Overview: 

I vote on the flow and rarely intervene.

Background:

I have experience as a debater and a debate educator. I am debate with the UC Berkeley APDA team. I have taught Parli at the Stanford National Forensic Institute and I currently coach the Berkeley High School team. 

Basics:

I pretty much will always vote on the flow and generally just want to see a good, clean round. I care about organization. I think it is very important to warrant and impact arguments. I also think it is important for you to pay attention to the judging criteria/standard, it isn't there to look pretty. 

I try to as tablua rosa as possible. That said, if you are being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc there's a pretty good chance I will not vote for you. That also means that if your opponents say something racist/sexist/homophobic/etc and you call them out and remind me that the role of the ballot is to punish those things there is a very strong chance I'd side with you. 

Theory:

I don't love it but I will vote on it. I'm certainly no theory expert but I won't be confused if you say you have a T Shell or a K, etc. If you are running slimy theory I am less likely to be sympathetic to you, I care about debate and think there is a place for theory but that place is not when you just don't know what the topic is about. 

Speaking Preferences:

I can probably handle your speed but if I tell you to slow down and you don't it will be your fault if I miss your arguments. Also, do not spread out your opponents. It is unlikely that that would be reflected in my decision but it will be in speaker points. 

POI/POO/RVI:

Ask POIs but, as with all things, don't be an asshole. I will flow new arguments in the rebuttals until you call them out so do Point of Order. I am sympathetic to the RVI if it is done well.

I was a four year policy debater in high school, but that was more than 30 years ago. I aim to be tabula rasa. I appreciate clear explanations of arguments and how they interact with other arguments made by partners and opponents.

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

I am a parent judge, and have judged at several tournaments across 2+ years. Jargon and technical debate do not impress me, whereas plain talk does. I take notes throughout the round.

I decide based on who is most convincing and respectful of the art and sport.

Background

I debated parli for four years in high school for both Livermore High School and Mountain View/Los Altos. For two of these years I was active on the NorCal high school circuit. I am continuing debate with Santa Clara University. I am a Computer Science and Engineering student so please don't lie about tech.

Approach to judging

I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I am not going to do work for you or throw out arguments I do not like. Simply I am more likely to buy certain arguments and less likely to buy others.

I come to debate seeing some of the split in the community as a competitor. I believe that debate is both a game and an educational activity. Debate does not occur in a vacuum, and as public speakers or future policy makers, debaters have a responsibility to not use rhetoric upholding racist, sexist, etc ideologies. I will average speaker points based on the tournament average, but will save 30s for exceptional speeches.

Argument preferences

Counterplans: Counterplans are great, but the neg should explain how it competes coming out of the 1NC. Permutations are legitimate, but they are a test of the advocacy, if the aff advocates for the perm, I view that as severance. Kicking CPs is fine as are multiple CPs or advocacies, although I am open to the theory arguments against them as well.

Evaluation order/methods: Framework and arguments may change my evaluation order, but this is the default.. In a tie, I vote neg unless the neg has a CP or other advocacy flowed through at the end of the round, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, and default to net benefits for both..

Impacts: Have impacts and terminalize them. Don’t worry about getting to nuke war unless you have a good linkstory. Dehumanization is important, and discussion of systemic impacts is encouraged. I also like the environment and technology, so impacts based around that may earn you higher speaker points.

Kritiks: I am happy to listen to most kritiks, aff or neg. Kritiks requiring spreading your opponents out of the round are difficult for me to accept and I am more likely to vote on speed theory than many judges in the circuit. If your opponents call slow or clear, slow and/or clear, DO NOT just ignore it. If you are going run a K, make sure you clearly explain how it functions and the literature. I am not conversant at a high level in most literature, and even if I am, it will make the round clearer and more educational for everyone involved. Signpost your K and keep it clear and organized. Also be prepared to give your opponents a copy of the alt text if they ask. I tend to evaluate prefiat arguments first on framework, but I am willing to weigh discursive implications of the postfiat arguments/case against them. I do expect that those facing a K will put in good effort to engage with the K, even if they are looking for me to vote other places on the flow, so argue more than just framework or theory (unless you’re being spread out, in which case that is more acceptable). I am also more willing to weigh generic arguments against the K, but make sure to explain how they interact with this K in particular.

Also stealing something from Julie Herman in how I deal with K alts to encourage more variety and better Ks:

I am trying something new here. I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does.

Theory/Topicality: If you want me to vote for theory, you need to make sure to give it impacts/voters. If you want it to do something else in the round, explain how it should function in the round. I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but please don’t use theory just to beat a less technically skilled debater. Theory has a place both as a strategy and to maintain fairness, but don’t overuse it. I err towards voting to maintain fairness and education, and default to competing interpretations on theory. I will vote on RVIs but not commonly, so make sure you have good reasons for it (ie critical turns or clear times skew).

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I can follow any formatting, but I prefer advantage/disadvantage for policy rounds. I can follow best if you signpost and have a clear structure. Impact calculus and an overview in the final round make my job the easiest.

Tag-teaming: I am fine with tag-teaming, though I will only flow what the current speaker says. If it takes over, it may impact speaker points.

Questions: Points of information are good. Use them strategically to either get the opponents onto another topic or clarify the case or debate. Points of Order stop time, with the side calling the point of order gettting to make their case, then the side defending getting to respond. There shouldn’t be back and forth in this time. I will make a ruling and then time will start again.

Respectfulness: Be respectful! Rhetoric is important and I am very open to voting on issues about speech in round if one side is hostile/offensive towards an oppressed group. I will buy rhetoric turns and rhetoric can undermine your case. I will penalize speaker points for hostile or offensive speech acts regardless of your opponent's’ responses.

Speed: I can follow moderate speeds, but may penalize speaker points if your speed interferes with comprehension. Be respectful of your opponent. If they have a high level of difficulty following your speed and make an impacted argument about it in round, I am open to voting on it. You can decrease the chance of me doing this by slowing/clearing if they yell SLOW or CLEAR. If you repeatedly ignore these requests, I will punish your speaker points. I will call slow or clear if I cannot understand you, but will do this a maximum of 3 times, after that I will just put my pen down and stop flowing if you’re going too fast.

Other: I expect you to provide a written copy of a plan/CP/K thesis/K alt/Interpretation to the opponent if asked, you may want to write it out ahead of time. Any team should be able to call “text” during your speech and you should get them a copy by their speech, but preferably asap. Please read these parts or your speech twice and slow down a little if you are going at any sort of speed.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

Summary

I'm a coach that prefers case debate. I'm generally suspicious of all of your claims, so focus on a few arguments where the logic and empirical support all line up.

My Experience

A few years of high school LD and pofo. Five years coaching pofo and parli in the bay area. I’ve judged most styles of debate off and on for over ten years, occasionally at bigger tournaments. I have never been a college debater.

Judging Philosophy

I'm not a blank slate. I speak English and understand many of the shared concepts you need to navigate being an engaged citizen. I read the news and have a decent grip on history. Treat me as an educated adult. Also treat me as someone who has seen enough debate rounds to know that many debaters lie or twist the facts constantly. I will be skeptical of your links and your impacts every step of the way. Make the case for their likelihood. No blippy, jargony taglines where you expect me to fill in what it means. Usually a round comes down to two or three points with me, so quality over quantity should be your mantra. I'm also not an interventionist. I'm here to reward the best debater and won't make arguments on your opponents' behalf. But I have no problem saying that I don't buy an argument, so even when your opponent drops the argument you have to make the case for its likelihood and importance. I am perfectly fine (in fact I encourage) you to dismiss baseless assertions as just that and not spend too much time on them.

Parli-specific Preferences

Please respect the style. Try to make the exchange of ideas work. Parli is not set up for a good spread round; it’s too messy when it’s done. Running arguments in a way that makes it difficult to understand so you can win because your opponents are unable to respond is elitist and antithetical to an activity that should improve communication skills. And prep time is limited, which means a more narrow view of topicality than policy debate (the style) to keep it fair. In practically all cases I'd prefer you just debate the darn topic. No squirrelly definitions that leave no room for the other side.

POIs are meant to be taken in the middle of your speech (I think about 1-2 POIs per constructive is a good norm) and not “saved for the end if you have time.” Also, POO when necessary, but I also see it as my job as judge to keep track of which arguments are new and not vote on them.

Partner Assist

I don’t mind when partners add a quick point either verbally or with paper, but keep it to a minimum. Do not have your partner just repeat what you say for more than a sentence or two.

Counterplans/Perms

I like them both. Tell me if your perm is an advocacy or test. I'm probably more open-minded than most about what counts as a mutually exclusive CP.

Decorum

I like passion, humor, and a no-nonsense style. Thank me once at the end; not every speech. We don’t need to touch hands. Also, read the room: don’t aggressively crush your opponent into oblivion unless they’re willing to do so too. This should be a space for people not trying to verbally body slam each other (and a place where two willing parties can too). Overall, just be polite. This is supposed to be fun.

Kritiks

Philosophy is my lifeblood. I’ve studied it plenty and would rather you not ruin it with your Ks. I can imagine good Ks being run for the right topics, but I’ve definitely never seen them at the high school level. I find them exclusionary and unacademic. However, it’s your debate and if both sides are down to pretend they understand Nietzsche or Foucault or Marx, then fine. But you need to actually explain the theory in your own words and not just with a quick card. However, if talking philosophy actually connects to the topic (instead of avoiding it) then I’m all for it! Again, you need to be able to explain the concept in your own words. I'm also going to be very skeptical of any claim that voting one way or the other will have real world impacts.

Theory

I usually don't vote on theory when the case debate has a clear winner. Sometimes I'll let theory win the round if the case debate is very close. The exception to this is when there's an egregious ground skew, when how they're debating has made things really one-sided. But you need to explain to me the actual arguments or facts that your side should be able to make but can't now because of how they're debating. I think theory arguments can be a reverse voting issue if I hear explanation as to how they are their own kind of abuse.

Overused Words

I'm not sure I know what "dehumanization" or "educationality" really mean anymore. You had better explain it to me.

Tldr; I vote largely on the flow. Please impact to the criteria, CP kicking is fine, weigh in the rebuttals so I don't have to. I dislike theory, but will vote on it given a compelling reason.

Background

I've been involved with parliamentary debate for 10 years. I started by competing for Windsor High School under Coach Bryan St. Amant. After graduating I went on to work at the Stanford National Forensics Institute before coming to Berkeley, where I majored in Philosophy. I also debated for the Debate Society of Berkeley (APDA circuit), and was the Varsity Coach for Berkeley High School for 3 years.

Basics

What my background means is I know debate, and can listen to/flow just about anything you care to argue. I love debates with strong clash and great impacts (who doesn't?). If you give me arguments with strong link stories and believable impacts, which you weigh in the rebuttal, winning my ballot shouldn't be terribly hard. I'll do my best not to intervene, and I think most debates can have a winner without intervention. That being said, I will do intuitive weighing if neither team does it for me (this means you should absolutely do weighing in your rebuttals to make me not do this). Also something to note: if the round boils down to a factual dispute with no clear winner on the evidence presented, I may google it.

I don't take issue with round strategy, as long as you still uphold your side of the motion. Have a CP or don't, kick it or don't, I don't really care--just be clear about what you're arguing for.

Above all, make sure you tell me why things matter by the end of the round, utilizing the criteria and weighing against opposing impacts. The criteria isn't there for decoration, and I'm thoroughly convinced that the best high schools rounds are the ones where the debaters focus their argumentation on winning the criteria. The team that's convinced me they've won the criteria is the team that will most likely win the round.

Theory

I can most accurately be described as an "old school judge." I'm not a huge fan of theory, so run it at your own risk. Like I said earlier, however, I flow. So, if your opponents run theory and you don't respond successfully I will vote on theory despite my personal distaste for it. I have a functional understanding of how most theory works, but not an in-depth understanding of K literature or rarer theory. If you do wish to run theory, be clear and try not to spread too much. This means for a K, don't just say the name of some old dead philosopher and expect me to know what you're arguing--if you're going to talk about Foucault then explain his argument. If you run T, make sure you demonstrate the abuse. If you run a K or any more outlandish theory, you should and must warrant for me why it belongs in the round and in debate.

*Overt racism, sexism, ableism, xenophobia, queerphobia, or transphobia in rounds will result in a loss and a huge reduction in speaker points from me, whether or not your opponents run a full K on it. Do not do this. Ever.*

Speaking Preferences

Don't spread out your opposing team. Ever. Seriously. There's a format of debate where that kind of strategy is welcome, and it isn't this one. If your opponents call clear or ask you to slow down, do so. Also, be sure not to use excessive levels of jargon if your opponents clearly aren't keeping up. It muddles the round for no good reason. Finally, please don't heckle/tagteam. It's annoying and interrupts your partner's speech.

I highly appreciate clarity in the round. That means, wherever possible, you shouldn't be jumping around on the flow. Try to keep your responses linear and precise (don't repeat yourself over and over). If the round has unintuitive framework, take the time to explain it to avoid having a bad round. Roadmaps are great, but be sure you actually stick to them.

I place a relatively high level of value on eloquence. I believe debate is as much a rhetorical activity as it is a critical analysis/strategy-based one, so even though I'll vote for you on the flow, my speaker points are meant to reward clarity and style. Also, don't be a jerk please! You're all wonderful people and its beneath you to misbehave in round.

POIs/POOs/RVIs

Take POIs, especially if you're running theory. Try to take at least one, but no more than five/six--I want to listen to your content, not only your answers to questions. If there's a new argument in the rebuttal, it is the responsibility of the debaters to point it out. If a Point of Order is called (assuming it's valid) I won't consider the argument at all, and I will look to my own flow to check. Unlike many other judges on this circuit, I won't discount RVIs on face. I don't think its productive to exclude entire arguments when they utilize the same standards most theory runs on (education, fairness, etc.). That said, I don't have a particular preference for them either, so, like any other argument, give me a strong link, demonstrate abuse, and finish with a good impact.

Best of luck in your rounds--I look forward to some good debates!

My name is Riddhi Patel and I judge Parliamentary debates.

Judging Criteria:

I judge the round based on what is presented in the round ONLY (with the exception of basic knowledge). So, if you want me to consider and/or vote on a position, you should explain it. I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible so I can make an informed decision. One of my main goals as a judge is to allow teams to run the arguments they feel are most compelling in front of me. What matters to me is what the debaters bring and who argues their positions most persuasively.

Speaker Points:

Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect. I award the best speaker in the round (winner or loser) with the highest points. The best speaker is someone who demonstrates a strong understanding of the components within the round, how those components interact, and can express themselves in a clear and confident manner.

General:

1. I am looking for clear, direct, strong arguments with supporting evidence.

2. Don't overuse buzzwords

3. I am open to all kinds of arguments and frameworks

4. You can ask me questions before the start or at the end of the debate...but please remember, its not the end of the world if you lose a ballot.

I am a somewhat experienced lay judge. I have judged 35 rounds over 9 tournaments. I like everyone to introduce themselves the first time they speak. I like a mannered debate where everyone is treated with respect. Absolutely no Ks or spreading. I try to capture the key points in the comments section, so you can see how I perceive the debate. Good Luck!