I am a parent judge and prefer things to be warranted and impacted out clearly. Please do not spread and make well thought out arguments.

Signpost so that I can keep track of where arguments go on the flow.

I will reference a paragraph from Stanford University's “A Guide to American Parliamentary Debate” as a tool for my understanding of best practices.

A high premium is placed on quick thinking and logical, rigorous analysis. APDA debate is audience-centered; speaking skills learned on APDA can be directly appreciated by the general public, not only specially-trained judges. By focusing on argumentation and rhetoric rather than rapid recitation of evidence and technical rule-based strategies, parliamentary debate is an activity which is easily learned, extremely adaptable, and widely accessible, yet still rigorous, intellectually demanding, and rewarding.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/debate/pages/parli-guide

I am a parent judge and have judged a couple of tournaments in the past. I look for an overall respectful debate, good organization of arguments with a consistent approach throughout, clarity of communication and conviction in arguments, impacts and sources.

I am a lay judge. I generally take notes on my computer while you are speaking. I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments that are well supported by citations to evidence. I don't find spreading to be helpful to the speaker.

varsity high school parli with MVLA except now i'm in college on the other side of the country????

from Riley Shahar's paradigm: If the round, or this space, is inaccessible for you for any reason at any point, please let me know and I will do whatever possible to help.

also september 2021 update: I last updated this like a year ago and it's kind of aggressive?? I am sorry. i think i wrote it initially for a novice tournament so idk. i know a lot of people who have better paradigms than i do (specifically vivek chudasama). i am in college now and currently do not have time/energy to write a good paradigm. :'(

*to sum up my main principles:* be nice, be ethical, have logical, organized, warranted arguments. and have fun!! wow! debate!!

On case, I guess:

1. Please, please, please have warrants. I will not buy an argument unless you give me reasons why it is true. That means having more than a precarious logic chain. I mean examples, statistics, warrants.

2. You must have a specific link story. You need to explicitly tell me how your plan does something and how that specifically causes your impacts. That is the whole point of having a resolution and a plan. Otherwise, there is nothing to vote on if I have no idea how your impacts happen. The case should be a story in itself to begin with - isolated arguments don't get you anywhere.

3. Rebuttals are meant to tell me why you win. Don't turn it into another constructive or spend the entire time responding to their case. Give me an overview and boil it down to the most important aspects of each case and the debate as a whole. Try to strike a good balance between broad and narrow analysis. Tell me why your warrants, impacts, etc. outweigh theirs and provide analysis on why you win. You should be telling me how I should evaluate the round. You need to clearly flag arguments in the rebuttal so I know what you're going for.

4. CPs: there have been too many debates I've seen where the CP gets way too messy. Be extremely clear on why I should prefer the CP over the plan, or on the aff, a reason why the CP is specifically bad. And please, for the love of god, don't try to make it competitive on funding. I will drop the CP if you do.

5. Take the POI. Or at least try to acknowledge it. Call the POO. I'll try to protect against new information anyways.

7. Run theory when the other team is being abusive. Be clear on all sections of the shell (signpost! this goes for everything else too. I can't vote on arguments if I don't know where they go on the flow). friv theory is kind of a vibe but usually kind of sort of wastes time. proceed at your own risk.

8. I am not much of a technical debater so if you run a k, just be *really clear* and *really organized*, and please try to keep your speed under control.

Other preferences:

I will judge the round based on the arguments you make and nothing else (except when something you say is blatantly false, oops).

I'll mostly dock speaks for being disrespectful. Good speaks come from making good arguments, not necessarily speaking eloquently.

Off time roadmaps should be short!! No "I will be covering my opponent's case and explaining why it is wrong, then going over my own case with this advantage, this advantage, and this advantage and expanding upon a few other arguments." just say "aff, neg." that's it. Or you could go with "(# of sheets) on, (# of sheets) off" format. And I don't need a whole speech before your actual speech thanking everyone who's there and how we're doing a such a great thing by debating today. I appreciate the sentiment, but I got it.

If you're going to ask about everyone's "readiness," just say "is everyone ready?"

Try to be relatively quiet during other people's speeches. (covid-19 update: mute yourselves)

I don't need to shake your hand. Sorry. But I still love and support you <3 Also I will not shake your hand because there is a pandemic and it is not physically possible over the internet. I will wave at you probably.

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

This is my first time judging debates, I look forward to seeing what you will bring to us!

A little background, I work for an investment firm which focuses on investing in equities (stocks) of companies from the Developing World, like China, Brazil, India, Etc. I have lived in California for 13 years. I have an MBA from the University of Denver and grew up in Texas.

I am an inexperienced judge so I prefer no spreading and no theory. If you use jargon, please explain. Please be respectful, speak clearly, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

I am a first-year parent lay judge. Here are some of my preferences:

Provide me with your roadmap and guide me through your arguments.

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

Speak at a moderate speed so I can follow all your points.

Support your claims with cited evidence.

Maintain composure during heated moments.

Enjoy the experience!

Hi, My name is Zhihua Li and this is my first time being a debate tournament judge. I would give higher points to speakers who can stand up straight, look into my eyes with confidence, pay attention to all audience and talk at medium volume. I do not understand debate jargons so please be careful using them. I would give higher points for speech at medium speed with clear logics.

I am glad to be here and wish you all of you do your best today!

I'm a student with some amount of debating experience. I like debaters who make their impacts very clear and provide a weighing mechanism. Try not to be repetitive or overcomplicate your arguments. Make sure to have clear tag-lines and/or a roadmap so I can better track your arguments. Don't worry about speed ... if you're going too fast, I'll let you know.

Some things to keep in mind are:

If you're using theory, say it in simple terms so it's easier to understand.

I look for weighing mechanisms when determining wins

Fill your time! Don't waste valuable seconds or even minutes! (However, use your time wisely as well...don't ramble!)

Don't Spread!

Only use topicality against abuse

Be fair and have fun during your debates!

Hey there! I'm Annie/Yuqi Liu (pronouns she/her), and I'm a parliamentary debater on the East Coast. Hence, I'm unfamiliar with West Coast parliamentary norms, and I may also be unfamiliar with jargon from other debate formats. I do have experience judging parliamentary and CTMSDL.

With that in mind:

- Please speak in laymen's terms or tabula rasa

- Only use topicality against abuse

- If you do use theory, explain it thoroughly - this is both for me and your opponent

- Be clear and organized; outline your contentions (claim, warrants, impacts) and clash

- Weighing and analysis is very important!

- For novice debaters: please refute your opponents with more than just with one-liners; don't just state your case and not counter your opponent's case. Remember that my job my job is to decide whether you or your opponent convinces me more. I don't want to and will not do the refuting/weighing/impacting for you

About speed: if you start going too fast I'll tell you during the round, but so long as you're not spreading you should be fine.

Above all, remember to have fun and be courteous! I'll do my best to be a fair and considerate judge in return :)

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.

I am a relatively unsophisticated parent judge, whose son is a high school debater. I have judged a number of Parli tournaments over the last two years, including novice, JV, and open divisions, along with elimination rounds. I am not particularly knowledgeable about theory and/or critique arguments, even though I am aware of them, so your focus in persuading me should be primarily logic and reasoning, and responding to and addressing the opponent's arguments and why theirs are weak and/or why yours are better.

she/her

Experience: One year of Parli debate in high school.

TL;DR: I have no desire to intervene in the round, so I strive to evaluate the round as objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them in a flow/technical way, and don’t be oppressive/biggoted.

General:

• I tend to evaluate the technical elements of the flow as much as possible, and don’t intuitively know how to evaluate other framing claims that tell me to do otherwise. If you tell me to evaluate truth over tech, be sure to tell me what exactly that means.

• I have no real disposition either for or against: rejecting the rez, condo, cheater CP, etc. I think that you get these args, but I think your opponent probably gets to try theory agains them.

• I understand theory so if you want to run it, don’t be afraid

• Absent weighing on any particular layer, I default to weighing based on strength of link, so strength of link determines the size of the impact. That means I care less about how "blippy" an argument seems than other judges might; if an argument is conceded, it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true.

• Introduction speeches bore me

• Prefer if you tell me the order you will go in for your speech

Speaks/Delivery:

• I will say clear as much as necessary and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

• I will not lower speaks for calling points of order/inquiry.

• I don't believe in speaker points, so winners get 30s and losers get 29s.

I am a parent judge. I have judged a few parliamentary debate tournaments, but I do not have much experience.

I would like for you to state your name and speaker position before you go, in order to keep speaker scores accurate to whom is speaking. I would also prefer for you to have a small introduction in the beginning of your speech (a bit middle school, but it would help me a lot).

Road maps: Give me one. That's all.

Theory: I understand most theory shells, just don't go too crazy and get excessive.

Kritiks: I do not understand these, so please don't run one:)

Speaking: Speak clearly and go over your case if time permits (it helps me solidify my flow).

Spreading: Please do not spread, I will lose you immediately and it will only hurt the results of the round.

Overall, I enjoy cool arguments and I am pretty caught up with the world, so I should understand the topic.

I also do NOT nor will I ever permit any of the following: misgendering, homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. I will respect you, as will you respect your opponents and me.

Remember: It's just debate, not do or die, do your best and HAVE FUN!!

I am a parent of a student at Bishop O'Dowd.

This is my second year judging high school debate. I am not a fan of frivolous theory or kritik debate. Just a little about me, I am the Chief Administrative Officer for the Cardiovascular Research Institute at UCSF. I did my undergrad studies at UCLA.

Please speak clearly, explain all terms, be mindful of time, and be respectful of others.

WELCOME TO MY PARADIGM!

roses are red,

violets are blue,

b courteous while debating,

or I will tank you <3

._____｡.:**:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ ~

DO NOT:

run Kritiks, run theory, spread, be from Cali. (kidding about that last part,,,)

._____｡.:**:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ ~

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

okay with off time roadmaps.

I'll try to discount new args in rebuttals if I catch them, but pls call POOs thank youuu.

I give way more in depth verbal RFD than written, for the same reason i like debate but hate writing essays. 

everthing else is just the usual judging standards.

._____｡.:**:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ ~

ADD. INFO.:

feel free to run meme arguments. 

+0.5 speak if you say an opponent's argument is "sus", "based", or "mid". 

have fun :3

Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.

In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).

I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.

Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.

I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.

Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.

I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.

Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.

In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.

In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.

Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.