Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying teams and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-If you can't get your evidence within a reasonable period of time, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

I did public forum debate for 4 years at Westlake (graduated 2022), qualified to the TFA twice and the TOC once. SPEECHDROP, don't email me.

Tech>truth. I can evaluate a flow

I don't have any topic knowledge but it shouldn't matter. Bring up everything you want me to know in speech.

Don't go too fast. I haven't debated for a while and was never great with too much speed, especially if you're unclear. I evaluate MY flow, so I can only evaluate the responses and weighing that I was able to hear and flow in round.

Don't say anything offensive or I'll tank your speaks and potentially down you.

Be respectful to everyone in round or I'll tank your speaks.

As far as progressive argumentation goes, I'm fine with theory and probably okay with K's (I ran a couple cap Ks but otherwise am not super familiar with any others, though I generally know how they work. also keep in mind I did PF). Friv theory is fine, but my threshold for responding to it will be lower than it would be for a regular shell. Extend all parts of a theory shell and the underviews that you want to be considered in summary/final.

Disclosure is good but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Paraphrasing is probably bad but I'm more lenient to it than a lot of judges and I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Content/trigger warnings are good and it will be difficult to sell me on tw bad theory, but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it.

Second rebuttal has to frontline. Summaries have to extend everything you're going for (defense is not sticky) with warranting (NOT just card names and jargon) and should collapse. Everything in final needs to be in summary. You should point it out if your opponents bring up new stuff in final so that I can scratch it off in case I didn't catch on. With the exception of second constructive, arguments are dropped if they aren't covered in the next speech.

I presume by flipping a coin unless told to do otherwise in round.

I don't look at evidence unless I'm told to call for it/it becomes a major point of contention. Indicts need to have clear warranting.

PLEASE weigh. Your defense is probably not as good as you think it is and I will need weighing to evaluate the round. Strength of link is not a real weighing mechanism. Probability usually isn't either. If your opponent reads responses as "probability weighing" or does strength of link just point it out and tell me to scratch it off my flow so I don't have to evaluate it.

If you egregiously misconstrue evidence, I will drop you. So far I have been relying on kids to point this out during round, but from now on if I notice it and its bad you're done.

Competition- Salina South High School (KS): 2018-22 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water), Missouri Valley College 2022-2024 (NFA-LD elections, NDT/CEDA nukes), Western Kentucky University 2024-Present (Energy)

Coaching- Rock Bridge High School (MO): 2022-2024 (NATO, fiscal redistribution)

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer

Yes email chain: sagecarterdb8@gmail.com

TOC UPDATE:

Congratulations on making it to the TOC! I am primarily a policy debater and judge that, but I promise to evaluate your debates as rigorously and carefully as possible. Couple things you should probably know about me and my defaults:

- My decision factors most around the impact debate, so telling me why you are winning your impact or doing impact framing work is generally most important to me.

- I will only vote on an argument if it is extended clearly to me past the rebuttal.

- Flow the debate and debate off of that flow, making sure to respond directly to your opponents arguments while explaining yours.

Those are the big things for me, feel free to ask me about anything else you may be curious about and I will be happy to answer.

Please, do not make the round any longer than it needs to be, sending evidence quickly and reducing random downtime will be appreciated

If you are interested in debating in college for a great team and an incredible scholarship, feel free to reach out to me! Western Kentucky University competes in NDT/CEDA and NFA-LD and has great support from both the team and institution.

The Short Version:

Judges should adapt to the debaters and to what the debaters say. I don't like intervening and love when debaters clearly explain their route to the ballot. I decide the debate on the flow, giving me good taglines and soundbites to help my flow is appreciated and will help you. I enjoy just about any style of debate, but I do have some biases and things I default to with certain arguments, these are outlined in my paradigm and can easily be changed with good argumentation. Please ask me if you have any questions regarding anything before or after the debate.

Notes on flowing-

I flow using an excel sheet, usually just straight down but the more you line arguments up the happier I am. I flow what I hear and only that, that means speedbumping tags, slowing down on analytics, and focusing on clarity is key for me.

I do not flow the 1AC or the 1NC off case arguments, instead I pull the doc up and read along with you to help me process what arguments you will be reading. My flow starts as the 1NC makes on case arguments, I also stop looking at the doc during speeches after this point.

I will download and have the docs up so I can look at evidence during prep time because I am usually curious about certain cards, but how I interpret the card in the debate is based off of what you say, not what I think about it.

General Misc. Things-

I love theory debates, but a lot of them that I have seen have been very fast and hard to keep up. If you are going for theory or on a theory argument, I encourage you to slow down just a bit. I'll try to be clear if I am not keeping up with you, so try to be looking for my expressions.

Doing impact work is incredibly important for me. I usually start my decision at the impact level, deciding what the biggest impact is in the round and then who solves it better. Starting there and working backwards is probably the best way to get my ballot in every 2AR/NR.

T/Theory-

Default to competing interps and no RVI's

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable.

Small school specific standards/impacts and bright lines are some of my favorite standards when debated well. I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you warrant and impact them out

I don't think I have any real opinions on many of the T arguments on this topic, I do think many of them are a little aff leaning but if you can debate it well go for it. I might be a secret T-Subsets lover...

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I think these debates are fun, internal links are probably the thing that ends up being the tiebreaker here more often than not, do more weighing work with internal links as well just like offense.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it, weighing it makes it easier to vote for it.

Make sure you answer the aff at some level so they don't just get to outweigh you the entire debate

I like good aff counter-interps, clearly outlined standards make them even better

TVA's without evidence are probably an uphill battle, be able to defend it well

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

Not super familiar with counterplan competition so you may want to avoid it but you do you

Love condo debates <3. I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 4 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I love the K and have gone for it in many 2NR's and judged that, I prefer line by line work to overviews but if you combine them be clear about the argument you are referencing. I love framework debates but they can often get muddy, clear framework debating goes a long way on my ballot. For literature bases I have read a lot and argued with, I am familiar with capitalism, biopolitics (Agamben specifically), queer/trans theory, settler colonialism, security/racial IR, militarism, and university/academy Ks. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

Being clear about why the K comes first helps a lot

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I like argument's related to the education of the topic and good impact work with those

Clear solvency is essential here, be ready to answer the what happens when the judge votes aff questions

Performance is cool, make sure to relate it to the topic and please attempt to garner offense off of it or include it in the rest of the debate in some capacity

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

LD-

I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.

I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.

I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.

I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!

Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With

"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)

"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning

"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers

UPDATED FOR RIDGE DEBATES 2024 (POLICY DEBATE SECTION)

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com AND ridgenjdebate@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Policy:

- Same as LD, feel free to ask questions not covered in the LD paradigm.

- I think 4-6 is a pretty good number of off. I like having a good amount of case engagement still. Obv, if your a one off team stick to that but I think 4-6 is a good max for me.

- Running multiple CPs is fine
- Full disclosure: I have not judged on the 24-25 policy topic and I am not familiar with it at all so keep that in mind. My first rounds judging on the topic will be ridge debates. Further, in the spirit of full transparency I am not super familiar with IP jargon so keep it to a minimum or at least like send analytics in a doc so I can look up a word I do not know so I fully understand the impact of what your saying.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. PLEASE SEND ANALYTICS. ESPECIALLY THEORY SHELLS IN THE DOCS. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

I tend to have a very serious RBF: it's not you; it's me. Just ignore it. I swear it's not you. It's me.

And there's a 95% chance I am late to the round, so be ready to go when I get there, please!

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it has real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debate so that I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instructions and tell me what I am voting on at the end of this debate, and we are good.

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the res. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good. -- For me big framing questions with no line by line is no good for me tbh

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Hi I'm Ben Dehghan

I'm fairly new to formal PF debate judging but not new to arguments. My daughter is spending a lot of time debating and judging helps me to be more informed in the process. It's a fantastic wonderful world which I'm enjoying immensely.

My preferences are the following

Speed: Speak clearly. I know you're trying to jam a lot of words in, but keep it understandable. If you're stumbling on your own words or start slurring and missing half of the words, it's too fast.

Cross: I put a lot of weight on how you ask and answer questions. This is where I get to find out if you really know the topic. You questions should be

1) about the issues raised by the other team

or 2) use the other team to make your point more clearly and score points.

Additionally, your attitude and tone in asking and answering questions is important. Looking or sounding uninterested or demeaning will get you negative points.

Argument over style: As you grow as a debater, your style will morph and mature. I think certain amount of experimentation with various styles can be helpful in figuring out what you ultimately prefer. So I'm open to a pretty large variety of styles. But the strength of the argument should be there as a core underpinning of your debate.

My note taking method: I usually keep notes on arguments that are made by each debater. If you are organized in your thoughts and clearly say your points, it makes it easier for me to and hence I'll have an easier time making my mind about the debate. During cross, as you ask and answer questions, I jot down if it was a + or - interaction. So at the end of the debate it will take me a little bit to tally up all the points. I have been surprised to find out that my overall feel for a side didn't match my tallied up notes. I usually go with the notes. So you need to score good points throughout the debate. It's hard to completely turn around a losing debate in the final summary.

Evidence and documentation: If you quote a source, you should have it available for reference. I have heard "you should be able to find that on google" which is a big mistake to me. It's your responsibility to present the facts backed up by good sources.

You should know if your source is an opinion or a fact based on hard evidence. Quoting twitter or an opinion piece as a fact doesn't help with your argument.

Debating is a fun learning experience. So, have fun and always look for the real win: learning and improving through competition.

Debating Experience

I currently debate PF at the High School Varsity level, so I do understand most of the terms and procedures of Public Forum. I flow everything except crossfire, and you can treat me as a tech/flow judge.

Speed

It is acceptable to speak moderately fast, however, please do not spread and speak excessively fast. If you do intend to do so, please share a speech doc during the round.

Weighing

Weighing is absolutely critical to my decision making. Emphasize, especially using statistics, how many people will be impacted by your argument and to what degree, and make clear how you are weighing (scope, magnitude, probability, timeframe, etc.).

Signposting

Please signpost in rebuttal and in every speech so that it is clear what contention or argument you are talking about. It would also be helpful to take a little pause before moving on to the next contention/argument.

Extending Case

Please extend your case and your most important rebuttals throughout every speech. This is necessary for me to evaluate it. In addition, collapse on ONE of your contentions in summary and final focus.

Counterplans

Counterplans and offering alternatives are fine unless the resolution reads "On balance...". In that case, it is prohibited to offer alternatives and counterplans and the impacts of the resolution must be impacted against the status quo.

Argumentation

You must have a clear link chain that is clearly extended throughout the round. The impacts must also be clear and ideally, if evidence is available, quantitatively impacted out (for example, how many people will not be able to enter college as a result of student debt, or what percentage). Repeatedly signpost in rebuttal and refute not only your opponent's evidence but also the reasoning.

Kritiks and Theory

I have run arguments similar to kritiks before and I have studied theory, so I can understand them if you choose to run them. However, please limit their usage and make sure to decompose and explain each part slowly.

Lastly, please be respectful to your opponents and have fun! Debate is a learning experience.

Thanks for reading,

Yusuf

Hey y’all, my name is Flynn Gray and my pronouns are he/him. I debated for Eagan High School 2018-2022. Now I'm a student at American University and compete on the model UN team.

Logistics:

Please put me on the email chain, my email is flynnfgraydebate@gmail.com

I'm okay with speed, but I wasn't the fastest debater and generally preferred slightly slower rounds. But personal preferences aside, I can keep up if you're spreading. I have some team members that could rival Eminem for their words per minute, however if you’re going to go fast in front of me, just know I’m holding you to high standards on your clarity and emphasis. SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS - THEY ARE NOT TAGS.

You should be flowing. please, please, PLEASE, flow.

Yes, tag team cross is fine. As long as you’re not taking over your partners cross completely, I’m cool with it. Not cool with arguing with each-other over an answer in cross though.

Speaker Points:

Debate is a game, debate is fun, you can make debate whatever game you want when you speak. I'll listen to however you present it and I'm convinced by passion and argumentative quality.

If you’re racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist, you know the drill: I will give you the lowest number of speaker points I possibly can.

2022-2023 Updates:

I study Turkish and Turkish politics for one of my classes so know that I feel confident in being able to judge a more in depth round on that. I've done some background research on the topic so even though I haven't debated on the topic I know a fair amount.

Onto the Juicy Stuff:

I, probably like so many others, would like to think I'm tabula rasa. However in reality, I'm most likely definitely not. So here's what you need to know to debate in front of me...

First off, you do you! (Cheesy but needed to be said). Debate is better when you go for arguments you know you can win on, not ones you think you can win on in front of me. I'd rather see a debater run something they're confident in than one who's making blind guesses on my personal preferences. Despite whatever caveats you think I have, if you know you can win on a k-aff for example, I’d rather you run that than be uncomfortable trying to conform to Debate’s and my perceived expectations of what you should be running. I will do my best to judge the debate on your work, your words, and your arguments. I will try not to intervene or rearrange the flow, and I will try to make sure my decision will display that. I want to do right by you.

Kritiks:

• I’m cool if you read kritiks, have fun, go for it, I like listening to kritikal literature butwhen I say I can understand kritikal literature I mean more basic kritiks such as a biopower k, queer k, setcol k or cap k. Anything beyond that especially in the realm of psychoanalysis may push my background knowledge, so if you find yourself reading a k in front of me you better be able to explain the thesis of the k and all of the parts in your own terms (that means not a bunch of big words that only make sense if you wrote the article). I want well developed links that are contextualized to the affirmative, either carded and analytical ones. You can read what you want in front of me, but I want you to use real word terms and words that are accessible to everyone. I won’t vote on something I don’t understand, if you’re going to run a k, put in the work to make it easy for me to vote on.
• I'm honestly not the most experienced judge for a k-aff, I don't have a paradigm on how to judge them so make it easy and not super technical for me to vote you up on it.

Topicality:

• I'm a sucker for a good T debate, and that's what I ran mostly in high school. I don't have any strong feelings on where the violation is derived from, and I think debates where one team is arguing plantext in a vaccum and the other is arguing that it can come from anywhere in the aff are interesting and I'm always down to watch more of those. I think education/portable skills is an under utilized impact to topicality that I weigh on par with a fairness or a clash impact for example. Caselists are always a good idea (even if they're kinda bull). And just saying “voter for fairness and education” is not an argument. Provide some warrants and examples of WHY fairness matters, WHY in round impacts matter more than debating the impacts post plan.

Condo:

• I'm probably less okay with conditionality than any judge on the circuit and probably align more with some traditional thoughts here. I think more than three condo starts to push it and I'm down to vote on conditionality. I don't want to vote on condo and most likely won't vote on condo if you can't prove why the existence of three counter plans is different than three disadvantages, and if you can't prove some sort of in round abuse.

DA's:

• DA debating is a skill that I think is hard to do and impressive when done. Crafting a unique DA to the affirmative will help you out, and me out when trying to understand the story of the round. If you need to run your generic DA's, do so with specific links, and if it's not carded but well explained and intuitive it's still going on my flow don't worry (although aff, point out if their link isn't carded, that always helps you). In my view, debate over the DA comes down most critically to uniqueness and the internal link. Warranted out uniqueness and internal link debating is one of my favorite things to flow and I'd rather you shave off a few seconds on impact work or link work or from some other part of the debate and put it there.

CP's:

• Counter plans are not something I have any feelings towards debating or judging, but I think process cp theory and international fiat are totally available options to run against these. I don't have much to say here, I think this might be a spot where I get more tabula rasa.

Case:

• Case debate beyond reading generic impact defense is so often forgotten about, and in front of me is a good attempt for a negative ballot. I can and will vote on no chance of the aff solving, or an impact turn to the aff/a DA on case, or that the aff is non inherent.

Miscellaneous Thoughts:

- if there's an issue with cites, you're not going to get my ballot off of calling it UNTIL the other team/the team "in violation" has time to explain their side of the story

- I'm not a good judge for a heg debate (unless you're pronouncing heg like egg) but if you're running it I'll do my best to keep up

- perm do both and perm do each are the same thing and I have yet to receive an explanation on why they are not

If you made it this far, good luck and have fun!! It's gonna be a great debate :)

Jeff Hou

SMCS Poolesville HS Class of 2026

Unrelated but if you want help on something STEM lmk

Add jeffhoufc219@gmail.com for all email chains to exchange evidence and speech docs. This is non-negotiable.

To introduce myself, I am a public forum debater and have debated for 2 years. As a debater, I understand what it is like to have a judge that doesn't fully tune in and give illogical decisions. Thus, considering the arguments of both sides carefully is imperative to me and I want to make sure my decision is as rational, reasonable, and productive as it can be. I want every round I judge to be clean, educational, and purposeful.

Pre-Round + Constructive Info:

• Please create an email chain before round and add me to it. You don't need to ask me if I want to be on it; yes, I want to be on the email chain.
• Send your cases to my email before round. If you fail to, I will doc your speak points and if it's a close round, I'm voting for the team that did send it compared to the team that didn't.
• Arrive early, start on time. In the words of my Earth Science teacher Mr. Kingman, "stop burning daylight."
• If you intend on spreading (>280 wpm), give me a notice before doing so. Your speak points will suffer if otherwise.

Rebuttal:

• If you're first rebuttal, your job is to respond to your opponent's case
• If you're second rebuttal, you have to frontline. Frontline first and respond to your opponent's case second.
• In terms of offense, you need to implicate it and turns need to have an impact
• In offensive mechanisms, I do have a preference in terms of what holds the most weight. Turns are the biggest; the rest are as of followed: delink, prereq, invalid, non-unique.

Second Half Debate + Other Stuff:

this is sorta unorganized but js read and synthesize it

• If you don't weigh don't act surprised that you lose the round lol
• Weigh as early as possible to maximize your chances of winning.
• Weighing needs to be comparative like actually compare both sides.
• Probability weighing is ok
• No new weighing mechanisms in final focus.
• Don't bring up new arguments in final focus. It's annoying, against the rules of debate, and pointless. Just know that you are wasting time running arguments that I will not vote for. Also, your speak points will suffer.
• I vote on warrants and clean extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim, the warrant of the card, and the implication of the card. Name of the card is the least important part of extension; as long as I know what you're referring to we're chilling. A clean extension is when your opponent has nothing to respond to on your card and you continuously bring it up (you'd be surprised how many people need to know what a clean extension means lol)
• For the love of God, collapse in summary. The speech times get shorter for a reason. Once you collapse on an argument, YOU CAN'T JUST COLLAPSE TO ANOTHER ONE IN THE NEXT SPEECH. You will lose your round that way
• Defense > offense especially when it comes to final focus. Make this debate about you and your position and why I'm voting for you. You need to re-explain your key points in summary and final focus; if you don't, I don't have a big reason to vote for you.
• Defense is not sticky

Theory and Ks:

• Don't run theory. Don't be a coward and try to squirm your way out of debating the topic. You chose to be a debater so debate the topic like you're supposed to. The moment you run theory is the moment I stop the debate right there and announce that the other team won.
• I don't like Ks either but at least you're debating something of substance so if you want to run a K, go for it, I'll evaluate it.
• If you run Cap-K, you better be creative enough to think of an economic system that is not communism or socialism as your alt. Otherwise, you're going to have to convince me that communism/socialism works. In that case, your chances are the same chances that a snowball has in Hell.

How to Not Lose Your Round + Other Stuff I Didn't Know How to Organize:

• Don't blatantly lie- it's immoral and insulting to think I am dumb enough to not realize that
• Don't have the moral arrogance to say something that is obviously known as socially disputed and assume that it is fact. It will make you lose rounds but also elections.
• I'm a history nerd so don't be stupid and lie about history in round; I'm going to realize that and refer to point 1 of this section.
• On prep time, don't steal prep time. If it looks like you're stealing prep time, I'm running the clock and docking speak points. If you're taking a long time to pull up evidence or a document, the clock is ticking cus I'm running your prep time.

• I will call and evaluate cards if a) it sounds too good to be true, b) a team calls for me to evaluate it, c) it genuinely intrigues me.
• I prefer evidence not being paraphrased but do as you wish; just be careful of paraphrase theory.
• If round is boring or incredibly close, I'll presume neg.

• Cross is binding
• Make it fun; it'll exponentially help your speaks

Truth vs Tech

Debaters get wrapped up in the convo if a judge is "truth over tech" or "truth over tech" but in an activity of debate, it's impossible to fairly categorize it in either. If you're completely a "truth > tech" judge, you're interfering as a judge when it's not your place; the role of providing arguments are the debaters not you. If you're completely a "tech > truth" judge, you're making debate an obsolete activity because truth be told, realism needs to be considered if debate is going to be more than just a competition. Thus, my philosophy is that you bring a balance of reasonability and realism with debating on a technical level on the flow.

Ask me if you have any other questions before the round begins.

I'm a High-school policy debater from Chicago, South Shore international college prep. I've been trained in judging for both policy and public forum debate, I've even judged a few speech rounds before.
I don't have any qualms with not being able to see the debaters I'm judging. I'm only listening for the content of what each debater says. As for speech rounds, the more interesting and thought-provoking the speech is, the better in my opinion. Let's try our best, and have fun.

DO NOT USE CHAT GPT FOR YOUR SPEECHES - it's VERY obvious

sherrylin1004@gmail.com, she/her, junior at richard montgomery, 2x gtoc, put me on the chain!

ask me anything before round :)

*

POTOMAC INTRAMURAL:

-be nice and have fun! have clear arguments and emphasize what is most important in the back half. i will be timing intramurals but still try to keep yourself on time on your own

-final focus should tell me exactly what i should be voting on.

*

the most important things:

-TIME YOURSELVES AND KEEP YOUR OPPONENTS ACCOUNTABLE. i probably won't be keeping time - keep the round running by itself. i am probably ready for your speech when you are, take my silence to "judge ready" as a yes.

-what will win you the round: clearly collapsing --> extending a clear link chain & impact --> clear & comparative weighing. write my ballot for me in summary and final.

-please have clear and full extensions. my threshold is probably higher than most. this means uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. ALL of these are necessary for a baseline extension. a lot of the debates i've seen have had poor extension quality on both sides. this inherently means i have to intervene in my decision, and it might not be in favor of you. save everyone the stress and either pre-write extensions or just extend effectively.

-weighing needs to be comparative. address both your argument and your opponents'. saying "magnitude" and then repeating your impact isn't weighing. PLEASE respond to your opponents' weighing and break the clash. metaweighing is great. also, you have to win your case to win your weighing.

*

other important things:

-under 225 wpm would be great! (900 words/4min) & please send docs if possible. i can comprehend faster than that but if you don't send a doc it's your fault if i miss something.

-i prefer strong analytical arguments over regurgitating evidence. i really like when effective analytical implications are supported by evidence. i.e, reading a card and saying "x implications"

-2nd rebuttal should frontline AND respond to their case. 1st summary should extend defense.

*

theory:

-i like theory. open sourcing all evidence is good, anything regarding accessibility is good. but obviously these are not auto-wins. if you win on the flow, you win the ballot. (paraphrasing is a gray area for me)

-if you are planning to run theory, please run it in a shell format: interpretation, violation, standards, voters

-if there is a close open source vs. full text debate, i will almost always err open source good. i truly believe full text disclosure is useless - at that point you should defend nondisclosure.

-i am impartial to spirit vs. text. i can be persuaded either way

-friv is okay but the sillier the shell means the sillier the responses can be. the best strategy against a friv shell is turning it as many times as possible

-make rvi debates clear -- otherwise, i lean yes offensive rvis (ocis), no defensive rvis

-clearly warrant why an ivi is a reason to drop the debater. no implication means no ballot. one example - discourse shapes reality is just a tag, it needs a warrant.

*

Ks/phil:

-"k-ish framing" is fine (rotj, anything pre-fiat)

-i'm probably not the best judge for ks proper - i've hit baudrillard, queer, and fem. i'm most experienced with securitization - the only one i've run before

-i don't know how to evaluate most phil. ethics confuses me, but always trying to learn!

*

other:

-i am extremely generous with speaks (you can check my record if you want). so don't worry about that

-i'm usually not listening to cross, but it should be binding. if there is a major concession, bring it up in speech.

I have about 15 years of experience in competing, coaching & judging both speech and debate. I competed on the collegiate level and tend to go for strong topical arguments and clear, persuasive, and passionate speakers. I’ll keep detailed notes and normally vote on impacts, magnitude & topicality. Feel free to ask anything else before and/or after the round.

faith.lopiccolo@gmail.com

My name is Naysa Mehta. I am a sophomore and currently a student here, at PDA. I am in the HS Varsity team and I have been debating for 4 years, and I am on my school's debate team for Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is my first time judging; I will flow. When you speak try to make sure that you are not speak too fast, I want to hear what you are saying.

As this is my first experience serving as a judge for an event, I aim to establish a clear and structured evaluation process. My decision will be based on the strength of the arguments presented, with the most compelling case earning my vote. Additionally, I am eager to develop my own debating skills through this experience. I will set aside any personal biases to ensure a fair assessment. I believe that approaching a debate that contains unfamiliar topics is advantageous, as it prevents competitors from relying solely on previous knowledge to influence their judges vote.

I am a student judge, and I don't have many preferences. However, please attempt to do the following:

1. If you think you are going to speak too fast to be understood easily, please send a speech doc.
2. Please try to weigh during summary and FF.
3. Try to be as respectful as possible during cross.

I am currently a sophomore at OSU, and I have experience in public speaking and debate. When it comes to judging I have a few preferences;

• Make sure to thoroughly explain your arguments
• Please speak clearly
• Be nice to one another
• Give me an idea of what you're going to talk about before you start your speech
• No spreading, make sure you speak at a medium pace
• Make sure to use weighing effectively
• Tell me why you should win in Final Focus
• Do not engage in progressive debate (theory, kritik, etc.)

Looking forward to a good round.

hi thanks for reading my paradigm!!

im a current pf debater @ wootton hs

isabel.j.tang@gmail.com

most important: be nice & be respectful, lets have fun! :)

big things:

tech > truth

(if virtual) please turn your cameras on

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

pls interact with ur opponents arguments

speaks r based on mostly strategy but also behavior like rudeness in cross/if its obvious ur just reading off a doc and dont know what ur saying (ya i give low point wins) HOWEVER if u are chill, respectful, and participate in the round u are pretty much guaranteed 29+

if i gave you sub 28.5s and you did all of the things i requested then pls know i was just forced to by the tabroom settings :(

also id prefer if u dont introduce new args in summary/FF thats just unfair

PLEASE EXTEND it'll be extremely difficult to win if u don't carry any of ur args into backhalf...

signposting is better than excessively long roadmaps (during your speech just lmk where you are i.e. are you defending your arguments, attacking your opps, etc)

warrant please

comparative weighing is appreciated !!! talk about your impacts in relation to your opponents, do some big picture stuff, make it clear why i should vote for you; that's typically where the round is decided

please collapse that makes it much easier for everyone lol

ask me if you have any questions before round starts!

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading if there were no pre-round objections, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread tags/ analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well.

A dropped argument is a conceded argument - but it MUST be extended with a warrant

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Basic Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Probably don’t read denser philosophy in front of me - if it's complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from complex Ks in front of me).

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. I did not like theory when I competed in LD, and I like it even less as a judge. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear Topicality). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

• If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
• PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments - just be sure to understand them
• In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time. I generally time all rounds, but all debaters should time themselves

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 20 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment. Debate is fun and educational, let’s keep it friendly!

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Whole Resolution Advocacy:Lincoln-Douglas debaters are required to affirm or negate the entire resolution in their cases. Debaters should focus on defending the broad philosophical implications of the resolution, rather than offering specific or technical solutions.
Prohibition of Plans and Counterplans: The use of plans, counterplans, or any formalized, comprehensive proposals for implementation is explicitly banned. A "plan" refers to a detailed or
step-by-step approach to solving a problem that specifies particular actions or mechanisms. Debaters should avoid focusing on policymaking or implementation details. The goal is to engage in value-based arguments and consider the resolution as a whole, rather than presenting narrow solutions.
Focus on Values and Philosophy: Debates should prioritize the examination of underlying values, ethical considerations, and philosophical frameworks that support or challenge the resolution. This approach encourages critical thinking about the resolution's broader implications rather than focusing on specific policy actions.

Hello! I'm Angela Wang, she/her, and I am a current debater in PF :). I've debated PF for about 3 years now, and my main thing is just BE NICE. If you're rude to your opponents, it is extremely unlikely that you will win the round.

I don't flow cross, so if you make any points you want me to flow, make those points in your speech.

Grace time: I will give a 5-second grace period. Please time yourselves, but I will be timing as well. I hate interrupting people, but I will if I must.

Theory/K: Meh. Don't really like it but if it is extremely convincing and reasonable, I will vote off of it.

Just have fun!

add me to the chain (xuekath0@gmail.com)

i debate for richard montgomery hs & potomac debate; nsda & 3x toc qual

- weigh and clearly explain your warranting/arguments!

- frontline in 2nd rebuttal

- collapse please!!!!!!!

- poaks intramural speaks are usually 29 and up

have fun and be nice :)