Tabroom.com

Peninsula Invitational

2021 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US

Parliamentary Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jared Adelman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 3:10 AM PDT

Okay a quick background on me. I debated (in parli) at Cleveland High School for 4 years, 2 of which I was coaching my team as a captain. I broke at almost all the big tournaments and qualified for NPDL TOC that got canceled :(. Anyway enough about myself.

TLDR

I, to the best of my ability, am tab rasa; I won't extend or refute anything for you. Similarly, run whatever you would like but if you are running something other than case, please read my prefs below. Make your links as air-tight as possible because relying on me to buy something fishy is not a strategy I would recommend. Terminalize your impacts so I can have something concrete to weigh at the end of the day. Also, I strive to keep debate as accessible as possible. That includes using correct pronouns (please put your pronouns in tab. Mine are he/him/his), not running something your opponent clearly doesn't understand, and above all making debate an equitable space for all people. If you have any other general questions or something that isn't answered below, email me at jaredadelmanriley@gmail.com.

Norms (Primarily for Parli but can really be applied across all debate events)

A few key pieces of etiquette that I enjoy:

- Take at least one POI per speech.

- If I clearly clasp my hands and drop my pen for more than 10 seconds that means I've stopped flowing because you've gone over your grace period.

- Please give me a short off-time roadmap before your speech

- PLEASE PLEASE signpost your arguments especially if both sides are running a good amount of things. Saying "the DA" isn't as helpful as having a specified signpost.

- You can tag team but I really don't like it. Once per speech as recovery is fine but more than that and your speaks will drop (see more on that below)

- As for POOs, I will protect the flow so no need to call them. I have found that calling POOs is more often than not used as a flustering tactic than something to keep the round honest. If I see something blatantly new in the LOR or PMR, I simply won't flow it.

- Parli is notorious for evidence marring and I for one had benefited from it. That said, if something sounds reasonable or is honestly misquoted, play through it. If the abuse is clear and round-determining, I will google it after round and factor that into my decision. While I love Tab for all they do, I find that having someone like that try to post-hoc analyze the importance of that piece of evidence in a round is less effective than the judge making a judgment call right before rfd.

-Speaking of RFDs, I will disclose after round so long as the tournament allows me to do so. I am happy to justify anything I saw during RFD and you are allowed to ask me any questions or for advice. That said, remember the debate is over by that point so trying to enhance an argument of yours is futile.

CP/PIC

As a case-first debater, I find CPs to be underused or poorly run given the potential they have. A good CP will allow me to weigh solvency between two plans with ease and a good DA alongside it is a sure-fire strategy for the NEG. Furthermore, I think PICs are gold and not abusive when done correctly. Debate is a game and a PIC is an OP play in my book. That said, be prepared for a T-shell in response and as I describe below, I also love those. For perms, the AFF needs to explain well why mutual exclusivity is missing; for things like delay PICs, I find that they aren't inherently exclusive but honestly its a case by case. Also, I will buy severability perms and only keep the mutually exclusive elements. Additionally, even if NEG is permed and can show why they are competitive through NB, I'll vote on that. Lastly, I live for 0.01% solvency arguments and presumption. Run those well and you may be picking up the ballot.

Speaks and Speed

Ok first for speed. Really go as fast as you like so long as it isn't true spreading (which I frankly haven't seen in parli). However, if someone including myself says slow or clear, slow down. As I said earlier, debate needs to be accessible and spreading is so wildly abusive to newer teams that I will drop you if you don't slow after a few calls for it. Now for speaks:

30: My god you're insane like please win this tournament

28-29.5: Very solid speaking. Most experienced teams will score somewhere in here.

27-28: Average. Could work on something small like clarity or was just flustered at points

26-27: Need some work. Usually I'll explain to you after the round or during RFD what could be improved upon

Below 26: You were abusive in one way or another. Whether that be ignoring times outright, language or something else in that ballpark you were also likely dropped for it. I'll have a convo with you for sure if I score you this low.

Theory.

I honestly love theory so long as you don't use it as a time suck. Simply throwing on an underview that forces a useless response wastes my time. Also, if you are going to run a T-shell please make sure it is in fact a T-shell. Too often I have a half-baked topicality-esque argument that I don't know how to weigh. I'm here for counter-interps (please hit all parts of the T-shell). I know most if not all the basic theory out there but please explain it to me as if I have never done debate before. Lastly, flush out your fairness and education voters and explain why your T-shell is a priori to any case. Also, I won't buy RVIs unless it's clear that the T-shell doesn't address a substantive violation but that's so rare that honestly forget RVIs. In general, the better explained the more likely I am to buy it.

Kritiks

Ok I'll be honest here, I didn't really run K's in HS. I'm totally familiar with all the big ones (cap K, anti blackness, femme, etc) but I find that they aren't winners 90% of the time. For me, K's need to be structured nearly impeccably and explained thoroughly; even if I am aware of the lit you are using, explain it to me like I am a lay judge. Second and most importantly, if your alt is simply "drop my opponents", that's not going to do it for me. The beauty of Ks is that they transcend the debate space and their solutions ought to as well. Debate is a game and while I won't reward abuse (K or not), acting within that game is self-defeating. So in short, come up with a solid alt and then I'm all ears for any K you might have. (I also love Baudrillard Ks for that reason so bonus if you run it correctly)

Sorry this so so long but it's because I love debate and want to give you the best picture of what I'm like as a judge before round starts. Let me know if you have questions on anything!

Sandeep Adwankar Irvington HS 6 rounds

Milan Amritraj Campbell Hall High School 5 rounds

Drew Ashlock Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 5:19 AM PDT

Yo whaddup I'm Drew. I'm currently a political science major at UCLA and a member of their Mock Trial team but I debated for West Ranch High School for 4 years. I've got experience in I.E.'s and experience in LD and Parli both at a technical and at a traditional level. I went to Parli TOC and have qualed for CHSSA state champs in both Parli and Impromptu. If you have questions about things not listed here email me at drewashlock2002@gmail.com for any further questions. Id be happy to answer.

TL:DR: If you both want a lay round, cool I'll evaluate like a lay round. But if either of you want to go tech, im game. Completely tech over truth. I'll vote on anything. Like anything as long as it isn't blatantly racist, homophobic, or sexist. For LD just send your speech docs to me cause although im game for spreading ive got a pretty bad ear for it.

Speed: Speed is fine in both parli and LD for me. Obviously LD speed is significantly faster cause its carded evidence you are reading from so Id very much appreciate it if you sent me the speech doc. For the most part though you can zoom through evidence just slow down on taglines and say your plan text and interps twice. Same goes for parli. That being said, if your opponent is ultra trad and can't keep up make sure to take ultra POIs for parli and for LD make sure to send them the speech docs and be kind in CX. If I need you to clear up, I will yell clear.

Theory: Im game for pretty much everything on Theory. JUST PLEASE FOR PARLI READ YOUR INTERP TWICE. PLEASE. Often times I flow parli rounds and get everything but the interp because the kid was incoherently spreading through the first part. Make sure to link your standards down to whatever voters you are running though. If you are saying fairness comes first, thats rad, just tell me how whatever your standard is that they are violating specifically links to fairness. On the issue of voters, I default competing interps and no RVI but that is easily subject to change depending on how the round goes. If for some reason I do end up being forced to vote on reasonability, Im very receptive to disclosure good, Nebel, PICS bad, and Condo bad. I also default weighing theory before everything. If your opponent is running theory, and doesn't explicitly state that their shells are a priori, dont expect to auto win on them by saying weigh theory against case in the next speech. That being said, if you say weigh theory against case, and they don't respond, then I'll do as you say.

Kritiks: Like I said, open to anything. Aff or Neg I dont really care tbh. I will tell you this though: I have never been a huge K debater myself. That means im not ultra familiar with the lit. Basic stuff like Cap, Security, Neolib I know but if you are running something obscure you better explain it well. Also parli kids i know you dont have to cite evidence but at least reference who founded the ideology. YOU ARE NOT DELUZE DONT ACT LIKE YOU ARE. Other than that just read your alt text twice and be clear on alt solvency and internal links. Also I weigh theory before K unless told otherwise but you probs got that from the theory section.

CP: Cp's are a solid neg strat in some good ole larp debate. Just pls pls pls make sure it is competitive. I hate when a non competitive CP gets run cause then 99% of the time the round just comes down to whether or not I buy the perm. Even if it is a PIC or a delay CP or agent CP just do something that means the Aff doesn't have access. That being said, if Im voting reasonability I will most likely drop those CPs listed above. Just make sure to read some good ole CP text and explicitly outline how it doesn't link into your DA's, how it solves for the AC, and its own net benefits.

DA's and Advantages: Yeah they are cool. Im always down for some good ole Larping. Just give me uniqueness impact solvency with some links in between for advantages and squo link impact for DA and we have ourselves a good time.

Impact Calc: Make sure to do this in the final speech, especially if both sides have offense left. Weigh mainly on magnitude, scope, timeframe and reversibility. If one of your impacts is heavy on any of those, then tell me why that is the most important component of calculation. Otherwise I default magnitude.

Rebuttals: Turns are always optimal. That being said they are hard to do in certain cases. The more you can make offensive rebuttals the better.

Spikes, Truth Testing, Tricks in general: YEET. I love running these, and would love to hear them. That being said they are very susceptible to theory and Kritiks so watch out my dudes.

Speaks: I don't really give speaker points off of how well you spoke. And I also don't really give below 27 speaker points unless you are either repugnant in round or just a debater who needs to work on a lot. That being said, I also dont give 30 speaks unless you either blow me out of the water with how incredible your skills are, have built an extremely intricate and beautiful case, make me laugh in round, or bring me a donut.

LD specifics: I don't flow CX. Just use it as a time to clarify stuff for you and your opponent. Also, be sure to collapse to something. Pls don't try to go for everything on the flow in the 2AR cause then it turns into a big ugly mess. Also if you want to get into a "whose source is more valid debate" pls don't because its dumb but if you for some reason YOU HAVE TO then give me solid reasons why to prefer your source.

Parli specifics: I have no issue with tag teaming. Just make sure if it is your speech that you say whatever your partner tells you to say. Also be courteous and take at least 1-2 POIS per speech. Use POO's wisely. I will protect the flow for the most part but if I miss something you need to be there to catch it.

Other than that, have fun guys. Debate is a phenomenal game to play and an even better community to be a part of.

Vidya Balasubramanian ModernBrain 6 rounds None

Kaare Bodlovich Hire 6 rounds

Steve Bunyak San Dieguito Academy 3 rounds

Roy Dorman Troy High School 3 rounds

Michael Finnessey Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 10, 2023 at 2:03 PM PDT

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.
The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.
This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.
Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).
Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.
- Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

I will avoid intervening as much as possible.
- This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.
The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).
I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.
I protect the flow.
- Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.
I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.
I will not actively fact check UNLESS:
- I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND
- Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.
- Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

Trichotomy
- I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.
- Value Debate
  - Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.
Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.
- This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility
- This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).
- Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.
- For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.
I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.
- Please signpost these.
Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.
- Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”
Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.
- I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.
I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).
- Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.
It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.
- Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.
- Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.
I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.
- Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.
I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.
- Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):
  - Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.
I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.
- You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.
  - If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.
- Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.
I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.
- Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.
I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.
I default to competing interpretations.
I default to drop the argument.
I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:
- Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse
- Frivolity of Theory
Please read Theory/T in shell format.
I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.
- A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.
- The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.
I will call slow or clear if I need to.
- If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.
Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.
- Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.
- I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.
- This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.
I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).
Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.
Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

<= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.
25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.
27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.
28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).
29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).
30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.
- This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.
Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.
Please take points of information.
I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).
I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).
I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.
- I’ll call slow or clear as needed.
- Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.
LD Specific:
- I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.
- I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.
  - I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).
  - Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.
- As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

Susan Foley Campbell Hall High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 25, 2021 at 5:10 AM PDT

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Daniel Foltz Hire 6 rounds

Jayanne Forrest New Roads School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 14, 2023 at 5:39 AM EDT

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a pre-med Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies. I currently coach for Lake Highland Preparatory school.

My email is mayjay144@gmail.com. Start an email chain, Speechdrop, or use file share on NSDA Campus. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, but feel free to send me a google doc link with view-only access.

quick prefs:

Policy arguments & T - 1

Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2, not my fave if they could have been T with same lit base as the framing]

Theory - 3

Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out horrific examples of gratuitous violence. Black violence is not a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS.Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this.

- I'm not a big fan of complex theory/skep/tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about, just take the round seriously.

- I think there are productive ways to engage in critical race theory. I don’t think that non-black debaters should be reading radical Black advocacies (e.g. afropessimism, Black nihilism etc.). Read your social justice positions, but please leave our radical Black authors/groups out of it. If you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will not vote on it. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

PF:

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.

Andrea Francis Valencia High School 6 rounds

Vinod Garg Irvington HS 6 rounds

Junshik Ham Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 18, 2021 at 5:34 PM PDT

UC BERKELEY '24 | Junshik Ham (just call me Jun).

Email me @junh124@berkeley.edu if you have any concerns or questions that are not on this paradigm.

Background:

I debated primarily parli and public forum in high school, and I do have some understanding of policy and LD as well. In parli, I debated in both traditional and tech style, depending on whether it was local or circuit. Currently, I am a psychology and political science double major at UC Berkeley, and I am part of the ASUC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I did not join the Berkeley debate team; however, I do look forward to joining once the pandemic curves.

Philosophy:

Debate, to me, is an outlet to express intelligence, hard work, and creativity for students. By doing so, you are partaking in education, entrepreneurship, sportsmanship, and advocacy work. This means that you must highlight why you should win my vote, above anything else. Your case, obviously, deserves the highest priority and value; however, your performance also entails speaking ability, manners, and other aspects.

I will try my best to stay as tabula rasa as possible. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to be 100% "clean state", but I do judge solely based on what has been spoken in the round.

You will, most likely, know the result of the round before you walk out the door. I believe that disclosing results is a fair way to increase the educational value of the round and it also gives me an opportunity to give you some feedback, along with answering your questions, if there is any.

Judging Preference:

These are simply my preference, so it is not mandatory. It may help you to follow these preferences though (in terms of speaker points and even potentially to win the ballot).

Signpost. Tell me where you are on the flow, to make sure that I have everything under the right position, in case I am confused. Even if you do not signpost, I will write down your arguments, counter-arguments, etc. It just makes my job easier and clearer if the round is messy.

Voter Issues. This applies to the last speeches specifically. Tell me why you won the debate and deserve my vote overall. You can go line by line, however, it is more effective for me, and also easier, if you just tell me verbatim, why you won the round.

Presumption. Depending on the burdens of the resolution (either explicit or implicit), I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on.

Performance. Performance "debate" will result in a loss probably. It is disrespectful to the opponent who legitimately prepared the case, and it is called a debate competition for a reason.

Timing. I will time, but also not strictly. It is up to the debaters to self-time and to monitor the opposition's time.

General Debate Things:

Speed. Generally fine with speed, including spreading to a degree. Since the debate is an educational opportunity, however, if the opponent asks you to slow down, you have to slow down. Not complying may result in loss of speaker points and even loss, depending on the severity. Also, I am not going to say "clear" or tell you that you are not being clear. If I am not typing/writing anything down, there is a good chance that you are not being clear enough though. If there are speech docs, I do not look at them during rounds for fair competition.

Tech > Truth. I will take into account anything you say or argue in the round, as long as they do not clearly violate the ethics/manners of the debate.

Ks. Kritiks are an important card in your pocket to utilize when necessary. I used to run them, so I am familiar with them, and I am also fine with you running them. That being said, I would advise you against simply throwing a K to win the round. Make sure you highlight and explicitly state why the K is educationally beneficial as you run it. It does not need to be lengthy and detailed, and I also don't care where you say it. Just briefly mention it. If you simply tell me that I am "morally obligated" to vote on a K without any content or context, the K is useless. I am not going to buy Speed K (or any speed theory in that manner).

Theory. I will take theories, even though I am not a huge fan of them. Conditionality, paradox, etc are all "theories" in this case.

Card Cutting. Card cutting will immediately result in a loss.

Dropped Arguments. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true." Basically, give me the reason why the dropped arguments actually matter rather than just saying it was dropped. It will do you little to no good if you simply state that it was dropped.

Presumption. Although rare, if it falls to a presumption neg win, I will grant NEG a presumption.

Criteria. If you do not specify the criteria, I will default to net benefits.

Ethics/Manner:

It is rather sad that I have to include this. If you are blatantly disrespecting, insulting, or causing any deliberate verbal/physical attacks to the opponents (or even me), there will be consequences. The consequence may vary from loss of speaker points, loss of round, or even pausing the debate to talk to the tab if necessary.

For mainly parli, if you would like to point out a clear evidence distortion by the opponents, bring it up during your speech and give me a rationale. I will take it seriously, but there is no guarantee that I would necessarily take any action. If it is deemed necessary, I will follow the rules of the debate outlined by the tournament first, and talk to the tab if needed.

Alan Hao Juniper

Gibran Hassan Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 5:33 AM PDT

Judges for: Sonoma Academy (2019-present)

Previously judged for: Peninsula, MBA, Meadows

UCLA '23

Add me to the email chain: gibran.fridi@gmail.com

Email Chain Format: [Tournament Name Round # : Aff Name vs Neg Name]

Speed is fine, but clarity over speed. I will yell clear, but after the second time if I don't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. Also please disclose on the wiki.

Some Clarifications for this year because these things keep happening in round:

-cross-ex is not prep

-sending marked docs if it takes more than a minute is prep.

-marked docs don't need to have cards that weren't read taken out, that is your job to flow. The only time u should be sending out marked docs is if you actually mark a card.

- if we are having tech or wifi issues, try to resolve it best before the round starts. I would rather start late but everything working than stop after every speech due to wifi issues.

TLDR

Do what you do best. Trying to adapt to me as a judge is a waste of time. Although I am more familiar with policy arguments, I will vote for any argument you run as long as you do it well. K v K, Policy v K, K v FW, Policy v Policy.... i will vote for anything.

Arguments are claims, warrants, and impacts -- means that "dropped" arguments are true only if you explain why they matter and the reasons they're true. I need more explanation than just "they dropped the DA- we win!"

Tech>Truth

Topicality

I'm down to see a good T debate. I think T is vastly underused by 2Ns. If your 1N is a killer T debater, use it to your advantage. Most affs to some extent are untopical, so make them stop cheating. Have a good interp/counter interp and give me some good clash on the standards debate. I don't defer to reasonability or competing interps, so I will be convinced by both.

Theory

If condo is a legit strat for you it should be a big part of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. I will vote on condo, but there has to be in round abuse. If they read states and neolib, I will not be very convinced to vote on condo. And I definitely believe that neg should definitely have condo to test the aff. Other theory args aren't as convincing to me unless the other team completely drops it.

Probably my favorite debate argument. I love a good CP/DA neg start.

A good advantage CP with a sick DA can be a killer neg strat. But have some good evidence on how and why the CP solves. Usually, 1AC evidence can be used as solvency advocates for ADV CPs. Also, the CP better be competitive, cause then I have no reason to vote for it.

Yes, most K's are cool and I will definitely still vote on the K even though I'm most familiar with policy arguments. I think Ks are very interesting and probably produce the most real-world change. But if you don't understand your K and can't explain it to your opponents, I will have a hard time voting for it. Have some good links that you can explain. Also, the alt better solve or at least do something. If you can't explain what the alt does and what voting neg does, then please don't read that K. There's nothing more embarrassing than watching a K team not know what they are talking about in cross-ex. What K lit I know well (Cap, Set Col, Gnoseology, Security, Orientalism, Foucault). Bad K debates are worse than bad policy debates.ngl if ur a POMO team, don't pref me lol. I really don't want to listen to Bifo, Baudrillard, D&G etc debates.

Policy Affs

Do what you do best. Have solvency advocates, win the case solves something.

K Affs

Used to err neg on these debates, but as I judge more and more rounds, I feel differently now lol. I don't really have a preference anymore and yes I will vote for K affs. I am more experienced with policy but recently I have really enjoyed K aff rounds. Same rules apply as the K above.

Case

Destroy them on case. Nothing makes the 1AR harder than amazing case debate in the block.

Speaks

Don't steal prep. Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless it becomes an issue in the round. If you're very unclear, I will dock your speaks. Please don't clip. That's the last thing I want to deal with. You will lose the round, get a 0 and I will have to have a conversation with your coach. Also please don't make sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. comments. You will lose the round and get a 0. Don't be mean to the other team. Friendly banter is always welcome.

Shannon Hearn Hire

Lani Hollingsworth Hire 6 rounds

Mei Johnson Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 20, 2021 at 2:42 PM EDT

I'm a second-year UC Berkeley student + debated in high school for four years (PF/CX/Parli).

PARLI: (Updated 1/20/21)

Speed: I'm good with speed as long as long as your opponents are good with it. (The goal here is not to speak so fast that I can understand you but your opponents can't. I'm not a big fan of the "read-as-many-off-case-arguments-to-spread-out-your-opponents" strategy in Parli.)

Tag-Teaming: I don't think this is really necessary in Parli, so I would strongly prefer if you would not. If you can convince me otherwise, then sure.

Counterplans: I've always liked a good counterplan. If you plan on running any theory arguments against a counterplan, please remember to articulate exactly why the counterplan is unfair and how it impacts education/debate as a whole/etc.

Disads: I weigh these like anyone else. Please make sure your disadvantages have a good link to the Aff (or be able to argue that your disads have a strong link to the Aff).

Kritiks: Fine, as long as there is a solid link to the Aff. It's been a while since used a K in a debate round, so you'll probably need to give me a refresher on whatever literature you're citing. If you can't defend your alternative well, I'll be less likely to "buy" your K.

Topicality: Don't forget to provide a counter-interpretation in your T shell so I have something to work off of. Also, if you want T to be an a priori issue/a voter, please articulate to me why that should be (on the grounds of fairness, education, etc).

Dropped Arguments: I don't do anything with these unless you tell me to. That is, I won't automatically vote for you because your opponent dropped one of your arguments--you'll need to explain to me why that dropped argument is significant and means I should give you the win.

Other:

-Just because you can run an argument doesn't mean you should (e.g. "death good"). Use your best judgement here.

-It's OK (and encouraged) to give me an off-time roadmap before you start.

-Don't forget to signpost and tell me where you are on the flow.

-Remember to be respectful to your partner and your opponents.

-I like when speakers take POIs, but don't feel obligated to take every POI. (Good POIs/responses to POIs will be rewarded in higher speaker points, though.)

-Please don't make up evidence--I may ask to see your evidence after round.

-If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! I'm always happy to clarify.

Sathish Kumar Bakthavatchalam Irvington HS

Doug Lasken Taft High School 3 rounds

Leslie Leach Northgate HS 5 rounds

sim luo Hire

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 8:59 AM EDT

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Aaron Marquette Windward School 6 rounds

Preeti Morgaonkar Irvington HS 6 rounds

Zach Moss Bishop O'Dowd High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 12:27 AM PDT

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

Subbi namakula New Roads School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 4, 2023 at 4:33 AM CDT

If you are a novice, none of these things apply to you. please just do your best. Your speaks are solely dependent on you being kind and nice to everyone in the room.- I don't need to be on the email chain! You all amaze me every day!

(Policy, Public Forum, then LD)

POLICY

I'm Subbi and I do Policy debate at the University of Iowa. GO HAWKS I debated for 3 years at Niles West.

First things first, make arguments you are comfortable and happy with. This is an activity that is inherently for the students participating in it. Read what you want to read and tell me why it matters and why I should vote on it. That being said please don't say racist/sexist/ableist language during a round. I'm just not gonna vote on racism good.

@Both Aff and Neg- Making fewer arguments that are extremely warranted is better than making more arguments that are not as warranted. I love common sense arguments and analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make. If you make a persuasive analytic I'm all for that. I think debaters should be able and be encouraged to make arguments outside of cards. I prefer structural impacts over extinction-level impacts if you do make an extinction impact, have a really good internal link chain analysis.

@Policy Aff- Policy affs are really precise and garner GOOD SKILLS and I love them. I LOVE theory and I have a very low threshold for voting on it. I don't like really long case overviews. I will always weigh the affirmative unless told otherwise by the Neg. Winning against a one-off K in front of me requires you to at least win the Perm and a no link argument. I am very biased towards structural and ontological impacts like I don't think extinction outweighs everyday mundane violence, that being said have impact defense.

@Non-Traditional Affirmatives- Non-traditional affirmatives are really fun and give good EDUCATION and I love them. Non-Traditional Affs don't have to win that the Ballot is key in front of me, I will hold them to the same standard I hold the policy affs to, which is "you have to prove that the aff is a good idea. I need the aff to at least be reasonably within the bounds of the resolution.

@Policy Neg- Please don't read spark, death good, or PIC/KS.

@K Neg- If you're a one-off K team, please have a good explanation of your Links. You don't need to win an Alt in front of me to win the K, but you have to win impacts and framing, and why your theory means the aff can not solve or turns the case. Please have great answers to the permutation because I think most times the permutation is probably good, and I admit that I lean aff when it comes to permutations In one-off rounds.

@Negs Vs Non-Traditional Affs- If your ammo against non-traditional affs is two off cap and FW, lose the cap in front of me and just read external impacts that the aff can't solve but can be solved by core policy education. Case debates are really good against Non-traditional affs, Utilitarian framing is good, survival strategies are bad, No root cause. All of these are valid and good arguments to read. Don't drop the case ever. Don't let the aff weigh the entire aff against FW because they will almost always win. I like framework debates where the impact isn't fairness but education and skills. If you go for a Kritik against these Kinds of Affirmatives, I will have a high threshold for the aff being able to get a permutation, especially if they don't have an advocacy statement, but you must make this argument. Also, contextualize your Links to their theory/aff.

@cross ex- Look at me and don't laugh at your opponent's answer. Many people have done this with me in the back and it really hurts your ethos. Please be nice to each other, I have hella feelings and I don't wanna vote up a mean team.

Miscellaneous

- Please show up to rounds on time, ESP NOVICE, I will vote on disclosure theory so fast.

-Email subbi45hope@gmail.com

-Cx is a speech- Brian Rubaie 2k16

-I will never judge kick, ever.

-Don't steal prep.

-Have Fun :)

-I'm here to protect the 2NR.

-Will vote you down if you own Air Pods!!

-fam the wilder your alt, the higher the speaks lol.

- I have a low threshold for presumption if you are running a policy aff, I am not voting for presumption against a K aff.

Hey, I actually love and prefer judging PF. People in PF are a lot more polite and they always acknowledge me in the round and I like that.

PRO- Strongly prefer if pro always goes first in speeches and in the crossfire. I think to me a good pro is very persuasive and organized. I would prefer if you have two well-written and well-explained advantages rather than a bunch of shallow ones. I don't need you to extend everything in every speech but you should definitely have your points in the last two speeches if you want me to consider them.

CON- I think I am CON-leaning but that doesn't mean this is an easy ballot. You should offer good counterexamples, and directly answer their points in the last 3 speeches. I prefer that you have less defensive arguments and are more focused on proving the pro harmful.

Crossfire- You get a question, they get a question, then you get a follow-up. I hate hate hate when someone dominates the crossfire and doesn't allow for the other person to question, very rude. Will drop your speaks.

NOTES- I am fine with speed, I will reward politeness. Thank you for debating for me!

Hi so I have only judged a few rounds of LD, I think I have a good enough grasp on what is going on. I give a lot of leeway for the pro because they have a very short speech when answering a very long one. I prefer if this wasn't a debate about super old philosophers. That's right, I am NOT here for a Kant vs Locke debate. Most of these philosophers were super racist and if you want to talk philosophy there are philosophers today that you can reference.

Kai Ogawa Hire 6 rounds

Pranav Palleti Papaya Valley 3 rounds

shilpa parikh Menlo-Atherton High School 3 rounds

McKenna Peterson Windward School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2019 at 4:31 AM PDT

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I have multiple years of college debate as a competitor and judge so I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

If a team includes triggering language in a round without giving a sufficient content warning (one that allows people to opt out of listening to that triggering language) I am willing to vote on a theory that calls that out. Debate should be able to provide a safe space where we can all engage without having to relive trauma.

Also in regards to content warnings - when talking about possibly triggering issues using general terms, instead of specific or detailed examples, and including the term you will use in the speech in your content warning is a good way to better engage with other debaters and me as a judge.

Kritik: I’m not a huge fan of the kritik. You need to make sure the arguments are accessible to everyone in the round. I don't have extensive experience with kritik's and would not recommend running it in front of me but if you are clear, make valid arguments that everyone can follow, and win on the flow I can vote for it.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

Ernie Rojas West Ranch High School 6 rounds

Yardley Rosas Polytechnic School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:07 AM PDT

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

Justin Sears Sequoia High School 6 rounds

Ami Shah Irvington HS

Riley Shahar Crystal Springs Uplands School 6 rounds

Aashril Shazar Hire 6 rounds

Sanjit Shirol Papaya Valley 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 8:43 AM EDT

TLDR: Generic Flay (idk if i want to call myself flow anymore) judge w little to no K experience. Case and T are cool. My email is: sanjit13@berkeley.edu

tech>truth. tabula rasa. ill try not to intervene, but if there is no comparative weighing I might have to. I default SOL > other weighing.

I have noticed as I have become less involved in debate I am less willing to buy completely unwarranted blips of evidence. Please provide warrants with evidence (pls dont just evidence dump with no analysis of your own) and please make sure the evidence says what you are saying it does.

Theory cool. Just don't say something problematic. Please don't run t on people not familiar with it. ill vote up but tank your speaks. Default reasonability, RVIs Good, and default theory not a priori. Extend the underview every speech

Ks used to be ok but then I didn't hear a K for like 6 years lmao. I'm prob not the judge to run a K v T or K v Case debate. I legit forgot all the framework/weighing stuff/comparative. (Actually pls dont run K i dont know what im doing)

Pls No tricks. i just can't.

On evidence, call it out if its fake. Tell me to look at it and i will. If its fake then ill delete it off my flow. If its really badly misconstrued -> lowest speaks. I decide how fake it is. Paraphrasing ok, but if its cap then -> lowest speaks.

If you send speech docs ill give you 2 extra speaker points

Don't say problematic stuff. ill give lowest speaker points.

PF specific

I default to Net Benefits unless you tell me to use something else. Pls Weigh. Comparative weighing too. Don't bring up new args in FF. New weighing is ok in 1st FF, just no new big framing/weighing ovs/mechs. Extend links/weighing/framing in sum and FF. Defense from 1st reb is sticky. Don't expect me to vote off a turn unless you implicate it. DAs are ok but pls don't be abusive with them; ill let you do it but ill tank your speaks. Please explain nuances if its a big point in the debate. Spreading cool but you need to send a doc. Warrant everything; if they call you out on it, im not evaluating it. I don't care about cross but i listen, if there is a concession or smt, say in speech. Abolish grand cross. For PF, don't do too much of the T/K debate, keep it on case pls; its supposed to be for the layman. ill tell you if i don't know specific jargon on the topic.

Vishal Singhania Irvington HS

Clif St Laurent Polytechnic School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 24, 2021 at 5:36 AM PDT

Although I have never competed on a debate team, watching debates/debate tournaments has been a hobby of mine for some time now. I have judged approximately six tournaments over the course of one year. The debate formats I have experience in are Parliamentary, Public Forum, Congress, and World.

PREFERENCES

1) Clear Speech - This is the foremost important thing to me in a speech. I value articulation, enunciation, and a digestible speaking pace above all.

2) Spreading - While I am not a fan of spreading - in the least bit - I do recognize the strategic value of the technique and I've encountered debaters who have been able to effectively execute this skill because of their great use of my point number one (clear speech) and the point to follow.

3) Verbal/Non-Verbal Fillers - This is a grave pet peeve of mine. The excessive use of "uh's, uhm's," and "like..." will earn you a lower score with me. I find them distracting to the arguments and it makes for an extremely incoherent and unconfident sounding speech. If collecting your thoughts or gathering your words is necessary during a speech, then taking a brief moment of pause is preferable to uttering a ton of distracting fillers. Avoid them at all costs.

3) Passion/Conviction - A great sales person could sell milk to a cow". Keep in mind that you are salespersons. You are selling me on an idea that you feel strongly about or in opposition of. Therefore, you must convince me not only with facts but your presentation of those facts. I, greatly, value a passionate speech. If you are not able to sell me on the facts at least be able make me buy your argument. I've judged debates where the conviction of the speaker, alone, was almost sufficient enough for me to vote in their favor. Just don't try to sell me foolishness.

4) Facts - It goes without saying that facts should be supported.

5) Respect - I can appreciate whit, confidence, and a good amount of entertainment but please, be respectful.

Maggie Sun Irvington HS

Melissa Sunbury Northgate HS 5 rounds None

Rajesh Telkar Irvington HS 6 rounds

Julia Thomas Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 26, 2022 at 12:41 AM PDT

MINI (shortened) PARADIGM

I am not a lay judge, I will keep a flow

self-timing is encouraged

signpost clearly, please!

terminalize your impacts

try to take cross-examination

spreading is fine, but if your opponent or I say "clear", or ask you to slow down, I expect and suggest you fix your spreading or it will negatively affect your round.

*be respectful*

____________________________________________________________________________________________

FULL PARADIGM

Debate is an educational opportunity for growth, to practice, and gain life skills in public speaking, impact analysis, and persuasion. Being diplomatic, respectful, and have good sportsmanship is important to fostering a more welcoming community in such an inherently competitive and cutthroat activity. Good clash, signposting, and evidence make for great debate rounds, so be sure to employ these to your fullest extent in the round. Do not be abusive or disrespectful to your opponents, partner, or me.

Be concise and clear, emphasize your evidence and explain to me why you should win the round. While diplomacy and speaking ability are important factors in results, I will judge first and foremost on the actual debate and flow itself.

Background in debate:

In high school, I did two years of parliamentary debate so that is the style I am most familiar with, however, I have judged LD rounds before and understand the basic principles of policy.

My judging:

Although I am not a lay judge, I will remain tabla rasa while judging, so it is best to pretend I have zero knowledge of the subject matter. I judge rounds focused solely on the information brought up during the debate will not be applying my own personal knowledge or bias as a factor of any sort when judging. Therefore, it would be unwise of you to assume I know something and breeze over the statistics, analysis, or evidence, as I will not judge on what is not explicitly cited or stated within the round. If your opponents tell me that apples are purple and you fail to contest this point, I will vote as if apples are in fact purple.

Random Preferences:

Conditionality- Unless you have legitimate grounds for running this, I tend to find it abusive.

Courtesy- be respectful of your opponents. Do not heckle, tag team, or be cruel.

Cross-Examination- answer to the best of your ability all of the questions asked. Weak responses to get out of questions such as "that is not relevant", with no further explanation will hurt your speaker points.

Impacts- terminalize them, and explain them... impact weighing can shift a whole debate if done correctly, so keep this in mind!!

K- Generally, I am not super familiar with kritiks and do not enjoy kritiks unless you believe it is absolutely necessary to the round. Avoid running them unless you have very clear evidence and explanation as to why the K is necessary and proper and be sure you have strong links to the Aff.

Protected time- keep questions short, clear, and be respectful of protected time. If your opponent asks a question, please accept and respond to the question within reason. Respect and honor your opponent’s speaking time and do not ask an excessive number of questions.

Signpost- please clearly signpost. It allows me to better track and flow your arguments meaning I can better judge your round.

Speaking- please try to fill all of your speaking time.

Speed- While I do prefer slower debate rounds, you may spread. I can keep up with quick-paced rounds but prioritize the quality of speech over quantity, so do note that your spreading must be clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying then I cannot flow it. If I or your opponent says clear, I expect and suggest you fix your spreading or it will negatively affect your round.

Topicality- go for it but offer a counter interp.

Value- clearly express and define your value for me.

Voting issues- use them to your advantage in your last speech to remind me why you believe you have won the round.

-off-time roadmaps are encouraged

-Avoid dropping arguments, as drops mean truth.

-Feel free to use comparative advantage but only if you have responded to all DAs.

-Go ahead and self-time!

-Speaking ability is something that I am acutely aware of.

-Being disrespectful will also reflect negatively on your speaker points.

-A failure on your behalf to prepare does not constitute an emergency on my behalf. Please come to the round with everything you need to debate.

Jason Torres Bonita High School 3 rounds

Michael L. Tuchin The Archer School 3 rounds

Debbie Veld San Dieguito Academy 3 rounds

Fang Wang Crystal Springs Uplands School

Lin Wang Juniper 5 rounds

Stephen Welch Northgate HS 5 rounds

Sarah Wheeler Piedmont High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 7:08 AM EDT

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.

Connor Whitehill Bishop O'Dowd High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 29, 2023 at 12:15 AM PDT

My name is Connor (he/him) and I have four years of high school parli debate experience. During that time I considered myself to be a "flay" debater, meaning that while I did use theory and other technical arguments I almost always structured my debates around case. As a judge, I will evaluate any arguments that you can prove are important.

Case

I love good case debate with warranted uniqueness, a strong link chain, clearly terminalized impacts, and organized clash on the line-by-line
Organization will boost your speaks
I generally like when people collapse on a few impacts in their voters
I assume probability>magnitude>time frame>reversibility if not told otherwise
Please do impact calculus

Counterplans

Please have a specific counterplan text. It would also be ideal if you could give a hardcopy to me and the other team if it's a particularly complex one
Try to be mutually exclusive, run perms as a test of competition
Run theory against CPs you think are abusive

Theory

Love theory with a clear interp, standards, and voter issues
I probably have a higher threshold for friv theory than most, but will still vote on it
My default is competing interpretations, if you argue for reasonability give me a brightline

Assume I know nothing about your lit base, Ks were never my area of expertise
Please try not to run something super generic, tell me how the aff or the res applies to your argument
Signpost as clearly as possible

Speed

Ok with some speed, but probably can’t keep up with spreading
I would encourage you to call “slow” or “clear” on the other team if needed

Misc

I flow answers to POIs
Call POOs if the new argument is borderline
Answer a POI or two in your constructive speeches
Tag teaming is fine, just make sure the speaker ultimately says everything

Feel free to approach me before the round with any questions or concerns and I'll be happy to answer.

Shirley Wu Menlo-Atherton High School 3 rounds

Leoh Yang Juniper 4 rounds None

Daniel Zheng Crystal Springs Uplands School 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Peninsula Invitational

2021 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US

Parliamentary Paradigm List

Judges