Two things: (1) Do NOT speak too quickly and (2) signpost.

I am a new parent judge.

Please signpost and speak clearly. Speaking reasonably fast is ok as long as I can understand and follow along; otherwise, I cannot fairly judge.

Avoid too much jargon. Preference for Case Debate (prefer if you avoid Kritik and non-friv theory).

hi!

My name is Matilda and I'm a current junior and debater for Menlo-Atherton. I use She/her pronouns. If there are any questions about this paradigm/RFDs, feel free to email 811998@seq.org.

I will try to evaluate only what is said in round BUT if an argument is problematic, has blatant logical gaps, or relies on a skewed interpretation of what is true in the status quo, I am unlikely to vote on it. It's okay to not fully know what you are talking about after skimming 3 random articles in 20 minutes, but if I can tell you are purposefully lying... like stop it.

I'm really bad with speed and I will call slow/clear when needed. Signposting will really help me flow you... so do it.

I understand theory and kritiks but if there is no real abuse/solvency/they are just being run for a W, I will not vote on them.

Ask POIs! but make sure they are actually questions and avoid starting back-and-forth arguments. If the tournament has them, POCs are cool too.

Call POOs! I will try my best to protect, but rounds get messy and I might make mistakes. Don't use POOs abusively to distract/suck up time.

Impact + Weigh! give me voters, two-world analysis, terminalize, link back to WM, literally anything! Tell me how and why I should care.

I will stop flowing after the allotted speech time, but you have a 30-second grace to finish up.

Debate should not ruin your life so please have fun and be kind.

NPDL Paradigm Jargon guide

Hi! My name is Akemi and I’ve been competing in parli for a couple years now at Menlo Atherton High School.

TL;DR: I'm a flow judge and enjoy efficient and warranted debates with clean collapsing, extensions, and a two world analysis. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. Remember: Quality>Quantity

Truth > tech meaning that you have to actually explain the truth of your argument (warrant- logical/phil/analytical/evidence) for me to buy them. Bad with speed :((

Thoughts on Case/POO’s/POI’s:

1. I am ALWAYS down for a good framework debate. That being said, it's on you to (1) Justify your framework (2) Explain what the implications of your arguments are under your framework (what are your impacts and why do they matter under your framework), (3) Probably is strategic to at least briefly explain why you're winning under both frameworks (but that's ultimately up to you).
   
   

2. Please weigh and signpost ALL your args/impacts, otherwise there’s nothing to vote on
   
   

3. No shadow extensions
   
   

4. I default to net benefits/util
   
   

5. I don't protect so call the POO. Please try to take at least one POI to allow your opponents the ability to actually participate in the round. That being said, don't abuse POIs (I will be VERY sad)

Be respectful to one another: do your best to make the round accessible to your opponents and treat everyone with fair respect. I’m not afraid to auto drop you to maintain a safe and equitable debate space ;))

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round starts, I’m more than happy to answer.

Have a great round!

Hey I'm Athena, I'm currently a sophomore at Piedmont High and have been debating parli for the past five years. I have the most experience in parli (norcal tech but also some lay) but I also know how LD and policy work. This might be a bit long, but I wanted to include everything I felt was necessary and would help you out! If any of this funny debate jargon doesn’t make sense to you or if you have any questions about why I evaluate stuff in a certain way please ask me before the round! I am always happy to take the time to explain - paradigms with a lot of lingo always scared me so i def understand feeling overwhelmed

- Basic human decency always comes before winning. This should be common sense (in debate and in life), but don't say or do anything discriminatory or bigoted or be rude to anyone in the round. This will not be tolerated and I will immediately drop you, have a Serious Discussion, and escalate to equity/tab accordingly. Please stop reading stuff written by Nazis. I don’t care if you think this isn’t tabula rasa of me, the violence behind these ideas, words, and actions doesn’t disappear just because you’re in a debate round. I also find that most arguments like this tend to lose on the flow anyways.

Don't misgender anyone. If you do this and do not immediately apologize and correct yourself, you will be dropped and a Serious Discussion will also be in order.

- Please don't ask to shake my hand. I wear a mask but idc if you do.

- Speak at whatever speed seems reasonable to you but if anyone in the round asks you to slow or clear you should slow or clear. I can and will determine speaks based off of adherence to this rule

- Grace period is like 10s, finish up your thought but I will stop flowing

- Weighing is really really really important! I can't stress this enough it's so important for evaluating the round. I want to see clean collapses in the back half of the round, metaweighing is cool, and just please do weighing work i will be sad if you don't

- Please actually interact with your opponents' arguments, I feel like arguments over stuff like author credibility are kind of pointless and shallow (esp in parli where no one can really fact check anything anyway) and if their author really is that bad surely there’s some logical fallacy/otherwise incorrect thing they’re employing and subsequently somewhere they’re losing on the flow? that you can talk about instead?? Idk, I just think proper clash makes everything more interesting and creates much better argumentation

- Tech over truth but the less truth there is the less tech it takes to beat it

Parli:

- I find that mspdp does not understand how POO’s work. Reading evidence is not a new argument. Reading an extension from the previous speech is definitely not a new argument. Reading a response to something someone said in the block is a golden turn and is a thing you can do. If you’re not mspdp then I assume you know that - I protect, but sometimes i forget so you should call the point of order just in case, I will not penalize you

- Please please PLEASE if you poi make sure they are 1) a QUESTION 2) directed at your opponents NOT ME. I have no problem with pois and in fact encourage them as a whole, just please use them for their intended purpose of asking a relevant and clarifying question to your opponents. I’m getting really tired of the whole awkwardly shoehorned in as a question, “well we say this so do you agree that x is true” thing like save that for your own speech. I also don’t care if you don’t poi, it won’t affect your speaks or my perception of you as “engaged” or wtv but I do generally think it is nice to accept a poi or two

- Case is cool. Please give me good links and uniqueness in the right direction!! I appreciate goofy counterplans and don’t have any strong opinions either way on theoretical illegitimacy, so open to theory. Please address any perm spikes

- I love k’s! I’ve currently been doing cap and cap adjacent k’s but I love learning about different k’s so feel free to run whatever in front of me. You should explain your lit base at a high level in your FW - better yet, assume both I and your opponents don’t know it and proactively answer any questions. If your k relies on confusing your opponents by not telling them what’s going on it’s probably not a very good k lol. I like specific links and they will probably give you an easier path to the ballot. Please have good solvency arguments attached to your alt, I think that unless you are very clear about how your spicy abstract prefiat epistemological rejection of something or another alt solves I find it hard to buy and will have a lower threshold for “no solvency womp womp” responses by the other team

K affs should have strong topic harms OR strong framing justifying the aff. Ideally both actually both is good. I will vote on FW/T as long as it doesn’t cross over into “K’s are prima facie bad”

- Theory is nifty. Defaults: competing interps > reasonability, text of the interp, LOC theory probably comes before MG theory, no RVIs but I can be convinced otherwise. K’s bad is cringe. Topicality tends to get very bogged down in semantics which I guess is kind of the point, but I would like to see more work done on voters, external impacts, and reasons to prefer your interp which imo should be the real meat and potatoes of a T round. I think there’s maybe something to be said for disclosing during prep that you are running a k of some sort, especially in novice, but I don’t really know how I’m supposed to enforce or verify that. Parli moment

- i don’t really know how to eval tricks except tropicality, I love tropicality

LD:

- please do good signposting and please slow down on analytics! It’s been a hot minute since I’ve watched any super spready rounds so please cut me some slack

- Email: [redacted, will put up before tourn] Would be nice if you could format the subject line as Tournament - Round # - Aff AB vs Neg XY. It should not take you two minutes to send cards unless you’re having a legitimate issue, in which case you should let me know asap otherwise I’ll start prep after ~30s

- Take a look at the parli section, most of my opinions are the same. You can run plans and counterplans, lol.

- FW is very cool and important! Idk what else to say here.

- Trad LD is like weird to me tbh. Make it abundantly clear why your value + criterion matters ig?

- Look okay I get that debate can get rather charged and heated but being annoying in CX gets you nowhere, I appreciate some snark but being straight up rude is a different thing and not something anyone enjoys. Also please stop screaming "THEY MISHANDLED THIS" at the top of your speech, like they probably didn’t and you still need to explain why that matters

Other stuff:

- READ CONTENT WARNINGS. I err on the side of too many TW’s being better than the alternative (this obviously excludes jokes, which if you’re thinking about doing you should go touch some grass and seriously rethink your life choices). If you get trigger warning theory run against you just apologize, move on, and do better in the future. I do not want to see forced outing or justifications of violent rhetoric. I can and will drop the debater. Conversely, I would like it if you didn't villainize your opponents when they are actually making a good faith effort to improve (and it is usually easy to tell in these situations when people are acting in good faith!)

- Speaker points are a) nonsensical, inconsistent, problematic, and prioritize cishet white men, and b) very important to a lot of you. Unless you do something actively bad, I'll give you all 30’s at tournaments that don’t require me to give everyone a different score and at ones that don’t I probably won't go lower than like a 29. I will never ever ever dock speaks for something like your clothes, internet connection, things like stuttering/speaking quietly/etc (if it interferes with my ability to understand you i will let you know), sounding “angry” (esp if you are fem presenting!), speaking “informally”, etc!!!! there was this one tournament I went to where I got four separate rfds in which the judge took points off for my delivery lmao and I am sick of it

- +0.5 speaks for bringing me A Trinket (food, something from nature, or some otherwise nifty object), +0.1 for saying “we stay silly” or “yippee”, +0.2 for playing or referencing any segment of the musical masterpiece that is I Will Eat Raw by Joel jacobs at any point while I am in the room, showing me your flows after the round, calling elon musk a clown and honking your nose, or each phoebe bridgers reference :))

Also say something funny please debate is not as serious as y'all think I really wish people got more silly with it

+0.3 if you make fun of elisha bell

- If you think you might have any questions after the round, just ask me and I'll give you my email, feel free to ask about anything whenever!

- Wow I’ve been yapping for a while im so sorry. Anyways I'm just vibing you're just vibing, have fun, there's always room for improvement, good luck y'all!!

Current debater for Palo Alto High.

Truth > Tech.

Not the best person to run Ks, Ts, or Theory against.

Please signpost, don't excessively spread, and make it so that I don't have to think (aka make your arguments clearly link with your impacts).

I will not vote for you if you make any obviously sexist, racist, or other derogatory arguments, even if you're clearly winning.

Most of all, have fun, and debate how you want!

Parent Judge

I am a lay judge. This is my first year judging debate.

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

Hey! I'm Anika, current high school parli debater @ Evergreen Valley (Papaya LOL)

TL;DR: Literally just signpost and impact weigh and you'll be fine.

Side note - if I have debated you before just know it holds no influence over my decision

Some of my prefs:

1) This is arguably the most important thing on here: SIGNPOST I swear to god. If I don't understand where you are, I cannot flow what you are saying. Literally just saying "contention 1, my opponents say... however..." is perfect

2) Roadmaps: I'm cool with offtime roadmaps, actually prefer it if you tell me beforehand your speech order

3) I wish this went without saying but please give your opponents/me the text of your cps/plans/interps etc. (unless the plan is just res text lol then dw about it) Also if you talk fast, slow down to read these types of things plss thx

4) Warrants: (a) I am a firm believer that examples are not warranting and that if you are going to rely on examples to be the backbone of your argument you first need your warranting/logic as a foundation (b) please please explain and detail your warranting, don't just give me unexplained stats (c) I swear please don't fabricate your evidence it is extremely obvious

5) Impacts: impact out everything - and terminalize to death, dehumanization, or quality of life (especially if your new to debate and struggle with weighing - this will make everyone's lives a little bit easier) Also for LD - link you impacts back to the framework please, don't just drop the value/criterion after mentioning it once at the beginning.

6) Rebuttals: I love when you respond line-by-line, I hate blanket responses or responding to like one thing in the contention (the only time this works is when you explain why that singular point being untrue undoes the whole solvency of the contention). Whatever you do, don't just say "cross-apply" contention #_ as a response without actually giving said response/explaining further.

7) Weighing: Most importantly, please weigh. The earlier you start weighing in the round the better tbh.

8) POO: I don't protect so call the POO.

9) POIs: I know you have a lot to get through and don't want to take the POI, but I prefer when you take at least one because your opponents are trying to understand what tf is happening. That being said, don't abuse POIs by asking silly questions, its stupid and a dirty trick (especially if you are first time debaters)

10) Tech: idk Ks so please refrain from using them, I'm cool with theory so run it if you want but make it clear please. That being said I <3 friv theory lol

11: Speaks: you may or may not get a 30 (or 28 in nypdl) if you say a suits/white collar quote

Most of this stuff is for parli so if I'm judging another event, I probably don't know much about it (sorry about that) but I will def try my best to judge you fairly

Hello Everyone

Background: I have been doing Parli debate for around 7 years and did Model UN for a short time too

Round Logistics

Speed: For me spreading is fine but out of respect to your opponents if they yell "SLOW" or "CLEAR" please respect that make sure your case is still fully understandable for everyone listening

I am truth>tech but feel free to run what you feel fit frivolous theory is also ok with me but I will not prefer it without clear and logistical reasoning

Hi, I am a first time judge. I will be flowing on my computer, no spreading. I have no tech experience.

Aditya - Judge Paradigm

Background: In my 5 years of active participation in Congress debate and Parliamentary debate, I've developed a judging philosophy that values clarity, theories, and impactful arguments. I am a semi-flow judge.

Preferences:

I. Debate Theories:

• I will default A Priori on all theories. Debaters running a good theory will capture my attention and almost certainly win a round
• I may not accept a "no RVI" for frivolous theories. If your opponents struggle to understand your theory, you must either explain it or drop the T

II. Case:

i. Policy Rounds:

• In policy rounds, aim for magnitude in impacts. Clear explanations supported by statistics and strong links (a. this will happen, b. because a happens, this happens) are essential.
• Running a Counterplan (CP) on the negative can be advantageous.

ii. Value Rounds:

• Depending on the topic, I weigh climate impacts less than other impacts.

iii. Fact Rounds:

• In Fact rounds, every argument and counter must be supported by relatively recent statistics.

III. Kritiks:

• I appreciate kritiks with real-world impacts that resonate with me. Lack of a personal impact may result in weighing the argument lower than others.
• While a well-structured K can win the round, but be cautious about leveraging people's suffering solely to gain a competitive edge in the round.
• ALL Ks will be weighed through judges discretion, and very little in round reasoning

IV. Blank Slate Judge:

• I approach rounds with a blank slate and avoid using prior knowledge unless one side abuses this by presenting outrageous statistics.
• I will also use my previous knowledge when weighing a K

SIGNPOST AND TAGLINE

Zero Tolerance Policy: I do not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any -isms. Hateful language or behaviors will lead to intervention, and I will drop all aspects of the case reflecting such sentiments. This will be echoed in the feedback provided to maintain a respectful and inclusive debate space.

Closing Note: My goal is to foster a fair and educational debate environment. I encourage debaters to be respectful of each other's arguments, avoiding abusive practices that detract from the constructive nature of the debate.

hey everyone!

my name is varsha, i'm a current junior and debater for menlo-atherton, and i'm so hyped to be judging for you today!

a couple of things you should know about me before round.

1. truth>tech. just make sure you make sense.
2. on the topic of tech, i do love hearing it. if you run theory or a kritik, i'll have so much fun evaluating the round. BUT, make it accessible, and i won't layer it first unless you have a good rationale. on K's, i'm a little skeptical of alt solvency, so if you run one, make sure you have a good alt because i'm pretty likely to buy a good argument saying your alt does nothing.
3. On T, not a fan of friv, but I'll evaluate (skeptically) I guess. genuine theory is good, and a legitimate way to establish norms in the debate space. explain it out well, tell me how to layer it, and tell me why the abuse matters. fairness and education, people!
4. hey! jargon is great! jargon is fun! but i prefer not to have to decode another language when listening to your speech!! even though i've been doing this for a while now, i still get tripped up on the terms so it's likely that i'll disregard super obscure jargon. if you want to use a ton of it, explain to me what it means and does, and then i'll put it on the flow. (Ditto on Ks, if you have a specific lit base that you're referencing often, make sure that you make it familiar enought to me throughout the round. Otherwise I literally won't be able to understand you, and I'll be more sympathetic to your opponents who are probs just as confused!)
5. i love fun CPs! make it interesting, but make it specific.
6. oh my god. if you have a plan and you say your time frame is "as soon as possible" i'll cry. be specific. likewise if you're funding like a trillion dollar project and you say "normal ways and means" i'll also cry because i'm pretty sure theres no normal way to fund something of that scope. obviously these things have economic repurcussions. if someone gives you a plan or a cp worded in this way, i'll be happy if you attack it because i think it's stupid to disregard parts of a plan that you just don't want to have to deal with. (if the sum of money is small/medium, i'll let normal ways and means slide, just for big projects its kind of iffy.)
7. framing: if it's policy, have a plan. if it's not, define the tricot and explain why. on WM, i love when people gravitate away from net bens. you have a lot of power, use it!! define criterion.
8. please terminalize your impacts!!! also-- you're discussing real world issues and real people's lives- please treat them as such! please impact. i love impacts. it makes case debate so much easier to evaluate. terminalize everything and LINK BACK TO WM!!! in your last speech tell me how you outweigh, condense into voters, give me a two-world comparison, do SOMETHING to impacr it all out. please don't use those last 4/5 mins on line by line analysis because i won't know why anything you said is more important.
9. warranting: i appreciate statistics, but not when it feels like you're reading me a research paper. more than statistics, i care about logical linking, and if you can effectively prove your point without a reliance on numbers, i can respect that.
10. be funny, be interesting! i know you all are lovely, fun individuals, and i love seeing personality in speaking!!
11. have fun, do your best, and i'm so excied to see you debate!

Assistant Coach for Nueva

Add me to email chain: esteinberg01@wesleyan.edu

PF:

Extensions/General Preferences: A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended". However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with shallow extensions. The vast majority of teams seem to have issues mechanizing and thoroughly explaining each step of their link-chains. Going fast and covering the flow is not an excuse to avoid explaining your arguments - collapsing effectively and introducing weighing early will make it easier to flesh them out. If both teams are technically proficient, the team that wins will often be the one that can resolve clashes with more thorough and deeper warranting.

Weighing: I despise when teams read a laundry list of weighing buzzwords like "scope, magnitude, probability" without any nuanced argument comparison. Additionally, if you say "Our probability is 100% because it's happening right now" I will roll my eyes. You derive impacts from the probability of preventing the harm or creating the benefit not from the probability of the harm occurring.

-Speed: Go as fast as you want - I have not needed to clear anyone but I will if necessary.

-Theory: I have voted for theory several times this year but I have yet to see a good round with theory in it. Take that how you will.

-K: I majored in philosophy in college so I will be able to follow the material/literature but slow down/thoroughly explain the implications. I would be more than happy to judge a good K round but I will be very sad if you botch a philosopher I like. Unfortunately, the latter happens more often than the former so I would recommend being cautious about running a K in front of me unless you are dope at it.

-Tricks: Haven't judged it yet but I am mildly fascinated by the prospect.

-Use CX to resolve clash - I'm not flowing but cross can still be incredibly productive if used correctly

Parli:

Competed briefly in HS parli and extensively in college (APDA). Open to all kinds of arguments, but see above regarding my perspective on prog args. I am less familiar with Parli norms so connecting prog arguments to Parli may require more connecting and implicating.

Hi, I am a lay parent judge with experience.

Things I like: clear explanation of your side and burden, clear path to the ballot, defend your assigned side of the topic

Things I dont like: technical arguments and fast speaking

Hi, I'm Jerry Yan and I'm an open LD and Parli debater as a sophomore at Palo Alto High school.

A brief summary of my judging style:

1. Fast speaking is fine but I prefer clear speaking because I will only flow things I can hear. I love analogies, and if you run a good one that I can understand, I will bless your speech.
2. I'm a Flay-oriented judge who prefers traditional debate and strategy. I like to see clashes and weighing and will give great speeches if you do them really well.
3. I don't prefer Ks and Theory, but I am still receptive to them.
4. Equality and respect are the utmost priority of the chamber and it would be an intense issue to give speaker points and possibly become a voter issue if the disrespect crosses the line.

Also just for you, I have generated a poem if you prefer reading poems:

In this chamber, truth takes flight,

Where tech takes a backseat, out of sight.

No K's to obscure the path we tread,

But analogies bright, shall earn one speak.

Debate we seek, with wit and grace,

Entertain, but with a solid base.

Framework strong, as tradition dictates,

Where theory's edge, subtly awaits.

No trickery here, nor personal slights,

Zero speaks for such unwelcome sights.

Equality reigns, in word and deed,

No racism, sexism, we'll accede.

Fast speaking's fine, but spread with care,

For clarity's sake, let arguments fare.

I'll bless +1 speaks for analogies grand,

That illuminate, where minds expand.

So let the discourse flow, in measured stride,

Where truth is championed, as we preside.

In this parliamentary realm we share,

Let fairness and respect fill the air.