I was a successful policy debater in high school, many years ago. I've been judging parli rounds for the last 2.5 years. I can flow your round and assess your argumentation, but I won't be up on the latest debate jargon. You'll need to explain the arguments you make and not assume that a quick label or phrase can make an argument for you. I can flow and follow a fast spread debate, but my preference is for speaking that is not faster than normal speech.

I will judge based on the content of the round, and in principal I'm open to any argument you want to make. I enjoy creative arguments, but I'm skeptical of theory that allows either side to ignore the topic or avoid clash. I expect rebuttal speakers to focus on the critical issues, sum up the debate with intelligence, and explain why they've won and how to make a decision.

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.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Please talk slowly (no spreading) and make clear points. 

I competed in policy debate in high school, and am now a debate parent.  I've been away from debate for a couple of decades, so please avoid speed and jargon, and any theory will have to be explained simply and clearly.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 11/10/2017

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in parli and the other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (high school parli has fewer Ks), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are important. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec,

Policy prep: I’m fine with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

I competed for 4 years in LD debate during high school at both a lay and circuit level, but predominantly in lay debate. I also competed in 2 years of collegiate NPDA parli, predominantly at a circuit level. I generally prefer a lay style of debate but can accommodate circuit type arguments and some speed. I am generally not fluent in many critical positions, though I understand how kritik structures work. You are welcome to run them but clarity is important as I won't necessarily understand the author's arguments unless well-explained.

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations. 

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2.  Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:


1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

 Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations. 

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

I am a parent judge with some judging experience.  I will be flowing so please don’t misinterpret my not looking at you as lack of attention.  I put aside any personal opinions on resolutions and will be persuaded by your cogent, articulate arguments. 

 

I will entertain Kritiks but will place a strong weight on their effective rebuttal. I place value on the educational merit of the issue in the resolution.

 

Please speak clearly and no spreading.  If I can’t capture your arguments in the flow, then I can’t weigh it for judging purposes.

 

Assistant coach for a parli-dominant team. I don't like kritiks nor spreading, and would prefer you stick to the topic with fairly straightforward definitions. Given that it's parli, with limited time for prep, squirrelly definitions are unfair. 

I'm particularly inclined to neg positions that provide better solvency or address deeper harms that the aff overlooks. 
  While both are needed, I'll take empirics over interesting logic. Make all the links clear.   I vote on the magnitude of impacts. Make them as measurable as possible. The more numbers the better.    Take POIs. Humor is appreciated. 

Balagopal, Brinda

 

Here’s my philosophy on judging LD:

1.     Signpost: Being a novice, it would be easier if you could please signpost your contentions, refutations and conclusions.

2.     Speed: While speed is important, I prefer clear diction ~ so please don’t rush, “swallow” your words or sentences and finish your sentences.

3.     Framework: While a framework is important, a values debate isn’t just about a framework. It needs supporting contentions and evidence.

4.     Contentions: Please present a fully formed argument, with an assertion supported by a warrant. I would prefer if you didn’t support your contentions with quotes only. Please use evidence, or analogies or even logical reasoning to justify your stance.

5.     Cross X:

a.     Be courteous to your opponent ~ while I enjoy a good clash, rudeness, name calling or yelling isn’t going to gain you any points. In fact it may lose you points.

b.     Be circumspect on how you choose to extend any important points from Cross X in your speeches.

6.     Criterion/Standards: If you are using esoteric criterion or standards, I would appreciate it if you could take a couple of seconds to explain it and reference this through your contentions. I am looking for the link between your contentions and your criteria.

7.     Finally, remember that you need to persuade me and that’s not the same as going after your opponent J

8.     Have FUN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR be clear and logical

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

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

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.

Experience Debating:

• High School Parli Debate in NorCal (2010-2014)
• NPTE/NPDA (2014-2017)

Experience Judging & Coaching:

• 5 years of judging and coaching high school Parli Debate
• 2 years of judging NPTE/NPDA/NFA-LD

Critical AFF

• I have voted on Critical AFFs before but it's pretty rare
• If you do not clearly link into the case to show you are being topical, it becomes very difficult for me to vote for you

K

• If you just state your role of the ballot and do not give me a reason to prefer, there is high probability I will not use your role of the ballot
• If your ALT is very abstract, please tell me what it means in the real world or how it functions

Perms

· I don’t like to vote for the AFF because on perms. I feel like I am weaseling out of a real decision by voting on the perm when the debate is very competitive

· It comes down to who really owns it. If you are a good NEG and preemptively make your plan is mutually exclusive, you should be fine

· If you’re going to run “perm, do the plan and CP excluding for the mutually exclusive parts”, please tell me what the mutually exclusive parts are

Spreading

• I will not guarantee I will get everything on the flow. Depending on how fast and how well you enunciate I will miss 10%-20% of what you say on my flow

Misc.

• I appreciate strong link stories that are probable. If you give me vague link story with strong magnitude that’s cool but I have an internal bias that values probability over magnitude. Not saying you can't persuade me in round to value magnitude over probability, but if no one says anything my internal bias will be the default setting

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy of Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parli specifics:

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

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

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

Public Forum specifics:

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

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

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Avoid technical arguments, jargon, and spreading. I’ve been judging debates for around 5 years now so I have some familiarity with how Parli works. Call the point of order just in case. I’ll flow your round so try your best to keep the flow clean.

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.

I have a few years of judging debate, mostly congress however. I am most familiar with Congress and Parlimentary debate, and have no experience in CX,PF, or LD. I am unfamiliar with theory arguments, kritiks, and other non-traditional debating, so either explain it extremely well or don’t run them at all. I do not understanding spreading so I will lower your speaker points if it is unclear to me. I consider myself as a half-flow judge and more lay than flow. I will try to get down your arguments and taglines but I can’t always write down everything you say such as all evidence and impacts/warrants. Make sure to explain clearly the warrant link chains and the impacts. I enjoy someone that speaks well and clearly which helps me try to make the best descision.

Hey I'm Ming. I'm a freshman debater for UC Santa Barbara and former debater for Campolindo High. If you care about my high school cred look me up here. On the college NPDA/NPTE circuit I've broken fairly far at all the tournaments I've attended and am fresh back from nationals to judge TOC, so clearly I'm sort of a debate junkie. Paradigm wise, TL;DR: I view debate as a game where debaters can read anything and I will evaluate arguments purely on the flow and try my best to minimize intervention. That means feel free to read your Kritikal Affs, multiple conditional advocacies, truth-testing positions, straight case, etc. as long as you win the justification. I understand prep is limited and you may not always have time to sift through a paradigm, so if you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask.

Speaker Points:

Unfortunately I am not a points fairy so if you're after that shiny, faux-gold speaker award I'm not the judge for you (Good Anakin, good. Strike him. Strike him now.). I generally give points between 26-29, where 27 is average and 29 is exceptional. I assign speaker points purely based off the technical debating ability demonstrated in round. Pathos is something that I value very little except in the context of performative arguments.

Theory:

Absent comparison this is broadly speaking the first level I look towards in evaluation. If the team defending against theory is lacking a counter interpretation and has lost the competing interpretations vs reasonability debate, then it is a near auto-lose for them. If a theory position lacks "drop the team" in the original shell I am inclined to buy "drop the debater" arguments as sufficient reason to not evaluate theory. On the question of potential vs articulated abuse, I am happy to vote on reasons why interpretations setting a potentially bad norm for debate is sufficient to pull the trigger. The implication for this is that "trivial" T does not necessarily have a higher threshold for evaluation and is an argument I am comfortable voting on if it's won. MG theory is also a perfectly fine strategy in front of me, although I'm very slightly more favorable to infinite regression arguments on metatheory debates. RVIs are fine as well, but I default to not evaluating a shell if it is won, not voting the team reading it down for losing it. I am also very open to uniqueness take out on debate collapse voters.

The Framework debate is my favorite and the kind of argumentation I am most comfortable evaluating. In my experience the most convincing framework standards are TVA, Switch-Side, and Truisms, but that doesn't mean simply uttering the words will win you the round. The most interesting points of clash in such debates are on the relevance of procedural fairness in the round and the role of the negative in debate. Another question to consider is whether only this round is relevant or whether each round is a deliberation of what the model of debate should be. One thing for 2ACs is that there is often a massive block of prepped defense and mitigation ya'll love to dump, which is perfectly fine, but I find cross-apps of case more convincing.

Kritik:

I'm fine with any kind of kritikal debate. Some of the most exciting rounds to watch are K on K debates with lots of thesis level clash e.g. Literally Anything vs Cap 🤔. I have a broad understanding of most post-modern and post-structuralist literature, including DnG, Lacan, Foucault/Agamben, Heidegger, Derrida, Baudrillard. However I am only human so please don't spread through densely cut cards from the Anti-Oedipus at warp speed and slow down a bit on thesis level claims. As a competitor I also read a lot of Asian-American sociological literature, and am familiar with such arguments as Model Minority, Conscientization, Asian Rage, etc. I also have a fairly comprehensive (although in no way definite) understanding of Wilderson. However my favorite philosophy of all has to be Buddhism, be it Mahayana, Theravada, Huayan, Sogen, Zen, Chan, etc. Daoism is also fascinating to me and is an area I am well-versed in.

If you're reading a K in front of me just make sure it has FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt Solvency. There's no flex time at TOC so I'll grant some leniency in terms of passing sheets for FW interps and Alt texts. Obviously Aff/Topic-Specific links are preferred but not necessary. FW should generally have a role of the critic/judge/ballot/debate argument with reasons to prefer. PIK alts are acceptable strategies, and I'm fine with the hidden reveal in the MO that the "Alt was a PIK all along!"

Case:

Nothing wrong with a good Politics DA. I wasn't the most prolific debater on case, usually reading DAs as a throwaway to something else, but I still expect ADs/DAs to have terminalized impacts and clear link stories. One thing debaters in HS tend to do is A. Not read impact framing B. Only compare the magnitude of the impacts. Weighing strength of link is something that will make my decision a lot easier. I believe terminal defense exists. If both teams are winning terminal defense then presumption flows negative. If the negative reads a non-PIC advocacy and both teams have terminal defense then presumption flows affirmative. Additionally, the uniqueness debate is one frustratingly undercovered with few teams comparing the quality of their evidence. As for types of arguments, I am fine with any kind of counterplan or case position.

Truth-Testing:

I understand truth-testing isn't the norm in Parli (and it hasn't been the norm for circuit LD/CX for a long time) but that shouldn't discourage you from reading the argument. I am perfectly fine abandoning an offense-defense paradigm in favor of truth-testing. Moral Skep, Trivialism, Rule-Following Paradox, Münchhausen trilemma, etc. are all acceptable positions for both teams.

Miscellaneous:

Sometimes I may frown while I flow. I promise I'm not mad at you, it's just my natural thinking face and sort of a tic. I'd rather not shake hands, although I've found that if you happen to extend your hand towards me I react out of instinct. Just know that I'm crying slightly inside because I don't have the best immune system in the world and medicine is expensive dawg.

No kritik. Don't spread and speak clearly.

Background

- Parli for 4 years (Evergreen Valley '17)

Case

- I will default to evaluating a debate on net benefits and through a comparative worlds paradigm

- Please tagline your arguments, and it would be even better if you signposted between each part of ULI

- Weigh your arguments. I don't have a clear preference between probability and magnitude, so just warrant out why I should prefer one over the other

Theory

- I will default to Competing Interps over Reasonability, but I'm open to hearing arguments why reasonability is better

- Frivolous theory will win you a round, but will cost you in speaks

- Please repeat your interp twice

- I prefer to vote on proven abuse, but I'm open to hearing arguments about potential abuse (ie: potential abuse of conditionality)

- I am open to hearing RVIs, especially if you feel theory was read as a time suck. However, please justify why theory should be an RVI and tagline your RVI as one

Kritiks

- You can read them on either side, just clearly explain your advocacy if you're reading a kritikal affirmative

- Pretty much only comfortable with capitalism kritiks so if you are going to read something else please explain your thesis clearly

- Please read specific links.

- Explain why voting for the alternative is specifically key in this instance

Speaks

- Speaks will reflect efficient use of time, clarity of argumentation, and strategic decision making. If you're explaining the same argument 4 times or not making good use of the block by simply repeating the 2NC, I will dock speaks

- If anyone in the room needs to tell you to clear (enunciate arguments) or slow (slow down your arguments) multiple times, I will dock your speaks

- Don't say racist/sexist/generally problematic things unless you want me to tank your speaks

- Please do not call any human being 'illegal' (part of above)

Miscellaneous

- No hand shakes are necessary, if you really feel the need to thank me a fistbump will suffice

- Off time roadmaps are encouraged for getting arguments in order, but please do not include content in them

- I think teams should take 1-2 POIs per constructive speech. If you say, "I'll get to you at the end if I have more time" and haven't taken a question yet, I am fine with allowing that question to be taken after the speech is up.

Fact Checks

- I don’t fact check evidence unless there’s a heavily contested piece of evidence or argument that a whole contention (or maybe the entire round) boils down to.

- I will also fact check upon request.

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.

As someone relatively new to the judging scene, my preferences are not complex and they are very easy to meet. I dislike an excessive display of debate mechanics - spreading, theory, and using obscure jargon, for example. I want to be able to understand the round! On the other hand, if you can establish arguments that are clear, concise and rooted in the real world, and you can convince me that your arguments' impacts are more important than your opponents', then you will most likely win the round. In the end, though, the best way to win my vote will be to try your best, using reasoning and logic to build up your points and attack your opponents' points.

I have been judging various lay parli tournaments for 4 years. I prefer arguments with clear links and terminalized impacts. Do impact calculus on magnitude, time frame, probability, scope, reversibility, etc. Have clear voter issues that show clearly why your side is winning. Speak at a reasonable pace, I will not be able to follow extreme speed. Perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy.

I will award speaker points as follows: below 27 is reserved for rudeness, 30 means I believe you have what it takes to win the tournament. I will start with a default 28.5 and make my way up or down.

Preamble:

Recent name change: all my paperwork still says America. My name is Junpei (pronounced JOON-pay)

Are you an LGBTQ+ debater or speaker? If you struggling in this activity, in school, or anywhere, I work for the San Mateo County Pride Center. Email me and I'm happy to support. (junpei@acs-teens.org)

Also, I don't have any flow paper, or flow pens. Yeah. I'm that judge now. Providing me with proper flow paper (legal sized thx) won't win my ballot, but it will win my heart.

~actual paradigm~

1. Do not use slurs in front of me. I will tank your speaks and quite likely find a reason to vote you down, particularly if your opponent critically turns your language. Run bigoted arguments and take the L. :) I'm not going to reward racism, ableism, sexism, queer-antagonism, etc.

2. Other than that, I am a flow judge. I like line by line argumentation. Clear signposting is always a benefit. I don't claim tabula rasa, because that probably isn't real because bias and intervention is likely inevitable in human communication. I'll do my best not to do work for either team, and am open to talking it out with teams post round to help keep me honest for future rounds.

3. I dislike but am not opposed to speed. I am open to speed theory.

4. If you are going to run a K, make sure you understand your own framework and your own lit base. K affs are NOT cheating.

5. Speaker points are awarded not on how "pretty" you talk, but rather on the technical accuracy of your debate. I do not care if you sit or stand, how you are dressed, etc. and it will not impact the debate in any way. Just don't be a jerk.

6. Impact calculus is key! Tell me why your impacts matter more, tell me why I should care about timeframe over magnitude. Tell me why probability does or does not factor in. Why do proximal impacts matter more?

7. IN PARLI, DO NOT TRUST ME TO PROTECT IN REBUTTALS. I'll do my best to catch it, especially in evidence based debate wherein I have access to cards. But in parli, call those points of order if necessary.

8. I will only use my own outside world knowledge if asked to evaluate two competing facts in the round. If everyone in the debate agrees that Japan is a country in Africa, I'll go with it. But if one team says Japan is a Pacific island nation near Asia, I'll be inclined to go with that knowledge.

9. I am fine with partner communication. You don't need to secretively whisper what you're feeding your partner. I will only flow the speaker, and not partner comments.

10. Since I keep getting asked; I do not default to competing interps or reasonability. Literally everything requires some amount of judge intervention. Tell me WHY I should prefer one over the other.