I have debated Parli for 4 years -- 2 years novice, 1 year jv, and 1 year varsity. Mind you, that one year of varsity I was pretty damn good.

In terms of speed, I don't want any fast speed and I also don't wany any speed bad theory. I can flow most speeds. Also make sure you're not talking too slow, or I'll get bored and stop paying attention. Also don't put too much annoying emotion into your speech or your speaks will get docked.

In terms of Neg Ks, I think most of them are pretty BS except for CLS, Bhuddism, and Taoism. Read me some good Taoist literature, and make it link hard, and you're probably gauranteed the win (just because the other team probably can't respond to it and I will buy every word you say).

For Critical Affs, throw anything at me except security-bad, surveillance-bad, or heg-bad related arguments, just because I've interned at the Department of Defense and the NSA, and I'll have a hard time believing anythign you say.

On theory, I'm okay with theory, but I don't like topicalities. Like, don't run your standard T or Extra-T with me, come up with some creative theory and I'll really dig it (like, Interp: The PMC should debate in Hindi). That being said, I buy RVIs 1000%. If you run bad theory, you will loose if the other team runs an RVI. Even if you run good theory, you will loose if the other team wins the RVI. Also, I HATE the voters of Fairness and Education. Debate isn't fair and honestly people will still debate even if it isn't educational. It's probably not educational anyway. Honestly, debate is a goddamn waste of time. The only real voters I'll buy are ones like violence, exclusion, etc.

In terms of Advantages: for every single advantage, the aff MUST prove uniqueness, solvency, and impacts for each advantage. If they don't, then it'll be unlikely I put much weight into their arguments and it'll be an easy neg win(unless the neg screws the pooch too). Also, I'm good with severance and intrinsic perms, and I've run those plenty of times, so if you're going to give theory against those, please please run it well or you're fighting an uphill battle. That being said, I also want to see preemptive theory from the MG if you're going to run severance or intrinsic. For CPs, I'm good with PICs but you need to run pre-emptive pic-good or else the MO will have an uphill battle.

For POOs, I don't like them. I'll allow 2 POOs per rebuttal otherwise it's -30 speaks for the team calling the POO. They're rude and I think they're inefficient and dumb. I don't mind new arguments in the LOR, but in the PMR they can be annoying, but I'll sometimes let them slide.

Also, be prepared to debate the minute you enter the round. I won't answer any questions, and for every question you try to ask you'll get -3 Speaker points. Also, don't shake my hand or say hi before your speech, or that's -10 speaker points. I'm not kidding.

I've been advising debate for 3 years but I have no personal debate experience. I like debates where both sides have strong links and good evidence to support their links. I don't vote on k arguments - they come across to me as debaters who don't know how to find good evidence and contention links.

I am a former Campolindo High School debater and am currently in college. I am not participating in the college circuit currently. My former coach is Jake Glendenning, so take from that what you will. Personally, my debating style was mostly case focused, although I used theory when the occasion called for it. I largely ignored the use of kritiks because a majority did not intrinsically convince me, and therefore it was illogical to use arguments to convince others when they failed to convince me.

Simply put, I will vote for the team that can make the most logical and convincing argument for their side and against the other. However, logical and convincing is somewhat vague and differs from person to person. Therefore, it only makes sense that I define what that means for me.

Logical and convincing arguments are ones you make that follow and have a tangible impact at the end. Therefore, the chain of logic required to reach impacts must be explicit and very clear. With that in mind, numbers matter a lot in terms of impact, especially when considering lives lost/saved. However, don't pull numbers out of thin air, but rather justify estimates and approximations clearly. More argument specific:

Case (Advantages and DA's): yes, most basic thing that you can do to convince me. That being said, please don't stray off topic.

Counterplans: yes, excellent tool for the neg to fight back with, be explicit with it

Kritiks and K affs: see above. However, I will note that military bad k's are great because of the clearly visible impacts and tangible effects it has on the world.

Topicality and other theory: when necessary. Don't be petty, be strategic.

TL;DR be clear and logical

Note: This paradigm is over two years old now. The core of it is still the same: don't be gamey, argue a good case well.

I'll start with a little background on me. I was a policy debater for 4 years at College Prep. I went to the ToC twice, with 3 bids and a 4-3 record my senior year. As a debater, I made a huge variety of different arguments, some very critical (Piratical Pedagogy), some very policy (Process CPs). I am currently studying computer science and mathematics at Harvey Mudd College.

In general, I'm a fan of explicit line-by-line debate, and muddling up my flow with implied clash will not help you win. I will try to reward depth of explanation and strong comparative impact work.

Things I default to, but can be persuaded otherwise: offense-defense, utilitarianism, functional competition, competing interpretations, conditionality.

Case - I love good case debate. Internal link chains in policy debate are usually terrible, but too often they go unquestioned. I'm not afraid to vote on a good case turn and some really strong internal link defense.

DA - Case outweighs is the Aff's best argument against every DA. These debates are usually decided by whoever does the best comparitive impact calculus.

CP - Presumption flips Aff when the Neg goes for a CP, so make sure you have a clear, independent net benefit. Functional competition, not potential abuse, is the best argument against an abusive CP.

K - I like critical arguments, but I think that too often debaters just spew jargon instead of actually explaining what they're talking about. Warrant your claims, use historical examples, really explain what your kritik means, and you'll probably win--don't, and you'll probably lose.

K Affs - I ran a lot of these, and I'm totally fine with them, but I'm also not afraid to vote on framework if the Aff doesn't have a good defense of why they get to do what they do. On the framework debate, I am slightly more likely to vote on an out-of-debate impact like political change or democratic engagement than an in-debate impact like equitable ground or inclusivity.

T - I can be persuaded otherwise, but by default, I will first decide on which interpretation won, then determine whether the Aff meets that interpretation; that means that "we meet" is offense, not defense. I haven't been following the current topic very closely, so I'm not going to know if you're telling the truth if you say something like "there are only three viable Affs on this topic, and this is one of them!", so you're going to need to explain any claims about the nature of the topic.

Theory - Debate is a game; that being said, fairness is an internal link, not an impact. If you want to be able to go for a theory argument in the last speech, it has to be more than a one-sentence blip before that.

Finally, please be civil both to your fellow debaters and to me. That means don't insult anyone, and don't disrupt my judging (stealing my ballot, for example).

I am tabula rasa. Please weigh impacts. If you decide to run a K, please give good warrants and make sure that it actually makes sense. If you don't understand the K, don't run it. 

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I prefer constructive arguments over Kritiks and theory arguments. I would not encourage speakers to spread their speeches.

Former high school debater a long time ago.  (Think 1970's, big hair, polyester).  This season I have been judging Parli at a variety of tournaments (all levels) as well as some IE events.   I'm getting more used to the terms and jargon, but I like clearly laid out arguments.   

Hi, my name is Meena Visht. Never debated personally. Dont spread, make good intiuitive arguments and make sure to be topic specific. DO NOT be rude (I will drop you). I like well articulated case debate with relevant warrants and terminalized impacts and weighing, so as long as you run that, you'll be fine. 

I debated Policy Debate for two years at Maine Township High School South in the metropolitan Chicago area. In my senior year, my partner and I won Third Place in the state of Illinois, in the NFL Policy Debate State Championship Tournament that year. I work in the electronics industry, and I assist in debate coaching at Irvington High School in Fremont, CA. This is my fifth year judging Policy, Parliamentary, and Lincoln-Douglas debates.

I am a flow judge; I definitely prioritize depth of analysis over spread.

I prioritize four key debate criteria:

(1) Clarity.
Clarity of presentation, clarity of logic applied to the debate. Clear articulation and enunciation are paramount for intelligibility and comprehensibility.

(2) Depth of Analysis.
Analyze the logical foundation of the arguments: strengthen the foundations of your team's arguments, challenge the foundations and assumptions of your opponents' arguments. In Policy debate: argue harm, significance, inherency, and advantages/disadvantages.

(3) Show Impact.
Show why your arguments are the most important for the debate resolution, and why your arguments are more important than your opponents' arguments. Show why your evidence and references are more logically substantiated and thorough than your opponents'. Prioritize your arguments, and rank your arguments in order of importance. In rebuttals, rank the most important arguments in the debate as a whole; show why your arguments are more important and impactful.

(4) Clash.
Directly address the opposing team's arguments. Show why your arguments are superior to your opponents' arguments.

Additional Notes -- other debate strategies and methodologies are fine: frameworks, counterplans, topicality, etc. Make sure that these arguments are important and impactful to the resolution, with strong analytical reasoning, and with evidential support where applicable. I think frameworks are good and map to real-world professional decision-making.

Kritiks that directly relate to the resolution are fine: for example, philosophy of law applied to the resolution, philosophy of reason applied to the resolution. But please note: I am highly suspect of Case Ks, having judged some Case Ks where it seemed the students were just yelling about stuff.