Experience: 3 years of PF, qualled to TOC junior year.

This is my PF paradigm, other event paradigms will be given in round.

Technicalities:

Have your flow set up before you walk in.

I can keep up pretty well with speed, but if you are going too fast don't expect me to extend things in FF if I never wrote it down in your constructive. I'll stop typing if you're going too fast.

I'll try to keep track of prep, but you should be doing so as well. Keep track of your opponents prep as well please.

For framework, don't just tell me your framework, you need to justify why your framework is what I should be using. If nobody provides a framework, I'm gonna weigh off util which probably is gonna kick most economy impacts UNLESS you terminlize them (ex. a 2% GDP growth won't mean anything to me if you don't tell me what that does). So do with this information what you will.

I'm generous with speaker points, and don't be afraid to get fiesty. I encourage clash and wit, just don't be a jerk. Sarcasm probably gets a bonus point if done correctly.

Please don't ask to sit or stand. Stand in your speeches (unless you can't then that's fine) and stand for first two crosses.

General notes on how I'll be voting:

I guarantee that I will try my best to leave any preferences at the door. I am going to vote off of what you tell me. I will vote off the flow, and what arguments I believe have been warranted, weighed, and extended throughout the round.

If your opponent reads a silly argument which you don't think is worth your time to respond to and they extend it, that's a dropped argument on your side regardless of how bad the argument is.

I took this from Mission's paradigm, but it speaks a lot of truth.

If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

I'm not going to require the second rebuttal to do offense, but if you choose not to I better see a bunch of front lining in summary.

I'm only going to accept new defense in FF from the first speaking team as they had the disadvantage of going before the second's summary. That being said, absolutely no new arguments or new evidence in the second summary as I believe that's completely abusive to the first speaking team.

I don't flow cross, but I will weigh your attitude in cross into your speaker points.

I'll evaluate Ks, so don't just tell me they're not allowed as a response. My experience with Ks is just to have a little bit of fun with it. Logically walk me through the flaws of their K, and you'll be fine. If you are running the K, please make sure I understand it. I'm gonna try my best to do so, but it is your job to make sure I understand it.

I am a firm believer in the fact that impacts are probability x magnitude. Show me both before you tell me to weigh it more than anything else.

Finally, weigh, weigh, weigh. I don't care how many arguments you win if your opponent clearly shows me one argument that outweighs everything you're telling me to vote off of, you've lost the round.

After the round, I will disclose if both team's want me to.

Also from Missions Paradigm:

I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your shit.

Plus my own, I'll call for the card if I think it may be fake or miscut.

I will flat out drop you though if your are rude, racist, anti-Semitic, or any other form of discrimination. This is up to my discretion.

Overall, just be nice and have a good time.

I applaud you guys for putting in the prep for this topic.

Please do not hesitate to ask me any questions before the round begins.:)

My feeling about debate is that it should be fun and inclusive. I like narratives. Tell me a story, explain your position and give me a decent link scenario so I understand HOW you garner your impacts.

I am not a Tabula Rasa judge. I don't think any human is. I believe claiming to be so is simply a defense against accusations of judge intervention. I have biases toward which arguments I will prefer because I am a human with lived experiences that affect how I see the world. I absolutely vote on the flow, but how much weight I give to various arguments differs based on my experiences.

I'm open to philosophical arguments, but I believe people interpret different philosophical concepts differently, and so it is on you to explain what that term (example: Ceding the Political) means TO YOU. If you do not (especially in rounds where terms are 'contextually defined'), and the other team misinterprets your meaning, I'm probably going to go with their 'misinterpretation' because you are not just explaining your arguments to me, you are also explaining them to the other team so that they may participate in the debate.

I hate abusive argumentation. If you feel the other team is being abusive but cannot put your finger on how or why, I believe that is the proper time to run a "potential abuse" argument, and if I feel they were abusive, I will happily vote on it.

I'm not a fan of speed, but as long as I am able to flow your arguments, I'm not going to vote against you on it, unless the other team makes it a voting issue and wins that argument.

I am happy to vote on Theory. I can vote on Ks, but I also think most Ks could simply be run as a Non-linear Disadvantages. If I feel that is the case with a specific Kritik, then it will be harder for me to vote on it, as I believe purposely making arguments convoluted and difficult to follow is a form of abuse. I also believe if you run a performative Kritik, that I as a judge have to believe your performance in order to vote on it. I'm open to Aff Kritiks if the resolution is repugnant.

I love new forms of argumentation, I just think it's your responsibility to ensure you are not being abusive by doing so. 

As for Speaker Points, if you use discriminatory language or arguments (sexist, misogynist, ableist, racist, etc) that will be a big hit against your points. Please avoid discriminatory language.

Speed: Even though I seem like I’m on it, I’m not a huge fan of debaters sounding like auctioneers. You’ll know you’re going too fast when I put my pen down and stop flowing. From that point on, it’s kinda your fault if I miss any arguments. 

Ads/ Disads: Signpost your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact; do not use contention format. It’s a lot easier for me to evaluate when the proper structure is used. You really need to give me reasons to prefer your impacts over the other team’s impacts. 

Impact Calculus: 

1. Magnitude
2. Probability
3. Timeframe

In that order. 

Kritiks: High school K’s really aren’t that great. They’re typically vague and don’t give me a great reason to vote on them. Only run a K if you know it’s the shit. It’s gotta be creative, unique, and something that really makes me think. If you run cap or biopower or something you’re probably gonna lose right there.

Speaks: Everyone gets a 29, the team that makes me laugh gets 30’s. Most teams get 29’s. Most people aren’t fully :(.

I hate: 

1. When a team pretends to believe in their advocacy. Who are you kidding lol.
2. When a speaker doesn’t take any questions.
3. Thanking before speeches. 
4. Starting with a quote. 
5. Taking yourself too seriously.
6. Trying to deliver me an IE type speech. These people are a special type of monster. I will give them 20’s. I prefer a casual delivery. 

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. 

I was once a policy debater so there is a reasonable chance that I will keep up on my flow. If I don't, that means there is a good chance you are talking like a policy debater yourself (or like an auctioneer, and I won't feel so bad if I miss something).

I will go where you take me. I will rely on your arguments rather than my own domain knowledge.

I do appreciate when debaters spell it out for me, not just why you should win the argument but how that argument should contribute to the decision. I look for clear links and impacts for the pivotal arguments. I understand that jargon is useful shorthand, but I will understand you better if the jargon does not become excessive.

I will tolerate kritiks but set a high bar for arguments that do not attempt to relate to the resolution, or that could be used regardless of the topic at hand (i.e. meta-arguments like that debate is pointless because we live in a flawed society). I appreciate clash delivered with a level of sportsmanship and manners.

Hello my name is Micaela Bensko (she/her)!

This is my first time judging in a few years and still fairly new, so please try to refrain from using jargon. I know how hard you all have worked to be here, and truly look forward to being a part of this experience.

Have a great round!

Debaters,

No speed and no K's please.

I like clear, concise arguments and no jargon.

I'm a parent judge with 3 years experience.

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.

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

I'm a college student. I did Parli, LD, PF, and Congress for four years-- I understand how it works and I was pretty good at it. Now things you may need to know:

Speed:

I'll be able to understand you if you spread, but I'll be upset about it. It's not a skill that will help you in the real world. I can only write so quickly, so if you talk faster than I can write, that's on you.

K's/Theory/All that Jazz:

I get it. It can be fun. Hypothetically, it's a pretty cool tool to help develop the debate and its competition. In practice, it's almost always people that don't like the topic trying to avoid debating it. If you have a legitimate reason to run it, I'm not going to dock you for trying, but if there's any inkling in my mind that you're using a pre-written K or doing it to get the upper hand, I won't be happy and it will likely impact my decision. Debate the topic.

Impacts:

Impacts matter in real life, they matter in the debate, and they matter to me. Have them and make sure you link into them.

Plans:

I don't have much to say about this. Do what you want, make it make sense.

Voters:

I appreciate a World Comparison or listing of Voter Issues in your respective last speeches. Again, impacts matter.

Evidence:

Evidence rules are weird in Parli. Most of you reading this don't know them (don't pretend you read the CHSSA rules*, no one reads those). I don't care if you lie. I'm not going to look up a piece of evidence you give me unless the debate inexplicably comes down to two conflicting pieces of evidence. I'm not encouraging you to lie--if I know you're lying, it may impact my decision. If you're called out for lying, I'm not going to support you. If you can get away with it, more power to you. I care a lot more about logical reasoning and historical examples than I do statistics (stats are unreliable and easily misread).

Roadmaps:

I like roadmaps. I like off-time roadmaps. Make them less than 10 seconds.

General:

Have fun! Y'all spend a lot of time on debate and you should enjoy it, you don't want to look back on these days as just a bunch of work and frustrating wins/losses. That doesn't mean to make it a joke. You can and should ask me any questions you want about my judging before the round--I'll repeat most of this anyways. Also, idk if I'm allowed to disclose after round so I will default to not doing it, but if you want feedback from me after round feel free to ask and I'll tell you what I can without disclosing. Good luck!

*In case you feel like reading them: http://www.chssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Article.XI_.CHSSABylawsConstitution2017-11.pdf

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.

I am a traditional judge. I have judged extensively at high school league Speech and Debate tournaments and States. I value speaks and argumentation in round.

Please do not spread. If I don’t understand your arguments, I will not vote off of them. I appreciate clash in rounds. Directly engage in your opponent’s arguments.

I will vote off of Ks and Theory provided you explain them very very well. I will not vote off of tricks.

I believe that speech and debate is an educational experience. That being said, be respectful to your opponent.

Have fun and enjoy!

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

I'm a parent judge with four years of experience. I keep track of flow and will buy dropped arguments. Neg, make sure you explain why the aff plan causes more harm than good, not just why it won't work. If your main argument is solvency I will probably vote aff if they make it clear there is a problem in the status quo. CPs are great just make sure they are mutually exclusive. I will always vote lives over econ, so if your main argument is econ make sure you terminalize impacts.

For an email chain, my email is tgilbert@alumni.stanford.edu

Background:

University of Iowa MD '26
Stanford University BS '21
Valley HS '17
Conflicts: Valley HS

I debated LD for 5 years and coached for 2 years at West Des Moines Valley High School. During my time as a debater, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior years and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years. I cleared at the TOC and got ninth at Nationals during my senior year. I've also worked at NSD, TDC, and VBI as an instructor.

Overview:

I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.

It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.

UPDATE: I guess I will also add here that I've decided I will no longer intervene against any theory (yes, this does mean I will vote on disclosure theory, an update from my initial paradigm)— this is not to say I'd like to hear either disclosure theory or brackets theory though, and you'll be quite displeased by the speaks you receive if you go for disclosure or brackets bad and didn't contextualize the abuse story to what specifically happened in the context of the debate round.

Theory:

I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to what's assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.

If no one seems to take a stance on any issue, here are my defaults:
1) I default to fairness and education are voters.
2) I default to drop the argument.
3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate.
5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory.
6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.

Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.

A few more things you should be cognizant of:

1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend slowing down. Also, for very technical debates it is best to signpost clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments.
2) While I read mostly framework-heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round.
3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your Kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments).
4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well.
5) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.

Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Laura Harvey, Jesuit High School

Background: Four year Policy debater in high school, four year Parli debater in college, 20 years coaching debate and IEs. Ten years as head coach at Jesuit High School in Carmichael, CA. I've judged final Policy, Parli, LD and PF rounds at invitationals and national tournaments.

PARLI PARADIGM:

With a policy topic, I am largely a policy maker with stock issue leanings. I want the arguments to be topical, the reason for the plan to be clear (significancy), whatever is keeping the status quo from working to be resolved (inherency), the plan to actually solve the problem (solvency), and for advantages to outweigh disadvantages. In essence, consider me a member of Congress hearing arguments for a plan of action. In my eyes, all debates start from the same basic place: there is a problem. It's a big problem. The status quo is not addressing the problem. This is how we fix it.

Topicality: Both teams need to define and adhere to an interpretation that (1) remains true to the basic intent of the resolution--if the topic is about conserving the oceans, I don't want to hear about space aliens, and (2) gives both sides grounds to debate. I will vote on topicality violations, but only if the given definitions leave the opposing team little room to debate, and/or clearly do not remain true to the perceived intent of the resolution. If you choose to run a topicality resolution, argue why it's a violation (e.g. it skews ground), and present a more fair alternative.

K Arguments: I'm not a fan. They're rarely run well. I've voted for them, but they MUST be specific to the debate at hand. ONLY use K if the resolution, plan, or CP presumes a blatantly abhorant ideology; otherwise, Ks usually come across as elitist arguments designed to confuse and exclude, which doesn't make for a good debate. Run K if you must, but don't rely on it.

CP: I love CPs.

PERMS: I'm not a fan unless they're properly done. Usually, they waste the opposing team's prep time and first 1NC. That said, the NEG should have made their CP mutually exclusive before running it, having heard the 1AC.

PICs: I really don't like plan-inclusive-counterplans. If AFF argues strategy skew, I'm going to be symathetic.

SPEED: In Parli, DON'T. Seriously. This isn't primarily an evidence based debate. I don't need 18 cards piled up under one argument to vote for you, which was the driving motive behind spreading in the first place. If you wouldn't use this speaking style anywhere except in a high-level debate round, it's likely to annoy me. As an educator, I'm looking for ways that you'll use this experience in the wider world. Spreading would not help you convince a jury in closing arguments or brief your member of Congress before a vote. I understand it's common; that doesn't mean I'm going to perpetuate it. If I have to call "clear," I will take a baseball bat to your speaker points.

Flow: I will flow, cross-apply, and extend arguments. I allow off-time road-maps. Use them well.

Impacts: Please, don't forget these. Tell me why things ultimately matter. (That said, there are a few impacts you will have great difficulty running convincingly, like nuclear war and extinction. I've heard these for twenty years. I just don't buy it.)

Warrants: Don't forget these, either. Seriously. Don't.

NON-POLICY TOPICS: Most of the above applies, but in particular:

Value topics: Make sure your value criterion upholds your value. I will vote for the team that convinces me that their value should take precedence, and upholds it best.

Tag-teaming and Feeding: I'm not a fan outside of Public Forum.

New arguments: I don't protect the flow in varsity rounds (I do in JV rounds). Also, I will be sympathetic to AFF responses to brand new arguments made in the 2NC.

Parent Judge. No speed or Ks. I appreciate a clear round with plausible impacts. 

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 am a student at Stanford with significant experience as both a debater and as a coach. The best advice I can give you is to be as RIDICULOUSLY EXPLICIT as to why you are winning the round as possible. This clarity includes clarity with regard to exactly where you are on the flow, clarity with regard to the exact nature of the arguments you are making, and clarity with regard to the exact interaction between arguments. While I am a technical/flow judge, you should not assume that I will fully comprehend and be convinced by everything you say. The vast majority of debaters lose rounds not because they could not conceive of how to win, and not because they didn't have the capacity to win, but because they were not as ridiculously explicit as possible in their arguments.

In general, I would suggest that you spend less time than you normally would making arguments in the later speeches, and more time than you normally would doing analysis regarding the different arguments in the round. If you do lots of good analysis--which includes weighing--you will probably win the round.

My comments above take care of most things I would otherwise discuss in my paradigm. I am fine with virtually any argument and don't have particularly strong preferences, as long as they are structured coherently and are compelling.

Parli: a few specifics:

Speed: I am fine with speed, but I find that it's often not done very well in parli. Make sure regardless you are as extremely clear as possible.

Kritiks: Totally fine, but it's extremely easy for a lot of K's to very quickly get very confusing and not very clear. If you do go this route, be as ridiculously explicit as possible. Also, provide some sort of interpretive framework so that I can evaluate the kritik in the context of the rest of the arguments in the round. Also, make your links clear--debaters often go on about the impacts of a k without deeply connecting it to the rest of the round. And don't assume I am familiar with your argument.

Theory: Totally fine, but once again its extremely easy for theory to very quickly get very confusing and not very clear. Make sure your interp and your entire shell is as explicitly clear as possible. Also, make the argument compelling--while I am a flow judge, there is not a high chance I will vote for you off theory if you don't substantively flesh it out. I am not a big fan of frivolous theory, or theory that is run just because the other team is less technically adept.

I won't do K vs theory weighing for you.

I am a fairly new parent judge, but I far prefer logical arguments over emotional appeals. Do not spread or use debate theory; not only are they hard to follow, they will lose you credibility and speaker points. It is your responsibility to ensure I am following your arguments. Please tagline and signpost clearly.

If one team brings up blatantly false information, it is the responsibility of the other team to contest it. If they do not, I will count the information as true (even when I know it is not). However, if the team bringing up false information is called out, that team will lose speaker points. This does not make me tabula rasa; I will not ignore whatever expert knowledge I have on a topic.

Just because I am new to debate does not make me naive. If I believe you are being condescending or manipulative, that will cost you severely. Respect is due both to your opponent and to me.

I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

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

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.

I believe in good old fashioned case debate, but if you don't want to do that that's okay as well, but make sure that you are clear. I like listening to link chains with lots of warrants and analysis. If you run topicality then please no more than 2 minutes on it. If you run a kritik prepare to lose because I probably won't get it. Please be nice, respectful to other participant and make sure you have fun because that's whats important. Learn from each other more than competing with each other.

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

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

Hello! I am a college freshman. I have never judged/done debate before. Speak clearly and tell me exactly how to vote. Let me know if you have any questions before the round.

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.

I competed in Speech and Debate for four years. Most of my experience is in Parliamentary debate, but I have competed in Policy as well.

I can handle speed, but am not a fan of spreading as a tactic. To me, trying to win simply because your opponent cannot address all of your points means that you do not think that your arguments could hold up if they were actually debated, so proceed with caution.

Impacts are very important to me. If you do not tell me why I should care about a point, then I will assume that it is not particularly important. If you impact out your contentions, then you will capture my interest more, meaning you will have a better chance at convincing me.

I am okay with K's, but they need to be well explained and well reasoned. If I feel that you are running a K to avoid the real argument, then I will likely vote you down. 

Be careful with topicality arguments. I understand that they are often necessary, but if they are not needed to improve debate, I will be a very unhappy judge, which we all know is not good for anyone. If you use them, you must prove that your definitions will improve fairness or education of debate. If you do not sufficiently prove this, I will disregard your definitions.

I like contention level arguments. If none of these are made, you have very little chance of winning my vote.

I try to disregard my own biases and knowledge when judging, so if you feel that something your opponent said was factually incorrect, call them out on it or I will regard it as true for the round (and correct them later).

Basically, I want you to have an educated debate about the topic (which I hope everybody wants to have). If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

I'm a parent judge.  I expect clear logical arguments presented in a precise, courteous manner.  I do not appreciate the spreading, as it takes away from the actual debating.  Be passionate in your presentation, but do not let your emotions substitute the arguments, evidence and logic.  For the same reason, please, limit the case kritik.  The tournament is a place to debate the resolution, not your personal views and affinities.

I am a parent judge. Avoid sped and jargon. Impact is key for me, tell me why this matters in the real world and why should I care. Overall, I am looking for positive can do attitude. Be a good sport and have Fun.

Good luck!

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.

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

Please speak at a moderate pace with clarity

Judging experiences:

2 years of Parli, 1 year Extemp, Expos, OR

new to other forms of debate

This is my second year judging in parliamentary debate. Please make sure your arguments and your structure are clear and easy to understand. No kritiks or complicated theory and be respectful to your opponents. 

Well-made, well signposted, well impacted arguments are what I will vote on. Kritiks and theory should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Speak at a human pace. Be polite and have fun.

I competed in CX then Paril debate from 2005-09. I now coach LD, Parli, and PF. Open minded, progressive friendly judge.

I’ve been judging debates for around 6 or 7 years, so I’m pretty well versed with procedure and most traditional arguments. Avoid K’s or theory if possible, but I am okay with judging theory if you think the abuse is legitimate. Just be sure to flesh out voters. Avoid speed, and be respectful to opponents. I award speaker points based on the tournament’s guidelines, and I judge debates based on the framework given in the round and the arguments provided in voters speeches.

I did not debate in either high school or college, but began judging when my daughter started high school. I don't have a preference for any particular event, and enjoy judging both debate and IE.

Re: IE - I love almost all of the events (except DI, but I'll judge it if they need me to), and I know what good interpretation looks like. If you're doing Impromptu, be aware that I'll give the higher rankings to kids who literally improvise their speeches to match the topic, and give the bottom rankings to kids who improv their intros and then pull out their same three examples no matter what the topic is, even if the improv isn't as smooth as the rehearsed one.

I love clash in a debate, and value logic and argumentation. I flow rounds, but I am not one of those judges who is all in my own head thinking about what I would say if I were in your shoes. You should convince me that (a) your arguments are stronger and (b) that your opponents dropped parts of your case. Link chains should be well-explained; they're called "link" for a reason.

I've learned to really appreciate topicality debates, but I also like other types of debate as well.

I'm a native New Yorker, born and bred. I think fast, I write fast, and I talk fast. However, let me remind you that I am a lay judge. If you are spreading, I am more likely to offer you an asthma inhaler than to decide that you have won the round.

Finally, I can't stand when people say something like, "I/we can't debate this! This is UNFAIR to our side!" Yes. Yes, you can. You are a debater. Make it so.

I have been judging debates (mostly parliamentary debates) for over 8 years, as a lay (parent) volunteer judge.

If possible, please avoid speaking too fast (so that I can follow and track your arguments in my mind).

Also, if you are going to use any "technical" terms from the debating vocabulary, please don't assume I would be familiar with them. It would be appreciate if you explain any such terms to me.

I am familiar with the Parliamentary Debate format and its general rules. You will not need to explain those to me.

Usually I like to take a few minutes after the round has ended, to enter my feedback and the results, so please do not expect me to disclose the results or provide you judge's feedback immediately.

I am a lay, parent judge, who has judged Parli for the last 2 years. Signposting is very important for my flow, and please don't speak much faster than conversational speed, I will not flow everything if you exceed that speed. Kritikal arguments are highly discouraged, however I am willing to vote on lay theory with articulated abuse. I default to Net Benefits, however please still clearly articulate your weighing mechanism and if you choose to set it to something else please be sure to clearly explain and justify it. Clearly articulate your impacts (and why they matter) and don't assume that I will make connections for you. If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round starts.

tl;dr just do what you would do with any other lay judge.

I am second year judging parliamentary type debates. I judge the debate outcome purely based on what is presented to me. I value debating with solid arguments and impact analysis instead of just buzzwords and technicality/process. The most important for me is that debaters bring their passion, persuasiveness and confidence to the table. To get my full attention and to help me judge the debate with clarity, please layout your plan, clearly articulate your points and speak with reasonable speed. For me a great speech has great organization and clarity of thoughts.

TL;DR: Experience is Parli & CX, 1 yr camp, 1 yr judging ; Tell us how arguments synergize ; Theory should inform the resolution ; Be explicit w/ K's ; Voters.

---

My HS-debate background includes two years of CX, one summer at WNDI, and two years of Parli. Recent graduate of the UO. I have about one year of judging experience, including some at the national circuit. Although I strive to be a flow judge, intervention can't be completely eliminated. I like science, so it might be harder to remain impartial to scientific [in]accuracy in particular.

Ultimately, I look for coherence in a case -- that is, a strong logical scaffolding, cognizance of the assumptions behind each of the arguments, and congruence between them. The whole of the arguments ought to be greater than the sum of their parts. This means in practice explaining how case, the CP and theory all work together. This also means acknowledging the premises behind the opponent's case.

*The Voters speech is the one I pay the closest attention too, as it helps me from getting bogged down in the round's minutia.

--T's are fine only if you contextualize your interpretation in light of the round.

--Speed is fine, but please articulate.

--CP's are fine.

--No new arguments in rebuttals.

--The more terminal and apocalyptic your link scenario, the better grounded your brink analysis should be.

As for theory, I am conversant, but not fluent, in CX-style kritiks and other theory. More than happy to judge an abstract round, just be explicit with the debate technicalities. ( In the words of middle-school math class: "Show your work." ) Strive to use philosophic/theoretical reasoning as a lens through which to view the resolution/debate, rather than as a stock contention.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

Flow judge.

For parliamentary debate, I prefer clear, organized argumentation and reasoning over speed and jargon. I can follow a spread (my background was in policy debate) but parliamentary debate is a whole different event.

I flow, and use the flow in my decision, but not all arguments are created equal. You can win 4 points, your opponent only one, but they can still win the round if they convince me that their one point outweighs all others. Tie your arguments to the resolution, and show how they tie into your judging criteria. Speaking style matters in my decision too - a smooth, organized, persuasive speaker will have the edge over disorganized and choppy presentation.

On the subject of organization, I appreciate the 5 seconds spent to tell me whether you are starting with their case, or your own contentions.

No strong opinion on POIs. Nice to take one, but if you really are short on time I won't be offended if you don't take any.

I leave my opinions and knowledge at the door of the round. I am willing to follow most arguments if you can make them stick.

However, I am really REALLY sick of overly clever debate tactics in lieu of actual debating. I am particularly tired of kritiks. They are a technique used by lazy debaters to avoid having to actually listen, reason, and create counterarguments. Rather than pay attention and use their brains, they pull out a precanned K and spend their time on that, instead of actually debating. I expect to hear reasoning, analysis, and argumentation on the actual resolution - not endless whining about how abusive the other team is. Basically I want to see a debate.

I also hate tag-teaming. I believe that each speaker should do their own speech, answer any POIs, and generally do their part. I don't mind if you pass your partner a note while they are speaking, but that’s about it. I will only write down arguments advanced by the actual speaker.

In the end, the most important thing is to have a respectful debate with plenty of clash. Listen to each other, analyze what the other speaker said, and respond appropriately. And remember that this is supposed to be fun.

I debated in public forum for Nueva last year. My greatest accolade was being 1st seed at the TOC my senior year, I was a competent flow/tech debater. I am currently debating for Stanford, and have competed in APDA (College Parli) and British Parli tournaments. Most of the following are relevant to PF, but the general idea applies to most events. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets. If you have really important responses, it’s probably in your best interest to slow down at least for the tag.

2. Cross is for YOU. You can literally only lose speaker points by being annoying and/or aggressive. I would like to see you ask clarifying questions to set up a bomb rebuttal/summary/FF. Every time you yell I will take off .5 speaker points. Please don’t yell unless it is funny. People really don't seem to understand this one. I. Literally. Don't. Flow. A. Single. Thing. In. Cross. Unless. It. Is. An. Ad Hominem. This means you shouldn't be looking at me expectantly for me to flow or understand. bring it up in a speech.

3. I like roadmaps, but only tell me flow order and if there is an overview where you will be addressing it.

4. Theory and shit: I lost on theory enough to become relatively competent at evaluating it, but consider me the flay judge of theory. If you want me to vote on it you better have a good goddamn reason.

5. Ask me questions before the round if you have questions on what I would like to see in each individual speech. If you are REALLY curious you can check out my many horribly embarrassing rounds that have been posted to YouTube (I mean seriously, why did people only post the rounds where I get destroyed?!?!).

A parent judge with a few years of experience judging various tournaments and events. I care about presentation and the real-world impacts of your arguments.

Please keep your points to a manageable number and cover them well.

No spreading. No theory. No Kritiks. The team with the best impacts will get the win.

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.

I’ve judged/coached most formats at this point, but my personal experience is some hs parli and then BP for Berkeley.

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

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

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

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!

I have only judged a few times before, and it has been about a year. I value critical, evidence-based thinking, and for God's sake, no Ks.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

Debate is a discourse, in which both sides offer arguments that are both solidified, and base on belief. It isn't a school paper you're doing for points, therefore, please have heart in what you say. It is a discourse, please treat it like one. I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I will be non-bias from the perspective of a moderate

Stronger arguments > Many Arguments

I will not accept theory arguments not related to rules. If the other team put you at a disadvantage, argue on their probability.

Please also do argue from your heart, emotionality overrules reading from a piece of paper. If you do focus too much from reading off the paper, depending on the strength of the argument, you might have lower speaker points

Finally, please debate slowly, I will deduct points for spreading.

I am a very lay judge. Please articulate all your arguments very clearly and carefully. I will try to act tabula rasa. Debate as if you are trying to convince your parent of something. I will try my best to judge well.

No kritikal arguments. Theory is highly discouraged. If you want to go for theory, make sure the violation and the standards are articulated very clearly. Counterplans are fine. AFF needs to explain what a perm is and why it matters.

I competed in LD for four years in high school, and frequently broke to elimination rounds at invitationals my junior and senior years. I helped coach my team as a senior.

Any argument will do, as long as it is well-substantiated. Substantiation requires an argument to be logically complete, and for premises to be supported with evidence when appropriate. Do not expect to automatically earn victory when your opponent drops or mishandles a poorly-substantiated argument.

Preference for quality over speed and quantity. I enjoy thoughtful argumentation on complex topics. If you insist on speed, I'll do my best to keep up and won't penalize you for it. On the other hand, If I miss key stages of your argument, I can't account for them when rendering my decision, which would be very fortunate for your opponent.

I am a lay judge with five years of combined Parli and PF judging experience.

Preferences:

- Be polite, especially in cross. Don't shout at each other, please.

- Speak clearly. Don't spread.

- Take the time to explain complex arguments.

Good luck!