Hey, I'm Raiyan! I debated for 2 years (2021-2023) in PF for BASIS Chandler, qualled to both nats and gtoc 2x. I now am a PF coach at Durham Academy and a sophomore at Duke.

Email: raiyanc2005@gmail.com

TDLR: regular flow judge, down to evaluate anything but I do prefer substance rounds.

General Stuff:

tech>truth. This means I will evaluate responses purely off the flow and how contested they are in the round. However, you still need to give me clear warranting and internal links for me to vote off an argument. I will be hesitant to vote on squirrely arguments if you blippily extend them.

My job as a judge is not to impose my views on debate to you, but rather adapt to your style of debate. As a debater, I didn't like having to adapt to weird quirks each judge had, so I don't want to replicate that experience for any of y'all.

I'll disclose and try to keep my feedback as constructive as possible. I know how stressful debate can be, so let's keep the round chill and lighthearted.

I can handle speed (just like lmk before your speech if its gonna be 250+ wpm so I can prepare myself) but I unfortunately can't comprehend policy level spreading.

Let's try to keep the round moving at a decent speed, please come to the round pre-flowed and ready to start

How I evaluate arguments:

I look to who wins the weighing, then I look to that argument and see who is winning that argument. However, if there is a scenario where team A is winning the weighing but has a really muddled link to the point where it go either way if they still have access to their link and Team B has a much cleaner link but is losing the weighing I'll vote for Team B.

Procedural things I assume about the round:

Frontline in second rebuttal, otherwise it's conceded

Make sure to extend in summary and final, otherwise I can't vote for your argument, this applies for defense and offense

You can't read new offense/defense in summary

However, If a team makes a new implication in summary (i.e. cross applying a conceded response on c2 to c1) I grant the opposing team the chance to make a new frontline

Make sure to weigh, you can only make new weighing in first final if it's responding to weighing from second summary, 2nd final is too late

If a team reads a turn on c1, it goes conceded and they want to cross-apply/re-implicate the turn to another contention, they must do so in summary, not for the first time in final focus.

Speaker Scores:

I start at 28, itll go up or down based on stuff like strategy, fluency, good implications, not extending thru ink, etc.

I’ll give boosts for quick evidence delivery. I have a lot of respect for teams that put in the work, have good cards cut, and are ready to send them over quickly while keeping their docs organized. I’ll also doc points for showing up late (1 point for every minute) without notice (if you have a legitimate reason for being late please email me). This is just so we can keep the rounds going as fast as possible, and prevent delays.

Cross can get heated, just don't say stuff like "shut up" or "what are you yapping about" in cross, it's not nice, I might have to drop you

Progressive Debate:

I prefer substance debates, but am open to evaluating any arguments. During high school, I never really read theory/k's but I do understand the basics of both.I believe no RVI's applies only if there is no offense won off the shell. That is too say, even if you read no RVI's the opposing team can still win the round on the theory layer if they read a turn to the shell (e.g. paraphrasing is good against a paraphrasing shell) or win that their competing interp is better.

If you are running a K please run it properly, have good alts, solvency, links, etc. If you are running theory please make sure it is not frivolous. I don't like paraphrasing, and I like disclosure, but again run what at you want, I'm just informing you of any biases I have since it will be fully impossible for me to completely remove those notions.

The two exceptions to my policy of "do whatever you want" is tricks, friv theory, and panel rounds. Unless it's a round robin, please don't consider running them, just so we can have an educational round. To reiterate, I highly encourage teams to not run frivolous theory if this is not a round robin. I think its pretty dumb and a waste of everyone's time. Let's try to actually take something away from this round. If we're in a panel round, and there is a lay judge please don't read any progressive arguments (or at least present them in a lay friendly manner). That said, I'll still evaluate the arguments as if I'm a flow judge.

Miscellaneous:

If this helps, I really liked having Bryce Piotrowski, Pinak Panda, Eli Glickman, Nate Kruger, Anisha Musti, Elliot Beamer, and Wyatt Alpert as a judge when I was debating. I also learned debate from the goat, Lars Deutz, so I’d say my views and perception of debate is very similar to his.

Just have some fun, I know it's cliche but debate can get pretty heated at times. At the end of the day, this is an activity for y'all to learn from. As such, I'll do my best to be as helpful and considerate before and after the round.

As a parent judge, I offer patience, fairness and I can empathize with the trials and pressure that each debater experiences during the rounds of competitive debate. With that being said, I value a cordial and respectful environment during each round.

Here is some insight to a few things that may encumber my ability to evaluate information and arguments fairly and impartially.

Structure: I am very much a traditional flow judge. I am not comfortable with progressive styles. Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your framework is better than your opponent's.

Speed: I prefer a well-developed argument to spreading. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

Style: I appreciate assertiveness but dislike aggression. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech and bravado every time.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

卡里学院'25

derek_han@caryacademy.org

我两次辩论 LD 并获得 TOC 资格

我将对任何有授权且涉及本轮的事情进行投票

除非回合实际无法继续，否则我不会干预

偏好：

1 - 哲学，理论

2 - 技巧

3 - 政策，k

默认值：

- 最好不要让我默认，尤其是在理论上

- 真实性测试

- 允许性和推定否定

- 认知信心

- 理论是dta，除非不可能，竞争interps，没有rvis，文本>精神



dsdl 2 的注释：

我只做过一次 pf 而且我的主题知识为零

你想走多快就走多快

在你的演讲中标出路标，并向法官指示我应该如何投票

用逮捕令扩展你的论点

请权衡论据

如果你阅读了一个框架并很好地使用它，我会很高兴

Hi, I'm Ben. I debated for Durham Academy on the local and national circuit for 3 years.

He/Him

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

TLDR - Flow judge, tech > truth, a little tired of the blippy state of flow, WARRANT PLEASE I BEG YOU

Be nice and respectful. Being rude and condescending will not make up for you not knowing how to make winning analysis and I will drop speaks. I understand debate can be stressful but try your best to make it fun. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

If I look tired and sad in-round, I'm not mad at you I just have a naturally frowny face. Ignore it :)

How I Evaluate Rounds:

I evaluate rounds by first seeing what argument or impact the weighing being won is pointing me to and I see who has links into that weighing. I will not vote for an argument that has 100% conceded weighing if you aren't winning the link into the weighing. If both teams are winning links into the same weighing, I need link comparison, uniqueness comparison, etc. to break the clash

With that being said, I think weighing is overrated and prioritized way too much by judges. That's not to say it's not important. If both teams win substantial offense, I need weighing to evaluate the round, but if you are not winning a substantial link into your weighing, you can't just win off of weighing.

I have a rant about this at the bottom of my paradigm if you want to read it.

Basically, read any argument you want. If you win the argument and weigh it well, I will vote for you.

Technical Stuff and Preferences (please read):

I am not good with speed, especially online. If you're going over 1000 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll have trouble. You need to be very careful and slow down for signposting and tags as I'm not going to use a doc to make up for something I find incomprehensible. If you are very clear, I can handle decent PF speed butI am warning you now that if you go above 250, there's a good chance I may miss arguments you make, particularly if you are unclear.

Everything has to be warranted and implicated in every speech and extended in the back half for me to vote on it. I will not vote for something that has no warrant at all regardless of whether it is pointed out. If it's minor, I'm not going to intervene but if your argument is "you vote for us because SV is bad," I'm not evaluating that because it isn't a complete argument.

Additionally, all parts of an argument must be we extended in summary and final for me to vote for it.

No new arguments after 1st summary and you cannot add parts of an argument that were missing when you first read them. If an argument didn't have an internal link in case or rebuttal, it can't suddenly appear in summary. I'm quite picky about having parts of arguments when it comes to case. If you do not have a warrant in case, I'm not letting you materialize it out of thin air in rebuttal (assuming your opponents point it out).

The state of evidence in PF is really really bad. I won't vote off of evidence that is bad or unwarranted over a good, thought out analytic.

Progressive Debate:

Not a big fan of theory but you are more than welcome to run it. I'll objectively evaluate most procedural theory like para and disclo and have experience debating it. I have a high threshold for theory and likely will not vote off of friv like shoes so don't be mad if I drop you for running that.

You can read Ks. I have a good bit of experience debating against them but not running them so please explain your literature and WARRANT it.

Rant about weighing and the state of probability in PF:

As I started talking about above, I think the state of the value placed on probability and weighing in PF is really bad and is taking away from the activity. Very broadly, I believe that defense is under-valued by teams and judges and weighing over-valued. More and more judges have stopped believing terminal defense exists or valuing near-terminal defense, awarding ballots for teams who win weighing (most often a timeframe short circuit into extinction) but have wildly improbable arguments and/or an incredibly mitigated argument. I don't believe proving your argument is theoretically more important should be an excuse to write poor arguments or win off of arguments that have been extensively responded to.

HOWEVER, you need to make this analysis yourself and do reasoning for why probability should come first or why an argument having incredibly low probability should trump it having a short timeframe into extinction --- I will not make this analysis for you or intervene against a team with a heavily mitigated argument just because I want to.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying you should do "probability weighing" and make new responses in second summary but rather that you should emphasize the strength of your defense on your opponents case and make the argument that heavily mitigated or terminally mitigated arguments should not be voted on simply because of weighing. Just saying an argument is low probability does not make it so.

Yes, probability is subjective, but debate is about persuasion and refutation, not just comparison, and I think teams spending more time explaining why their responses are strong enough to warrant me evaluating them irrespective of certain weighing mechanisms at hand is educational. If you make the analysis in-round and win that analysis, I'll vote for you. On the flip side, if you can compellingly argue magnitude > probability or 1% risk arguments > higher prob arguments, go ahead.

That's it. Have fun!

hi, im dillan (he/him)

im a senior at cary academy in my fourth year of pf

email -- add both to chains pls:

caryjldebate@gmail.com

carypfd@gmail.com

flow judge

i'm familiar with theory, but i'm not great at evaluating it

extend with card names in summary and final (everything needs a warrant)

i need a doc if >250wpm

give a tw but opt-outs are up to u

for dsdls:

lay pls

ill disclose after

+1 speaks if you bring me food

reach out if you have any questions

Hey! I’m Arya (she/her). I’m a freshman at UNC Chapel Hill and was PF Captain of my high school team for 2 years. Also have experience with congressional debate and impromptu speaking. You can call me Arya or Judge during round; I don’t really care (literally have been called “chat” before). This shouldn't be a problem, but ad-hominem attacks or discriminatory remarks result in an automatic drop and minimum speaks.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round about my judging style. I will always give you detailed feedback after the round and disclose if I'm permitted. Feel free to ask questions about my decision, but I will not change my mind.

A few things:

• I’ll vote off what’s on the flow. Please extend! If you don’t extend link chains and impacts through summary and final focus, I will not vote off them. Paraphrasing is fine (although cards are always appreciated most), just don't terribly misinterpret anything because it won't be good for you if your opponent catches you on it.

• Anything in final focus should be in summary as well.

• I’m going to be flowing thoroughly so please do not try to pull a fast one and bring up new or dropped arguments in final focus.

• Generally, I prefer good evidence over more evidence. Biggest pet peeve is when teams read a million cards while spreading and still have NO warranting, so I generally hold teams who spread to a higher standard. I prefer a slower debate. If you’re going to speak fast, send a speech doc if you want my flow to be as accurate as possible, but if you have slower cases prepared, I really would rather hear those or even lay cases. If I have no speech doc for a fast case, I'll flow through what I understand.

• I’ll listen but not vote off anything in cross, so concessions and the like should be emphasized in speeches. If teams would like to skip grand cross for an extra minute of prep, I don't mind. Just let me know you're doing it.

• PLEASE IMPACT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND WEIGH. I want to do as little mental processing myself as I can, so spell everything out for me. If neither team weighs, I have to weigh the arguments myself, and you might not like the outcome.

• When evaluating arguments, I’ll typically look to the weighing and the clearest link into it. Weighing with a really muddled, confusing link will not get my vote.

• Please be judicious with asking for cards and have your evidence on hand so it doesn’t take forever. Generally, once the minute mark passes, speaks start dropping.

• Please be aware I don't really like when PF turns into circuit policy, but I will try and evaluate progressive arguments without these biases. I have a little familiarity with Ks and more experience with theory, but I am not your best judge for it because its been a while. However, if you would really like to read it, you can?? Just make sure you go slower and don't assume I'm familiar with all the literature. Save theory for REAL abuses in the round. Running disclosure is an easy way to speed-run getting dropped, especially against small debate teams and teams who are not allowed to disclose.

• I start speaks at 28 and go up or down from there.

• +.5 for taylor swift references (idk if i'm allowed to tell you that but whatever!!)

• I like to think sometimes that I can occasionally be funny, so I’m pretty chill and won’t emphasize a lot of formality beyond like…basic decency (please be nice to each other). Jokes are always appreciated.

• If I see you laughing/being generally rude while your opponent is talking, you're getting dropped.

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

My involvement in debate began 4 years ago when my daughter started in the club. I have a very numbers based and analytical background. Using numbers that you can back up will be the thing that most sways my thinking. I don't mind a fast talker but you need to be clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying you can't convince me of your arguments.

Experience:

6 years Policy Debate (Edina High School and Trinity University)

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

Judging (Mostly Policy, LD and Public Forum) since 2011

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments within an offense/defense paradigm. The reasons why your case is good should outweigh the reasons why it is bad or it should outweigh the reasons why the opposing team's case is good.

I do not have any arguments that I will disregard offhand. I try as much as possible to judge based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I really like impact calculus (or weighing), I get annoyed when teams don't make comparative claims between their arguments and their opponents arguments because it leads to me having to intervene in the round.

Shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round, debate is a small community!

I am a parent judge and expect the following:

1. Civil and professional discourse with observation of tournament rules and behavior guidelines.

2. Present a clear framework and support with evidence and data.

3. Speak clearly, at a reasonable pace (no speed talking), and do not spread.

4. Cross-examine your opponent meeting their points.

Best wishes in your debating.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.