There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

TLDR: PLS SIGNPOST. Tech over truth (unless problematic). I like tech debate a lot more but keep in mind the other judges on the panel with me and your fellow opponents. Be nice & have fun. Do risk calc for me when ballot framing. I laugh or smile when I hear something I think is funny--just ignore me cuz it doesn't affect the ballot.

i don't care about the NPDL online rules for warranted claims = unwarranted. warrants will always be more important than a lack of them.

Weighing: Do comparative analysis when you weigh your arguments; modules are cool--but why your module should come first before their modules.

Theory: I like theory. I run theory (all but speed). I allow RVIs. I have higher standards for theory.

Case: Links should correlate with all the UQ and IL to IMP. Y'all should totally signpost and give off-time roadmaps ;). I think trichotomy is fake news -- feel free to make it evaluated through a policy lens with NB.

K: like a 7/10 feel for them. I mostly ran queer eco, kappeler, and cap. I'm also out of the loop now.

Speed: I don't mind the speed, tho note that I haven't properly flowed in a while. Thus, I would air on the side of caution with my capabilities.

Everything else: Speaks only go up w/cringe humor (29+ 4 all). I protecc, but still POO (I might notice even while protecting). Don't steal prep between speeches. Read content/trigger warnings as necessary for this should be rudimentary respect. Don't call me "judge" pls. Also, "Protected Time" is fake news. Shadow extension is fake news too mates.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round email me at amargao@stanford.edu.

hi! i've been debating parli at irvington high for 3 years; a vast majority of my experience is in case debate, but i'm willing to listen to any arguments (Ts, Ks, etc) as long as they're fleshed out and explained well.

please don't shake my hand, it's not you, it's me; fist bumps are chill if you're into that :)

debate your round under the assumption that i have no prior knowledge of the topic, don't be rude to your opponents, don't take a ton of time between speeches to prep, i won't time your speeches but if your opponents start signaling that your time is up i'll only listen to another 15 secs max

i'm chill with off time road maps, tag teaming, etc; that said, ask me before the round if there's anything specific you're unsure about (you can email me with questions if u want: sachi@pittara.com). please skip the formalities and the thank you's, i find them unnecessary and boring

please PLEASE for my sanity have a legitimate plan w/ plan text so the debate can be about points and arguments other than whether or not the plan has an enforcer

keep your speech structured so your opponents and i can all keep track on our flows

POIs should actually be questions and not just a way to insert a refute during another person's time; keep them to 15-20 secs max, and don't POI more than a couple times per speech it gets annoying if you overdo it

i'll protect the flow, but you should POO anyway to make sure i didn't miss something

i'll vote on any T if you're winning it on the flow and it genuinely makes sense (don't spew absolute bs and then claim the other team dropped half your standards), but i'll probably feel better about giving you the ballot if there's proven abuse in the round

i'm a sucker for quick wit and puns, if you can make me laugh i'll probably be more awake for the rest of your speech

may the odds be ever in your favor

I am a lay parent judge but sophisticated enough to judge.

Please do not run theories.

Please talk slowly as I need to understand and write down the notes at the same time.

Respect the opponents.

Include me on every email chain: shuklaaaryan1@gmail.com

Background:

3 years of public forum

2 years of parli

Run any argument you want, I will evaluate the same unless not following the below.

PF Specific:

1. Weighing: Both teams should weigh their arguments on why they matter the most, or else I will do my own weighing which you will not like. Please do the comparative with your opponents weighing.

2. Collapse: Please collapse to one single argument and explain the warranting very well. If you collapse, I will be more inclined to vote for you.

3. Summary: The summary is the most important speech in my opinion because it sets up the back half of the debate. The first summary needs frontline, if your opponent brings up new weighing please call them out.

4. Rebuttal and FF: Frontline second reb, give me a clear reason to vote for you in ff.

5. Have Fun: Do not be rude to your opponents, I will tank your speaks. Debate is about having fun.

Parli Specific:

Case

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

- Please repeat your interp twice

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

- Please read specific links.

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

Speaks

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

Fact Checks

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

- I will also fact check upon request.

I have experience as a policy/CX debater in high school and I have been judging parli for just over three years. I have experience as a public speaker from many conferences, as well as corporate events and meetings.

I'll flow your arguments, but I need to be able to hear and understand them enough to write notes.

Don't expect me to know any theory that you don't explain clearly. Make sure that any theory (or any arguments at all) clearly relate to the debate you're in and the topic at hand.

Your speaking style and ability are important, but its not uncommon for me to award low-point wins. If you dont signpost well, not only can I not follow you, but you aren't delivering well.

Your summations should clearly tell me how to decide my vote.

Judge Paradigm

TL;DR: Impact clearly to win, Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe, Tabula rasa (as much as I can be)

Background:

I’ve participated in debate for five years, parli for four. I usually run case arguments, but you can run anything you want as long as you understand it and can explain it.

Case:

I love a flow case round, but make sure to be clear with your structure. Try to number all your harms and have clear link chains that I can flow. Make sure to weigh all impacts especially in the last speech but ideally throughout, and make a choice on your collapse at the end. If you run a complicated argument please explain it as clearly as you can, and if I cannot understand what you are saying because of speech or lack of clarity, I will stop flowing. Also, please refute every level of the arguments.

Theory:

I see theory as a way to check back against real abuse in round, and as a result, I tend to have a very high threshold for friv theory.

K:

I’ve hit a decent amount of Ks so I understand the common ones. Even then, for every K please understand and explain the literature/thesis clearly and have everything structured. Please have specific links to the other sides case, and I have a higher threshold for aff Ks. Be clear in your explanations and do not try to go too fast, it is in your best interest that I understand your speech.

Weighing:

Regardless of which kind of arguments you run, make sure to have good impact framing in the last speech. I want to be able to make the decision as easy as possible without bringing my own biases into the round, and the best way to help me do that is by giving me a clear way to vote. I default to magnitude over probability but you are completely free to tell me to vote in other ways, such as on timeframe or probability or reversibility.

Have fun, be respectful! If you have any questions or want more feedback, shoot me a message on FB Messenger or email me at darshsinghania123@gmail.com.

Sidenote: if you are sexist, racist, or otherwise dehumanizing I will drop you.

I am parent judge with a little bit of judging experience. I decide the debate based on the following criteria: (1) the flow of argument logic and how convincing it is structured based on facts (truth), (2) if the debater is responding to opponent's argument and making a successful counter-argument or not, (3) overall speaking/debating skills.