I am a former high school and college debater. I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate in high school and CEDA debate in college (1990 - 1995 as CEDA was becoming more policy oriented). I coached college debate teams at Saint Louis University and the University of Missouri at Saint Louis. I am currently a teacher of art history and philosophy at Cleveland High School's Humanities Magnet in Reseda, CA. I have been coaching high school debate for over 15 years and have sent at least one team to the quarter-finals of the CA state debate tournament for the last seven years.

What I like to see in debate rounds.

I can handle a moderate speed policy round and a full spread Parli or LD round. I have lost hearing in my left ear and wear hearing aides, so I simply cannot flow a full speed policy debate round, but have had no problems in LD or Parli. I prefer plan versus counterplan and disad debate. I try to be a tabula rasa judge, but I admit that I am not a fan of performance debate and find most kritik debate to be too esoteric to vote on in most rounds. I will vote on critical theory, but it needs to clearly articulated, providing a specific alternative and weighing mechanism versus the plan or case offered by the affirmative. Reject the aff is not a persuasive alternative for me. I also do not like most plan inclusive counterplans (PIC's). I find them abusive because the negative is basically affirming the plan/resolution in order to negate. I automatically sever any topical portions of the PIC and just evaluate the non-topical portions versus plan benefits. I rarely, if ever, vote on PICs. I also despise rude debate. You can be assertive without being aggressive and rude. I will deduct speaker points for debaters who are overtly rude, abusive, or have offensive body language (rolling eyes or laughing at opponents - even if you are trying to be discrete).

Bottom Line

Be smart, be courteous, debate well, and tell me why you win the round (write my ballot for me in the final speech), and you are likely to win the round and get high speaker points in the process.

Brief blurb: If you’re reading this right before the round, the shortest bit of info I can give you is that I’m open to any position you can run, so long as you run it well and you’re not rude to your opponent. Give me clarity and give me clash. I would rather see you do good comparative analysis than dump out several cards to prove you're winning. Warrant your arguments, weigh your impacts, and you'll probably like where the round goes. If you do these things and tell me exactly what I should vote on, you should be golden.

Longer blurb: I debated LD on the national circuit in high school, and did APDA and BP nationally in college. Outside debate: I'm finishing my PhD in chemistry soonish, and am going into management consulting after ye olde doctorate. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible. However, I get that most judges – particularly former debaters – have specific eccentricities in their philosophies, so I’ll try to explain mine.

Framework: Whatever you want it to be. I don’t really care if you provide a traditional framework, but provide some type of burden that tells me how to vote. I always care more about the intuitive link level rather than the existence of a specific card, so have a compelling link story. Even if Professor Google can tell me your card is true, tell me why it matters to the resolution and how it impacts the round. If you want to do something squirrelly (like PICs, imo, but kicking CPs is fine as long as you work to give your opponents room to engage), I expect you to be abundantly clear about how your strategy fits the context of the resolution, why it is unique, and where you see the clash going from there. Explain it like I’m five.

Speed: I’m fine with spread if your opponent can also follow it, but do not try to spread your opponents out of the round. Slow down to ~50% (make it clear!) for tags and key arguments. I’d recommend sticking with 75% of your top speed with me, and I’ll yell “clear” and “slow” if necessary. Slow down if you see me drinking coffee; if my camera is off/we are in Zoom university, <70% top speed is better. If your opponents yell “clear” or “slow”, do it so they can engage in the debate. If you do not, I will happily tank your speaks.

POIs/POOs: As a speaker, I expect you to take at least two questions. As the person asking questions, do not shout over the speaker or be deliberately disruptive to get your point taken sooner. It’s so rude, and if your opponent isn’t taking your point you can be sure I’ll notice, too. POOs: I’ll flow the new arguments made in rebuttals unless you make the POO. **TOC update: Judges protect the flow. You should still raise the POO if you think it's unclear.

Big picture: Please no offtime roadmaps or thank yous - you don’t need them if you signpost well. In rebuttals, tell me the key issues and why you’re winning them. By the end of the round, I want a clear picture of your advocacy and where you see the clash. I prefer hearing stronger, more developed arguments that clearly matter to the resolution over several blippy arguments trying to cover the whole flow poorly.

tl;dr: How would you condense the round for a CEO on their blackberry? what issues truly matter to you, and why are you winning them? take your opponents at their best, and find a way to beat them anyway. Any questions, email aberl at berkeley dot edu.

Other than that, be kind, have fun, and learn new things.

Aff: It’s hard to sell me on the “if we have even a 1% chance of solving” narrative, instead I prefer for Aff to stand firmly behind a strong advocacy. I would always prefer a straight-up Affirmative plan to a squirrely, technically-still-upholds-the-motion case. If you choose to be squirrely, I’ll listen to you, but will be extra-receptive to Neg burden presses and topicality arguments.

Neg: I don’t think Neg’s burden (by default, but you can change my mind) includes anything more than proving why Aff’s plan is a bad idea, and so it’s entirely possible for a negative team to win just off refutation and disadvantages they thought up in the moment. That said, I want Neg to show me what they did in prep time. Make me believe you put some thought into this round before you walked in the door, or I tend to lean Aff.

Impacts: I much prefer a reasonable, well-linked impact to a blown-out-of-proportion one. Just because you technically can link your argument to nuclear war or dehumanization of masses of people doesn’t mean it is in your best interest to do so. 

Kritiks: You are welcome to run them, and I will be receptive to them. However, anti-K arguments don’t require a shell, and I always prefer for both teams to still engage on the case if a kritik is run.

An Unpopular Opinion: I believe that the place of parliamentary debate is to instill public speaking skills and the ability to think on one’s feet. I like convincing speakers, who tell stories and explain evidence as though they read it more than 20 minutes ago. I like to pretend that you all believe in the arguments you make. But, Thomas Jefferson put it nicely: “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend,” and as a judge, I certainly won’t use personal beliefs as a reason to vote you down.

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

Background

I've been debating in Japan, mostly in British Parliamentary style and Australian style.  I am currently an exchange student from a university in Japan, and I major in Political Economy.  I have experience in becoming a Grand Final judge in JPDU Pre-Australs, which is one of the biggest Australs tournament in Japan.

 

Basics

I myself is a debater, so I try my best to do justice to debaters.  By this, I mean that I will try to listen to every argument and rebuttal you make, and take them into consideration as much as possible.

I do value precision in speech and having a professional manner is a great thing.  However, it is rare that I make one team win/lose just because of that.  This is purely because judgement based on how they look is a ad hominem, and valuing  somebody's argument less than other people's.  This is unacceptable, so I am not going to do that.

Debating is about arguments and persuasiveness is important.  There are many things that decide a person's persuasiveness, but mainly they are:

1.  Logic

Arguments that logically make sense is a one that is persuasive.  This is an essential part of an argument and I strongly stress that every debater should put emphasis on engaging to each other based on logic.

 2. Rhetoric

Rhetorical techniques such as examples and appropriate wording should be valued.  If I thought what I am saying is more probable than what the other side is saying because of the words you used to deliver them, I am happy to let you win the argument based on that too.

3. Relevance

Please try to stay relevant to the resolution.  It should not be true that everything lead to a nuclear war!

 

Adjudicating is also about an art of persuasion, and it is important that you understand what I mean.  If you have anything that you feel unclear, ask me!  We are in the round for you.

Theory

As long as they are relevant to debate and clear, I am willing to take into consideration.

If I feel like an average reasonable person would not understand them though, I am reluctant to take them.

Speaking Preferences:

Please, please, please speak in a manner that you would in a normal conversation.  I am a EFL, so it would be best if you could speak in a normal speed.  (I can basically catch them as long as they are not ridiculously fast).  I will not base decision on how you speak, but it will appear on your speaker scores. 

POI/POO/RVI:

Those are important, and step up to offer them.  You should make sure that you take at least one in your speech.  Stay relevant and stay respectful, period.

Overview: I prefer debate rounds where people are able to prove not just their point, but why their point matters. I will look in large part at flow to determine how the debate went, but good framing will be enough to sway me.

Preferred Styles: As far as style goes, I will avoid penalizing adequate speakers (though if your speaking is weak enough to harm your arguments, it may have a small effect on the outcome and I will point it out), and will avoid rewarding exceptional speakers (though similarly, I will lavish you with praise afterwards). In my opinion, your speaking points come less from how eloquent you are and more how convincing you are, as does your win.

Background: I was the President and VP of my high school debate team at La Jolla High for Sophomore and Junior year respectively. Primarily competed in Parli on the debate side, and OO, OA, and Impromptu on the speaking side. I am a member of the Berkeley Debate Society.

Arguments: I will enter tabula rasa in the sense that I understand it, which is to say that I will mark someone down for having bad facts that I can easily identify (if it is essential to the argument), but will not bring in my own biases and politics. I will also not give extra consideration to certain ways of weighing things over others if the point is not argued. Please avoid using terminology that is essentially hate speech or arguments that betray a similar sentiment.

As far as the structure of arguments goes, be aware that an argument where I am not given some reason why it matters will be meaningless to me. Weighing is important, and providing impacts is important, and you should be able to do both effectively.

Rebuttal: Engage arguments in good faith. I encourage you to attack the premises of someone's argument, such as how it's implemented, or what impact it has, etc. but avoid misrepresenting the other side's arguments to suit your aims and avoid attacks that are more condescending than substantive.

Theory and Definitions: I will get lost if you use theory terminology, but I will entertain arguments here. Realize that if I don't understand how your argument works, I will not be able to consider it. If definitions become an issue, I am fine with debate on the issue, but please restrict yourselves from making the entire debate about it.

POIs: My number one rule with POIs is that you can't be annoying with them. If it's for clarification or pointing out a flaw, then that's great and you should do it. If it's to make a statement, then I will frown on it. If there are a lot of POIs, or you attempt to be disruptive while making them, I will dock you points.

Questions: If you want clarification on an issue before the round starts, then I'd be happy to answer. I would also be happy to talk about the round afterwards to try and help people out in whatever way I can. Good luck!

I have four years of high school debate experience doing the Karl Popper format. This is my first year doing parliamentary format. I would categorize myself as a policymaker judge. 

No spreading. No theory. Debate the topic you have been provided. 

PARLI:

THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime roadmaps/thank yous. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.

1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.

2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.

3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.

4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.

5. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-90 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters. That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-90 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." That was 12-17 years ago. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY DEBATE

I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.

About me:

-On the Debate Society of Berkeley

-I have debated and judged the following debate styles: LD, Congress, Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Policy.

How I judge:

-I like debaters who have clear communication, good evidence and examples, and are civil during rounds. I tend to vote on who is doing the best job overall, rather than small technicalities or dropped arguments that don't focus on the main idea of the resolution.

-Tabula Rasa, for the debate itself but not TR on the debate about the debate...T's and K's

What I like to see:

-Clash is central to BOTH sides.

-Link your ads/disads to impacts, then bring everything to the framework arena.

-Give and take POI's

-Last speech should be reserved for key points and voter issues. 

**Important notes for the abstract side (not framework but in the context of T's, K's, CP's, etc). This is where TR withers away...

-Counter-plans: Prefer that neg stick with SQ but hey CP's are fun too. Warning: I will be sympathetic to the aff, if CP isn't fair, Aff should go for a short T shell or perm it and move on.

-Only use theories and kritiks if you absolutely must! Not going to win the round with these alone. 

1. Theory: I don't like generic T shells. Only use them if you feel compelled enough to annoy me, unfairness is a good reason. Though, if you're actually a good debater then you don't need to hide behind a theory shell...
2. Kritiks: These arguments need to be explained in the context of the AFF. If the links are generic and not contextualized, the perm is an easily compelling argument. Debates composed of mostly buzzwords and shallow explanation are painful. When AFF, answer all the K tricks, because if explained well they are very compelling. Specific analysis is more important than cards.

-If you spread, I can only write down so much... Also, I am a sucker for speed K's.

I competed in International Extemp in High School, and was a state finalist for the state of Ohio. I have competed in British Parliamentary Debate for the Debate Society of Berkeley for the past four years.

I prefer that debaters engage in the resolution and avoid theoretical or kritical arguments.

PARLI PARADIGM FOR NPDI 2016:

I have judged high school parli before but sparingly. I do not understand how the event is conventionally judged or interpreted. I compete for Berkeley's APDA team and I did Public Forum debate in high school. I am competent at flowing although I cannot flow policy speed or the speed of the fastest circuit LD; if you ask me to do so I will say "clear" if you go too quickly, but without prompting I will remain silent.

I am open to all kinds of arguments; to me, an argument is a claim and a warrant (i.e. a reason why the claim is true). I default to an offense-defense paradigm, so if you want me to evaluate the round in a way other than that tell me to do so and warrant why I should do so. If the round is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm it is of paramount importance that you weigh your arguments and warrant why they are more significant than your opponents' impacts, otherwise I will be deciding without a good justification for either side. I am unfamiliar with Ks in parli but I am open to them (if you explain them well) and I am predisposed to enjoy arguments that deploy an unconventional strategy.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

TLDR: I am a flow judge who will try to give helpful feedback.

How I Make My Decision

I will vote largely based on the final two speeches. I prefer to only vote on arguments whose warrant and impact are in both the summary and the final focus. However, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from the rebuttal to the final focus, however, I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and I am more likely to feel that they are new if they are extended from second rebuttal to second final focus. Second, the first final focus can make some new responses to new arguments made in the second summary but be reasonable about it.

Weigh as much as possible. I flow weighing arguments, and you can and should reference them as cleanly extended weighing analysis if your opponents do not respond to weighing in rebuttal or summary. Try to beyond using weighing buzz words such as magnitude/probability/timeframe and instead really tell me why the resolution is still true or false even if your opponents win all of their arguments.

Argumentation

I try and fail to come into each round as a blank slate, meaning that I try to disregard my biases.

I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

I am probably comfortable with most speeds that will be reached in a Public Forum round, but if you are going too fast I will try to let you know. However, if you go slower I am on balance more likely to vote for you. Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what kind of argument are making, but please try to sound like a human rather than a jargon machine. If it stops being helpful my expression will let you know.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

Evidence

Evidence ethics in Public Forum are awful. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me, and they will lose because of it.

During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you gives me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Although this is thorough it does not mean that I often call for evidence; on the contrary, I set strict guidelines so that I do not call for evidence when it is unreasonable to do so, reducing the probability that I intervene. 

Speaker Points

I will reward debaters for clarity, kindness, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, persuasion, topic knowledge, and genius. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance long after the round, you should teach other students how to do debate right. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- There is a lot of room for improvement. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.  

My Background

I competed in Public Forum for Evanston Township High School, mainly on the national circuit, and I graduated in 2015.

If you have any additional questions feel free to ask. If you have an issue with my decision also please feel free to communicate with me about that after the round.

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

Background:

While I do not have substantial experience with HS parli, I am on the UC Berkeley American Parliamentary Debate Associations Team. I have been on its board for two years and a general member for three.

Basics:

Clear, concise argument with strong warrants and impacts is all I want. Everything should be clearly signposted so that I can create the cleanest flow possible - it is 100% of what I vote on, so this ought to be your priority. This means you should avoid spreading whenever possible - I have auditory processing issues and I guarantee that, if you start speaking like your life depends on you spitting out the Gettysburg Address in under a minute, I will miss almost everything you say. I also don't think spreading is conducive to good debate - you should focus on producing your strongest points possible, not throwing twenty out and hoping one sticks.

Theory:

Not only am I not very familiar with theory given that college parli drops 97.5% of it, but I also don't like it. You can run a K if you want, but it will not get you any points on my side. I will not strictly vote against theory - I still want to vote for the most convincing side - but I do respect teams who will debate the question presented to them.

Hi, 

My name is TJ O'Hanlon. I debated in high school in Oregon and now I am a member of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I am down for debaters to go at their own pace. However, that being said it should be a debate of substance and not a race. I am also not heavily fond of theory but sometimes I realize it is necessary. I think debate should consist mainly of argument and rebuttle and new perspectives on an issue are always appretiated. 

Good luck and have fun!!!

No spread

About me: I was a former member of Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, and ranked 3rd in the nation at NPTE. I used to be a public health major and now work in health care.

For Parli: Super down for spreading/speed, I'll clear or slow you if necessary but I seriously doubt I'll need to. I'm usually a K debater so I'm down to hear anything you want to read assuming it's not gross or prejudiced in any way. I'm cool with non-topical affirmatives, but I will evaluate FW-T in response, so be ready for that to play out. I also enjoy case debate if it's well fleshed out, and am more likely to prefer well-done or detailed affirmatives over generics. Theory is fine, I'll evaluate any theory you put forward. I default to competing interpretations unless you have specific warrants for reasonability; if you give me the warrants for reasonability, I'll absolutely evaluate that.

Tl;dr: I'm down for anything. It's your debate, not mine. I know some people say they're down for anything and really just want case debate, but bring me your crazy rounds and I'm very down to evaluate. I'm a flow judge that doesn't care about presentation unless your performance is specifically affective or you want me to evaluate your in-round rhetoric, so my speaks usually just hover around a 28.

PLEASE DON'T SHAKE MY HAND; not super down for that

I debated in BP and APDA at UC Berkeley. I believe that the best debaters are not those who can recite the most facts to me, but the those who can use facts in logical argumentation throughout the debate. Effective and systematic clash with an opponent's arguments are important. Throughout the debate, teams must treat each other with respect and ad hominem arguments should not be made. If one team makes a round unfair, the other team must prove to me why this is so.

I have no major political biases and am not a fan of spreading, but I understand if you have to do it.

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

Please see my paradigm at http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Skarr%2C+Teresa

 

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.   

 

 

Background

Coach at New Roads School, Santa Monica, CA (2016-Present). MSPDP coach for a couple of years prior to New Roads.

Decorum

Keep in mind the spirit and purpose of this activity during round. Effective communication and politeness goes a long way. Being rude to another team will result in lower speaker points. Sexist, racist, xenophobic, etc rhetoric will not be tolerated and will also result in lower speaker points. If you have to wonder, chances are your evidence, etc may fit the bill. Then don't use it!

Speed

A notch below spreading is most enjoyable, but I’ll flow any speed.

Judging Arguments

I will try to keep my own experience and knowledge outside of the round. If an argument does not make sense, and is dropped, it may be considered a less significant argument because it just isn't convincing.

Framework

A clear framework is important because it dictates how I will judge a round. Make sure the framework is presented clearly and then remind me how you won.

Theory

Use of theory is great, but make it very clear how it relates to your argument. Don't simply read a pre-prepared statement and expect for me to make the connections while reviewing my flow.

Weighing

I will almost always default to probability over magnitude unless a strong rationale convinces me to do otherwise.

Speaker Points

Are determined by clarity of speeches, ability to respond to opponents during POIs, and general considerations of ethos and pathos.

A parent judge with a few years of experience judging various tournaments and events. I care about presentation and the real-world impacts of your 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’ve judged/coached most formats at this point, but my personal experience is some hs parli and then BP for Berkeley.

Debate is a game, so I’ll vote on anything. While I competed in less technical events in college, I enjoy complex rounds if they're interesting so please do try new things.

Speed's okay but slow down for tags and expect me to miss some nuance if it's very fast. If your opponents ask you to slow down, I expect you to give them the opportunity to engage.

Otherwise, run what you want! I'm very far removed from current trends in debate, but I love strong + analytical warrants, good linking, and fun strategic decisions. I tend to find super stock DAs and Ks or a heavy reliance on evidence quite boring.

Some basic info about me: I have over 5 years of experience in debate and over 4 years of experience in judging. I'm currently on the Debate Society of Berkeley.  Most of my high school experience is in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas, but I've watched a decent amount of high school Parli as well.  

Some facts about my judging preferences:

1. I'm fine with jargon and relative speed.  (No spreading!)
2. For Parli, make sure you're taking 1 to 2 POIs per speech (if offered).  
3. Make sure you offer a weighing mechanism early in the round, and connect to it throughout all of your speeches.  
4. I want to see clear links and impacts in your argument formation.  You should be carrying the entirety of your argument throughout the round if you want to access your impacts at the end of the debate.  That means if you're trying to extend and argument, you can't just tell me "Extend 1b" and move on.  You need to explain your claim, warrant, and impact when you extend, as well as explaining why your argument is still standing (if there have been attacks against it).
5. I'd prefer if you didn't try to go for all the arguments in the last speech (or, in Public Forum, the summary and final focus). Just pick the arguments that you think are most important on your side of the flow, and try to neutralize any offense against you. 
6. In my final decision, I'll look at two things: what arguments had been extended across the flow until the last speech, and how you have told me these arguments should be weighed.
7. On theory: I don't have a lot of experience judging theory.  I'm not going to drop you for running a K or theory shells or anything like that, but bear in mind your audience.  If you are going to run theory, make sure you make your argument extremely clear.

I've had more experience in BP debating than APDA but have my roots in Asian Parliamentary Debate. I prefer and appreciate constructive debate that lays out comparison between both arguments. I prioritize debate that works on building their own argument and showing how it beats out the other instead of criticizing the other team's points. I think speaking slowly and getting the audience to hear the key points is much more important than saying a lot of words. Not too fond of K's.