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.

I prefer that students speak clearly and slowly.
I would rather have quality than quantity.
Make sure to impact out your argument and try to convince me that your case is stronger than that of your opponent.
Avoid using false evidence.
If at any time I become lost in one of the speeches, I will stop flowing. I encourage the students to speak in a way to keep the judge fully engaged.

I prefer moderate speed while speaking. I vote for speaking clearly and convincing arguments.

I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and explain your arguments thoroughly.

I am the father of a parli debater and have been judging parli for four years. I work as a software engineer, so if you're debating about cybersecurity, technology, or blockchain, make sure that you clearly understand the topic before you run an argument about it. I will be a lot less likely to buy an argument if I see that you clearly don't understand how it works.

Jargon

Despite judging parli for four years, I am not well versed in much of the terminology in debate. The words "Nonunique," "link turn," and "voter issues" have no meaning to me. Explain exactly what you mean without debate terminology or I will be unable to understand what you are saying.

Case Debate:

The links are your key to winning or losing an argument. Having evidence is key to winning the debate. Quotes, statistics, and scientific studies are all effective. However, understanding the logic behind arguments is important as well. You don't necessarily need to know or explain scientific principles to win a debate, but a basic understanding of the idea coupled with effective evidence will definitely help you win the debate.

I default to warranted high probability arguments. Do not argue about nuclear war unless the topic really calls for it. For example, nuclear war would be acceptable in a debate about North Korea, but it would not be effective in most Middle East debates. Magnitude doesn't matter that much to me if the links to reach that impact are tenuous at best

Double bind arguments are especially effective to me.

Counterplans:

I buy the perm to the counterplan. The plan and counterplan must be competitive, and if they're not the neg will lose. In order for the neg to win on the counterplan, it would either have to be mutually exclusive, or the perm would have to bite into the disads on the neg.

I will buy agent counterplans if the neg can prove significant disadvantages to the actor that the aff proposes. Fifty states counterplans are also effective.

Delay counterplans are effective if you bring up enough evidence as to why the plan should not be implemented now and would work much more efficiently later.

Plan inclusive counterplans are legitimate so long as you keep it simple and explain it well enough for me to understand them.

I don't buy consult counterplans.

I don't believe in conditionality or dispositionality. The neg is not allowed to kick arguments. If you kick an argument, I will treat it as a drop and you will lose.

Theory:

I don't understand theory arguments, so I am very unlikely to buy it. Rather than use the proper theory structure, it would be much more effective to just respond to the definitions without spending time to create an entire theory argument. I tend to believe that the context of a word is more important than the word itself, so when you are defining terms or arguing definitions, use lay terms to explain why your context makes more sense.

Kritiks:

Do not run kritiks. I have no idea what they are.

Speaker Points:

The way that you speak is sometimes just as important as what you say. Make sure you respect your opponents and respect me as a judge. Disrespect leads to some implicit (and even explicit) bias against you on my part. Never make fun of your opponents or judge.

Speak loudly, clearly, slowly, use pauses, and use emotion in your speech to get 30 points. Intentionally change the pace of your speech for emphasis. Use pauses liberally, and speak with emotion. Swaying, shuffling feet, and excessive use of filler words will get your speaker points docked. Chances are, if you use the same word more than 10 times in one minute, I will dock your speaker points. Passionate, emotional speeches can be extremely effective against me so long as it's not too over the top.

Good rebuttals should be slow, clear, and include a good overview. If you have a good overview, reasoning, and make clear weighing in the rebuttal, you'll probably win.

Do not spread against me because I will be unable to understand you. You will also get 0 speaker points if you spread.