About Me: I was a Mountain View/Los Altos parliamentary debater who graduated Los Altos High School in 2022. I'm currently a college second-year studying biology and history. My partner was Anand Mehta, also LAHS Class of 2022.

TL;DR: Don't make up evidence, have a good debate, be respectful, and tell me why you win the round.

I can flow a medium-to-high speed round but will call a slow/clear if I can't understand what you're saying.

I strive to be tabula rasa. That said, I will be skeptical of any claims you make if you contravene facts that are widespread, well-known, and provable by a layperson with minimal tools.

I protect the flow but prefer for you to call the POO anyway.

I'm fine with tag-teaming but will only flow what the speaker says.

Happy to provide an oral RFD if the tournament allows; otherwise I'll attempt to leave you a detailed written RFD to explain my judging decision. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer any further questions by email: rcolgrove45@gmail.com

Case: I love case debate and was a case debater in HS. Be sure to signpost your arguments, use warrants correctly, and don't skip out on the uniqueness. Aff debaters should be ready to repeat their plan if asked to and willing to provide a text if asked; I would also appreciate if the first affirmative speaker was willing to take a POI after reading their plantext/top of case.

I like international relations and STEM arguments (because these align most with my own knowledge interests) but I understand that the resolution is ultimately deciding what arguments you can run. Strategically I preferred fairly light uniqueness blocks with long link and internal link chains to feed into big stick impacts. I won't weigh these arguments higher than others, but rather to encourage you to construct cases according to your own team strengths.

In a case debate I want to see interaction between links, and especially via warrant-to-warrant comparison. Qualifying and turning your opponent's links can be key to generating offense and doing so in earlier speeches can benefit the rebuttal speeches.

The important thing in case debates for debaters, even those with experience, to remember is that debate relies on interacting with your opponent's contentions. Remember that your arguments can interweave with your opponent's case, and this comparative analysis can be both strategic and rhetorically powerful for showing why your impacts are better than the arguments of your opponent. Weighing and being explicit as to how and why I should vote for you over the opponent is crucial to getting the ballot. I default to magnitude over probability but am open to be persuaded otherwise.

Counterplans: I believe that counterplans are a good strategic resource if used by the negative properly, but can be detrimental if care is not taken. Good counterplans are mutually exclusive by nature or net benefits, and don't need to rely on artificial competition. I will vote for plan-inclusive counterplans and basically any kind of counterplan, but will also vote on PIC theory/theory positions against counterplans. Personally I don't think the negative should run multiple counterplans (from a fairness perspective but also I don't think it's strategic) but am open to arguments otherwise. For the affirmative, it is important to remember that the permutation is a test of competition.

Theory: Some of my theory defaults (none of these are carved into stone, and feel free to argue to the contrary): Competing interpretations > Reasonability. No RVIs. Articulated Abuse > Proven Abuse (I don't think I can be looking at sheets for signs of proven abuse without exceeding my mandate as a judge for the round). I value education over fairness in the round just because I don't think it's actually possible to create a completely fair round. I also don't really like spec theory or friv theory but will (albeit reluctantly) vote on it if you cleanly win.

The most important thing to remember during theory arguments is that (1) you should be willing to take POIs, especially if you are using lots of jargon and (2) you have to read (at least) cursory warranting rather than dropping blippy jargon terms to explain each component of the shell.

Ks: I am most familiar with kritiks as someone debating against the K, but have passing literature familiarity for capitalism and securitization. Make sure to have specific links and bring an alt that has non-stock solvency. I would also appreciate it if debaters running a K are more willing to take POIs from opponents.

K-Affs: Please disclose to your opponents. If you don't, I am extremely sympathetic to disclosure arguments. I personally think parli is unique in this regard where very limited prep means the affirmative running a K-aff without disclosing can be tactically advantageous (because it basically invalidates all of neg prep if they assumed the affirmative would be topical and defend the res), and I don't really want to see rounds come down to k-aff vs. t-usfg or other neg generics.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi, I am a lay parent judge, please speak slowly and clearly.

Be respectful to me and your opponents, besides that have fun & Good Luck!

Very experienced - don't be mean or disrespectful.

Adapt to the panel or face the consequences.

Have fun.

I was a Parliamentary debater for Los Altos High School (MVLA) who graduated in 2022. My partner was Richard Colgrove, who also graduated in 2022. 

TL;DR for Parli: I need to be convinced as to why you win the round, and I value organization, clear articulation of arguments, and weighing the most when evaluating a debate round.

My opinions on Parli change frequently, and I don't pretend to be experienced like a proper flow judge. However, these are my thoughts regarding Parli, just as every single judge has their own unique perspective that ultimately stems from to how they view the role of debate. As a current participant in the activity myself I am much more lenient towards any mishaps or mistakes that are made, and won't try to shark you or pounce on you for that. We all make mistakes, and are arguing policies and ideas that we often know little about, and are given 20 minutes to prepare for. Especially because Parli goes through many resolutions every single tournament, I don't expect every single one to be perfectly balanced. I am weighing the round based on what happens in the round, not post-round, pre-round, or in-between speeches. Especially for novices, there's a belief coming into the tournament that the judge will personally weigh in to evidence or arguments themselves (ex: one team might not see the necessity of responding to the other's argument because they dismiss it as "wrong" and hope the judge will figure that out for themselves). I need to be told why I should vote for you.

Speaking:

I'm fine with any speed as long as you're articulate.

Case Debate:

Signposting is key here. Disorganized cases only serve to delegitimize your actual arguments.

Don't make up evidence, it'll sink your case like the iceberg sank the Titanic. I'm not afraid to fact-check warrants that sound sketchy.

Weigh your arguments and explain how you interact with your opponent's case. This is debate, not speech, there should be clear points of clash in the round.

Being a student, I flow everything in the debate. Call a POO if an argument your opponent made in the final speech is new, because there's not always a change that I'll actually get to it. I am fundamentally opposed to intervention (I will not interrupt a speech or get involved with the debate myself. All clarifying questions, if I have them, will be asked at the end of the round).

I'm a judge that accepts CP's, I think they are good for debate and can help equalize the playing field when it comes to more sketchy resolutions. PICs or "cheater"-CPs are allowed, but so is Aff theory against it.

Theory:

If you run a T-shell, make sure the components are well-organized and you explain your opponent's violation. I'm unlikely to vote on frivolous theory.

Kritiks:

I will understand Kritik structure, and the Kritiks I'm most familiar with are Capitalism, Imperialism, and Security. Most others I will understand, but you'll have to do more work explaining them.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Least I give is 26, you will get a 28-30 as long as you give a good structured speech.

Theory/K:

I can handle either, just make sure its flushed out have have good tag-lining and explain the idea behind it.

General Case:

I will buy all logical and relevant arguments such as emissions > climate change or something. If you make arguments that aren't logically apparent, I will need strong warrants to buy it.

I am a sad highschool student. If you make me laugh, I will give you more speaks.

1. Use your last speech to convince my WHY you should win. Weigh the round! I shouldn't have to think -- a top performance will leave me convinced you won even without going through the flow

2. Kritiks are cool. Theory is less cool. DO NOT run frivolous theory, I will drop it.

Pronouns: (He/him)

I am a senior at Los Altos High School and have been debating (mostly in Parli) for five years. If the tournament allows, I will provide an oral RFD after I submit my ballot.

General Parli:

Make sure you are respectful during the round and, most importantly, have fun! Tabula Rasa. I will stop flowing after time has expired. I will protect the flow the best I can but call the point of orders if you believe it applies. Please signpost and give off-time roadmaps; it makes it much easier to organize my flow.

Please weigh impacts during the round; I do not want to interfere. I default to probability unless told otherwise. I only evaluate terminalized impacts.

Speaker Points:

I will automatically give 25 speaker points to anyone who is racist, homophobic, or sexist during the round. I am open to 30 point theory if argued correctly. I will give higher speaker points based on how well-articulated your arguments are. Remember to be respectful to your opponents.

Theory:

Please let your opponents know before the round if you know you are interested in running theory and hitting an inexperienced team. I am open to pretty much any theory shell (I prefer judging strictly policy rounds however). I default A Priori, competing interps, and not to drop the debate unless told otherwise.

Kritiks:

I am probably not well-versed in your literature base, I would generally advise against running one in round. Same goes for K-affs.

I am a first-year studying Comparative Literature and Molecular Environmental Biology @ UC Berkeley. My pronouns are they/them.

PARADIGM

TL;DR: don’t shake my hand. Would like offtime roadmap. Make sure your [link] story is clear. Weigh.

Grace periods don't exist.

If you are going to talk about East Asia, particularly China or South Korea, you'd better be representing the facts correctly. I have a unique amount of knowledge in that area.

POI:

I’d like it if you take at least one POI if asked, especially if it's framework-related. I'm usually not cognizant of protected time, so make sure you know the tournament rules!

Case & CP:

Have a clear plantext with adequate specification and solvency (I care about this a lot).

Fine with small affs.

If you’re running a CP, explain why it’s competitive. Perms are a test of competition so either explain to me clearly why the CP is competitive or why it isn’t. If the CP isn't competitive then you can make that your advocacy. I don’t mind multiple CP’s but explain to me why you can contradict yourself if you do. I love PIC’s (but it doesn’t mean I won’t vote on PIC bad theory if you run it well). Also, I like advantages to CPs.

Generally, I don't like PICs but I love the theory debate over them.

Make sure to ask CP status, always.

Defaults on Case:

Presumption flows to the side of least change.

Probability > magnitude.

LOR/PMR:

Weigh your impacts because I won’t do it for you. Don't make your weighing "this is better because it has highest magnitude". Give me more than that.

Collapsing is preferred, but not required. Even in a round where you're winning on everything, collapse please (it makes my job much easier). But, if the round gets messy (T, K, case, etc), collapsing is VERY necessary.

The LOR shouldn’t be the MO. I’ll flow only the aspects that make up a voter’s speech.

Tie everything to your weighing criterion.

I default to probability.

POO:

I will be deciding right then and there if it's new or not because it could seriously affect the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with friv--but it has to be explained really well for me to buy it. Make sure I see the actual merit in it. If you run something that could've been answered with a POI (or with online tournaments, flex time), I don't like it and I think you're honestly normalizing abuse in debate.

Thirty speaks is fine but (see below) I give 28-29 anyway.

Please have text ready. In online tournaments, put it in the chat.

Kritik

No K Aff unless the resolution absolutely begs for it.

I'm not amazing with speed so if you're going to run a k, run it "slowly". If your k can't be explained at a normal speaking speed, then you are being non-inclusive to not only me, but likely your opponents as well. Make sure to slow and clear when your opponents tell you to.

Not a fan of bad k's or running k's just to run k's. I can tell the difference and you also have to explain your k very well to me. I have a high threshold. However, I also understand that ks are often necessary as a survival strategy and some topics absolutely need to be critiqued. Unfortunately, I think that most people abuse the existence of the k.

Dislike postmodern ks.

Speaker Points:

I don't care about eye contact or stuttering or anything like that.

Miscellaneous:

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible but if you are blatantly incorrect, that flies out the window (this especially applies for topics I'm very knowledgeable in, e.g. China topics). However, it is impossible to be tabula rasa so perhaps it's more appropriate to say that my aim is to be objective.

Tagteaming is fine. I’ll only flow what you say.

I will vote against you if you have very problematic rhetoric during your speech. Don’t be hostile.

Provide a text if the team calls for it, preferably immediately. (Since we're living in the age of online tournaments, I expect you to be able to provide a text immediately in the chat. Always put your interps in the chat!)

I don’t care whether you stand or sit.

Don’t pay attention to any of my facial expressions. Sometimes I'm about to sneeze.

Don’t pay attention to my flowing. Just focus on your speech.

You can always ask me questions about the debate, your case, etc. after the round.

If you say or do anything problematic during the round, we will have a discussion with all parties present after the round is over.

I'm a college student who used to compete in parli, World Schools, extemp, and imp with experience judging every speech + debate event except for Congress and policy.

For debate (mostly parli) specifically, I'm very rusty with flow debate and would prefer that you choose a strat that assumes that I'm a lay judge.

I will say that I'm receptive to squirrely case args (e.g. 50 states PIC) if you're doing it because you think it's a genuinely good argument for the context of the round and not just for the sake of doing it. Additionally, I do understand how some topics/in-round situations can justify off-case args, so I'm down to evaluate whatever theory shell or other arg comes up if necessary.