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.

aandychen09@gmail.com

For middle school:

Speak well and try your best.

Please feel free to ask me any questions.

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

Hello,

PF - good arguments

Speech - content and jokes

Good luck

SLHS '25

4th-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, 2x state qual in pf, 1x gold toc qualled, broke at nationals in policy!

I mainly do pf now

Please ask me questions before the round!

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

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!
  
  

• I heavily prefer ev>presentation- 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 (realistically they’re on the higher end).
  
  

• 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 if the tournament permits it.
  
  

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

TLDR: 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.
  
  

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
  
  

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!
  
  

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

Hallo, I'm Khoa. If you win the debate, I will vote for you :D

Email: khoanguyenle2007 dot com

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

Paraphrasing is lame

Evidence Challenges are lame

Speed is aight

Flex Prep is aight

Weighing is cool

Collapsing is cool

Warranting is necessary

Extensions are necessary

Grand cross is not necessary

Nothing new after first summary

It's only on my ballot if it's in the summary AND final focus

Lastly, studies have shown that when people are given food/drinks, they're more likely to be happy and might give out higher speaks during debate rounds :)

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

Im Andres i'm a junior at Seven Lakes. 3x TFA qualifier, 2x GTOC 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 can be binding if there is a violation

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

progressive Args

Love em, I ran Latine for Seven Lakes CM and understand a good amout of K literature, however do not assume i know it all, you should explain your position well anyway

Philosophy

Ive learned a good amount of philosophy, and would enjoy a good Phil round. As always explain well.

Phil authors i understand: Kant, Hagel, baulliard, nitzhe, varoufakis, and frier.

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

slhs junior

main event: pf

You can run whatever just explain it well--links, warrants, impacts and weigh (and have fun)

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

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

akkivarre@gmail.com

debate:
i am a senior debater/team development chair @ seven lakes
i primarily debate PF
i coach 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 - 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
i'm not horrible with speaks. 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 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 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'm do pf at seven lakes

debate: spreading is ok, as long as it's still coherent. Please weigh and utilize cross to advance ur arguments. Respect is also super important throughout!

speech: be confident and actually address the prompt, voice projection, eye contact, don't shift around, little fluency breaks...