to the relative persuasiveness of counter-interpretations, impact turns, impact comparison, etc. Well-researched method debates are highly encouraged, but I still do not understand why affirmatives do not double down on the permutation (and why negatives so carelessly disregard it). Finally, strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating (copied from above). Many PF judges abandon the line-by-line and offense-defense paradigm in these debates; I am not one of them.

I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere. Ad hominem is a fallacy.

You're better off saving your 'tricks'—single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable—for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph). The same can be said for ‘independent voting issues’ that are neither independent nor voting issues.

Speaker points are a reflection of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency. Be a good person.

For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from Vishal Surya, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.

My paradigm is the rectangular opposite of Bryce Piotrowski's.

I compete in LD at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit. I also dabbled a bit in PF and CX.

Please add vishalsurya0704@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, don’t be afraid to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear. I will try to be the best judge I can.

This paradigm is inordinately long; a brief skim should help you find the most relevant sections to determine your adaptation strategy.

TL;DR/General: I am fine with any strategy, but the best arguments are both technically strategic and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Patently untrue or overly esoteric arguments require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. Speed is fine but slow down when reading tags; be clear no matter what. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. I appreciate adjudicating debaters who are innovative in both strategy formation and execution.

Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The best constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I evaluate substantive arguments probabilistically: it would behoove debaters to utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if executed properly.

As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge of my age group. Extending the warrants, rhetoric, and context introduced in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. If its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, I will scrutinize evidence after the round, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that. Well-formatted evidence will be rewarded with excellent speaker points. Most analytics are incredibly shallow, but clever analytics can be persuasive.

I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. However, the burden of proof always comes before the burden of rejoinder. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out. If I have to, I will default my presumption in favor of the side that defends the less appreciable departure from the status quo. This is usually the negative in debates about the normative truth of the resolution, the side that violates the interpretation in theory debates, the affirmative in topical critical debates, etc.

Everything below is a non-exhaustive explanation of my views on specific arguments:

I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. I am not nearly as dogmatic as many other judges who arbitrarily presuppose a didactic framework for which case turns are legitimate. Especially in an activity where ‘technical’ debaters are unable to coherently explain why nuclear proliferation prompts immediate escalation, why economic growth assuages warmongering sentiment, or why global emissions circumvent adaptation, these arguments are excellent ways to force scrutiny onto the most uncomfortable corners of the constructive. I do not have any particular, similarly arbitrary ‘thresholds’ for how rigorously you must respond to these arguments. As with any other substantive strategy, evidence comparison, risk calculus, and judge instruction will win the round. Generally, if there is a well-established evidentiary base grounded in scientific and historical research behind your offense, then I am more than amenable.

I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are strategic. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. In a similar vein, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably invite intervention. As a side note, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach. I default epistemic confidence over epistemic modesty.

I am fine with debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to each part of the shell. Frivolous theory justifies frivolous speaker points. Harder presses on reasonability and ‘drop the argument’ can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense, and I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'; be willing to defend the violation.

I am at least vaguely familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding Capitalism, Biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), Security, International Relations (Feminist IR, Race IR), Settler Colonialism (Tuck & Yang), Disability Studies (Mollow, St. Pierre), Orientalism, Psychoanalysis, Afro-Pessimism (Wilderson), Fiat, and Death. I enjoy reading critical literature in my free time and actively think about these arguments the most, but I am far dumber than you might think.

You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my decision. Regardless, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal doc/backfile-botting. Corybantic bouts of incomprehensible philosophizing are difficult to flow, and strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating.

The best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize said criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Critiques that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive appeal and offense. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long, so (as with all arguments) critical debaters that simplify the round’s central controversy into a few lines of synthesis are significantly more likely to win.

I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives deploys the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly addresses the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear indication otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on the literature being cited and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof), with the latter informing its theoretical proximity to ‘counterplans.’

Finally, do not homogenize critiques. Not every critique functions as a ‘DA’, necessitates winning ‘out-of-round/ballot solvency’, criticizes ‘fiat’, or impacts ‘marginalized groups’. The distinction between ‘pre-fiat’ and ‘post-fiat’ is contrived and meaningless. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Read from cut cards and disclose when reading these arguments anyway. Impact turns, when morally applicable, are welcomed. I am waiting for debaters in this event to realize that strategic articulations of the ‘permutation double-bind’ and ‘links are non-unique’ are close to unbeatable.

Evenly debated, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, promote a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments, nor am I particularly less capable of adjudicating them, but I find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacy that is predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am relatively agnostic on questions relating to the best ways for debaters to respond. I have no major preference for fairness, clash, and skills-based impacts and am agnostic on questions relating to the relative persuasiveness of counter-interpretations, impact turns, impact comparison, etc. Well-researched method debates are highly encouraged, but I still do not understand why affirmatives do not double down on the permutation (and why negatives so carelessly disregard it). Finally, strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating (copied from above). Many PF judges abandon the line-by-line and offense-defense paradigm in these debates; I am not one of them.

I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere. Ad hominem is a fallacy.

You're better off saving your 'tricks'—single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable—for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph). The same can be said for ‘independent voting issues’ that are neither independent nor voting issues.

Speaker points are a reflection of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency. Be a good person.

For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from Vishal Surya, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.

I do pf.

Add me to the email chain: aarushi.thatola@gmail.com .

Don't be rude. If you're running anything progressive, just explain it really well and I'll vote on it. Don't forget to extend and explain your arguments. Weighing is very important. If you're spreading, send a doc but there's a chance I'll miss something.

Have fun! :D

hi :)

for email chain/questions: ngocktran2009@gmail

pf & extemp at Seven Lakes HS

Debate:

- warranting = important- make sure you can explain your arguments

- weigh- as much and as early as possible

- don't go too fast, especially for non-substance (idk how to evaluate progressive stuff); slow down on tags and author names and analytics

- extend arguments, don't read new ones in summary/2nr

- if there's a framework - respond to it; I will vote under conceded FW; if there's none I default to util.

- time yourself; I won't pay attention in cross - point things out if they are important

Speaks will start at 28.5 and go up/down depending on how you speak/debate (not win-loss) - js don't be rude :)

Extemp:

- content>presentation

- I don't mind you making up evidence (just don't make it obvious and don't do it too much...) and I won't police you for x amount of sources
- no evidence but good analytics will rank you high

Speech:

- parent judge style

akkivarre@gmail.com

debate:
i am a senior debater/team development chair @ seven lakes
i primarily debate PF
i coach debate at sljh and bdjh :)


Tech > truth - tbh this statement doesn't mean much, in the wise words of one bryce piotrowski, "There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". The sooner that you realize that they are two sides of the same coin, the faster you’ll get better at debate." but if holds value to you do what you will with it.
You need to weigh. - I feel like some debaters (tbh including me) get caught too much up into the round and forget to make valid weighing claims. Do not spit out buzzwords, comparatively weigh your args v. theirs.
Clash needs to be in the debate - it cannot be like 2 ships floating in the night. Your ships need to crash into each other lol. Show me how your arguments interact with your opponents.
Implicate - This is the most important thing. Do not just read evidence or make statements, I need to know what you mean and more importantly why I should care. I genuinely will not know how to evaluate the debate unless you extend all your arguments and implicate what you want me to vote on. In short I need warrants, every speech.
Quality>>Quantity - of arguments. Analytics are great if they are well warranted and implicated - in fact I'd prefer them over random buzzwords and cards for which you can't explain the warrant. Also I love evidence indicts - don't be afraid to call out bad ev in the other team - just do it right.

Some small things:

I, like most judges, am lazy. If you want me to vote on something, say it in your speech CLEARLY and tell me the impact. I will not do the work on the flow for you.
I will give you like 5 seconds of grace time to finish your sentence for a speech, once your speech exceeds longer than that i will stop flowing.

speaks
speaks range from 28-30. If you give me good rhetoric throughout the round you will get higher speaks.
I love it when you are funny in round - make it entertaining you don't have to be so serious 100% of the time.

overall have fun, debate is supposed to be enjoyable so don't ruin it for yourself or anyone else.
feel free to ask questions about the topic, the round, your speech, etc. i'd love to give you advice.

speech:

Extemp and Impromptu are based on your speaking ability. A good flow and cadence will work well for you. Also do not fudge evidence.
If you make me laugh I will up you.

Hi! I'm Katherine Wu (she/her)

Currently do PF @ Seven Lakes

For email chains: katherinewu653@gmail.com

General:

tech > truth as long as you can explain your link

Please weigh as early as possible, tell me why you win, explain your arguments clearly, extend your arguments (that should be your uniqueness, link, and impact) and signpost please!!

PF:

• Second rebuttal must frontline.

• Answer your opponent's weighing. Do comparative weighing, not "we outweigh on timeframe because our impact happens earlier."

• Defense is not sticky. Do not extend arguments in summary that are completely dropped in second rebuttal.

• Collapse!! You can definitely go for less and explain what you go for better.

• Read offense like turns not just defense!

• I don't flow cross, but if there is a good argument made just bring it in the next speech

LD:

I don't have as much knowledge on LD as I do in PF, but you can cross-apply some of the things from PF to LD.

• Substance!

• Speed is fine just send a doc

• Respond to framework. Make the framework debate reasonable and clear. Winning framework does not win you the round, it only gives you a weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing as soon as possible. 1NC weighing is good but don’t try to fit it in if you don’t have enough time. 1AR definitely has to weigh though.

don't be rude but be confident

Speaks start at 28. Speak as clearly and fluently as you can, clarity > speed

I'll disclose after each round unless I'm not allowed to

Most importantly, debate as well as you can and have fun!

hi, i'm Grace! (she/her)

currently do PF @ seven lakes with experience in LD

if you're spreading, add me to the email chain: gracexe289@gmail.com

feel free to ask me anything before the round

Please don't be mean or just a bad person. Speaks start at 28

Debate:

tech > truth, but be able to explain your link

Please weigh, implicate, and make it as easy as possible for me to vote for you :)

collapse and give voters

signpost!

Extend your arguments and don't bring up new ones in FF/2NR

I'm okay with spreading but don't sacrifice clarity. Please slow down on taglines, authors, and analytics.

PF:

Stay topical :)

LD:

I debated LD for about 2 years but haven't touched it in a couple of months

LARP is fine. If you run theory or Ks I will probably be sad and not know how to evaluate it (moreso Ks)

Have fun!

Hi!

I care about dropped arguments. Make sure u weigh!!!!

Have fun, if you have any questions please ask!

Please just be nice to your opponents!

Hi!

debate:

i prio coherency over speed. dont spread pls. def weigh and frontline effectively & utilize cross to either clarify or advance ur arguments. respect is very important throughout the debate. :)

speech:

looking for a confident speaker that can clearly address the topic. eye contact, don't shift around . . . no fluency breaks (stutters etc. .) try to talk to the whole room (PROJECT UR VOICE!!)

Hi! I'm Flora (she/her)

I currently do PF at Seven Lakes HS!

Add me to the email chain: ghermione890@gmail.com

Yes, I made my email in 5th grade.

General:

tech > truth!!!

presume neg. (presuming is very rare)

Please:

• weigh as early on as you can
• tell me why you win + explain your arguments clearly
• extend your arguments (that should be your uniqueness, link, and impact)

• make sure to collapse - voting on args quality > quantity, and no sticky defense
• if you're going for a specific arg do not change your mind, and everything said in FF should be said in summary!
• turns are considered offense + only extend your best/main arguments and NOT the entire rebuttal speech in the summary! Please.
• FW needs to be responded to (or can say that you link in) else I'm voting under the FW that is conceded.

SIGNPOST PLEASE!!

Time your own speeches! I will be timing (maybe) but don't rely on me to time.

Do not be rude.

Speaks start at 28. Speak as clearly and fluently as you can, clarity > speed, send doc if you're going to spread/read super fast but I can mostly handle speed. Make sure to match your opponent's speed.

+1 speaks if you mention a Taylor Swift song during crossfire!

I'm fine with you reading any type of argument as long as it is substance, so no Theory, K's, etc.

Most importantly, debate as well as you can and have fun, and learn!