Speech doc + make fun of me for using yahoo + postrounding virtually: abaner@berkeley.edu

I did LD back in high school (couple of state wins + T20 NSDA + T20 NCFL). I do NPDA at Cal now (won NPTE Nationals 2023 [carried by partner moment]). I coached James Logan LD last year.

TLDR

• Fine with any speed but if you're above 350 wpm please send a speech doc. Will shout clear/slow/loud if I need it.
• Willing to watch any debate y'all want to have. Idc what you run if you run it well.
• Powertagging is bad. Paraphrasing (cough cough pf) is nonideal. Evidence ethics is legit. I will do the whole autoloss + 20 speaker points thing if you stake the round on it.
• Speaks are probably sexist, classist, and or rascist. Read 30 speaks theory and I'll give both teams 30s.
• If the word ends with -ist and is bad, you shouldn't be it. Please. I will drop you and report you to tab. Also, please don't run afro-pess if you are nonblack. Zion, Joshua, and Quin do a wonderful job explaining why: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/#:~:text=In%20the%20words%20of%20Rashad,reduce%20Blackness%20to%20ontological%20nothingness.
• Weighing is nonnegotiable. Please. I have watched too many rounds withoutgood weighing. Please say one of the magic weighing words and then tell me why your mechanism is more important than your opponents/why you win under your mechansim. I default to SOL, then magnitude. But please please please weigh and metaweigh. Please.
• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE COLLAPSE I BEG YOU
• Parli: I protect but just call the POO (obviously doesn't apply to other events). I barely know the high school norms are for POIs but ask away I guess.

Other TLDR things that I've collected over the years that are just preferences and don't change how I'll vote, but change my happiness in the round.

• Not a big fan of Nebel T :( I'll vote on it if you win it on the flow but like generally I'd much rather hear a debate about the substance of the aff plan vs you saying bare plurals + "this event being LD" means that the aff doesn't get the plan. Ideally, most sucessful debaters I've seen have read both and collapsed to whatever is cleaner

• I'd rather vote on substance than blips which means that if you have a choice to collapse to a 10 second line vs a 2 minute card out of your 1AR (or MG, or whatever the correct thing is for you're event), be strategic and go for what's the easiest out, but it'd make me happier if you went for the substance.

• The more I coach and read postmodernism, the less I think I understand it. Maybe I'm getting dumber, but I swear it made more sense when I ran it in high school.
• Stop saying gut check. I don't know what gut check means in the context of a flow round. If something is improbable, give me a warrant about why it's improbable.
• My favorite rounds to watch/judge K vs Case, Case v Case and K v K. This season Holden and I have changed our neg strat to be T + K + Disad, but prior to this year most of my rounds in college are a mixture of K v Theory or K v Case. This means nothing about what you should do, and everything about what I find interesting. Do what you feel comfortable with, and I will vibe.
• Saying try or die <<< doing smarter collapsing to something else

Case:

Is super cool!

• I like new + fun arguements. Read some crazy DA, go for the impact turn, make a hyper specific aff. Case is one of the places I feel like creativity shines through the most, and I love hearing cool case arguements.
• Link you impacts back to framework pls (for LD only)
• Linear disads are annoying! If you are going to run one you need to explain the link differential a lot more clearly.
• Chill with counterplans (pls stop saying "NSDA rules mean no counterplans" and respond fr). Condo (/dispo) is probably good but willing to listen to theory.
• Will listen to any CP (cheaty CPs, PICs, etc.) unless explicitly told they are bad by a theory sheet.
• I believe that the aff burden is to prove a) why the plan is desirable and b) is better than the cp. I will judge kick -- I don't thinking collapsing to a turn on the counterplan means that you prove the plan is desirable, especially if the neg is allowed multiple conditional counterplans (given the aff doesn't read T).
• Perms are tests of competitions please stop saying you added an advocacy lol
• Weighing is super important in case v case rounds. The sooner you pick a framing and tell me why you win, the easier evaluating the round is.

Kritiks:

I've run Buddhism, Althusser, Foucault, and MLM (not as much MLM as other cal teams) mainly. I mostly run Buddhism. I've coached Set Col and Deleuze.

• Down for anything but the longer the average word length of the author you're reading is, the slower you need to go if you want me to understand.
• If you're alt starts with "I/We already ruptured the debate space so vote for us for fun" pls stop making the author of your lit base turn in their grave (if they have passed) or contribute to their sadness (if they are alive)
• I think K-affs need to win (a?) topic harm(s?) to justify why they are k-ing out, and on the neg you need to win a link to the aff.
• Specific links >>>>> generic links.
• Frameouts are legit and underutilized.

THEORY TO K BRIDGE! In a K vs FW T round, don't just say 'a prori' or repeat your apriori tag as a reason for your arg to be layered first. I've had too many rounds where I have no clue who is apriori because the clash was just both debaters saying "we are a prorir"

Theory:

As a top note, chill on the friv T! I'd rather not have to vote on shoe specc or tropicality again :(

• Defaults: competing interps > reasonability, text > spirit, acc abuse > potential abuse, drop the arg > drop the debater. As with all defaults, feel free to win the arguement on the flow and my mind changes.
• In a vacuum, I like RVIs. I think if you do them and win why you get RVIs (assuming the other team says you shouldn't), I will happilly vote on them.
• Check your interps before you read them -- I've been in far too many rounds where people have read "text > spirit" and then have accidently used the wrong wiki name (it changed!) or had something else wrong with their text
• Big fan of bidirectional T that's set up well in flex!
• (Parli:) MG theory is chill. Anything after that probably not. I heard PMR theory was cracked tho.

Phil:

I read all type of phil in high school. I've read all the common LD authors before (Kant, Habermas, Rawles, Virtue Ethics, Land Ethics, etc...) and some niche ones like Levinas.

• If it took you 2+ reads to understand your card because of the writing style, I will not get it on first listen. Either a) send me your case (should already be disclosed) and b) slow down and c) add explinations in your own words frequently
• Phil frameouts are insane and a huge part of what makes phil LD tick. When you're weighing, go the extra step don't just tell me why you're arguements link -- tell me why your opponents don't.
• Don't be shifty in cross when explaining your author

That was long. Ask me questions preround if you need to or send me an email. Feel free to postround too.

ty Ozan for this poem:

"weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur"

Updated January 1, 2024

My high school debate experience includes three years of National Circuit high school policy debate and several volunteer judging experiences through the New York City Urban Debate League (PF and parli). I am in my third year debating and periodically judging American Parliamentary (APDA) and British Parliamentary (BP) debate in college. I’m also a debate coach for, and former co-president of, the New Haven Urban Debate League. (Check out our Advanced Debate Institute and Yale Summer Debate Program.)

Long story short: I’ve seen all formats of debate and all styles of debating within each format. I've debated in everything from demo rounds to North American Championships and judged everything from monthly local tournaments to the World University Debating Championships (WUDC).

What that means for you is that my RFD will be based on my flow. So please signpost clearly, don’t make your line-by-line sloppy, and don’t make me weigh arguments for you. And please, please explain the link chain. Debaters have a bad habit of suggesting that any event as inconsequential as a world leader sneezing will cause nuclear war and extinction. I sometimes prioritize tech over truth, but I have my limits. Proving links and impacts with a reasonable degree of probability is a burden to which I will hold you.* Also, providing more specific, targeted, detailed impacts is preferable to providing vague, non-unique impacts. For example, explaining why a certain policy will cause increased [insert bad thing here] in a particular area that is particularly relevant for some particular reason > explaining that the bad thing will happen in general.

*This includes theory. Theory is great, and I don't have any problem with using it strategically. But if you choose to collapse on theory in your final speech, you have to prove that something the opposition did was at least somewhat prejudicial to your fairness or your education in the round (or whatever other voting issue you present). I will vote for theory to protect fairness, ground, and/or education. I will not vote for theory just because the other team dropped point (3)(b)(ix) subpoint (7.43) of your theory shell, unless you also prove at least some ostensible violation of fairness and/or education and/or other relevant voter. For example, if you think you are winning on two or more non-theory flows, most likely you will have a difficult time proving that the other team violated your fairness -- because if they were so unfair, why would you be winning by so much? For me, theory provides a forum in which to adjudicate genuine or at least ostensible violations of reasonable debate norms. If you want to win on a strategically valuable technicality, feel free to collapse on that technicality on any other flow and I will in fact be quite sympathetic!

Lastly: While I am perfectly capable of parsing technical arguments and even the most arcane kritiks and theory, I eschew a more detailed technical paradigm. Debaters tend to either target their arguments to the individual judge, losing the sense of generality that makes debate skills most transferable to the real world, or they panic because they're trying to read a 7,000 word paradigm in 10 minutes while prepping for the round. That said, I view debate as a game, so you should feel free to be creative and test different ideas in the round. We’re here to have fun and I hope that, as a judge, I will play some small role in enriching your tournament experience.

Contact: firstname dot lastname @yale.edu

It’s been a while since I’ve debated - it may take me longer to evaluate a round but not much about my thinking process has changed!

background

HS parli & NPDA; won TOC/NPDI/Stanford, etc.

general things

- I view debate through an offense/defense paradigm. Offense means this argument is a win condition for you. Defense means this is argument is not a win condition for them. If you want me to evaluate the round in a different way, I am open to those arguments.

- I believe every claim should be warranted in order for it to be the best version of that argument. This makes weighing easier - aka I see that something has a probability/magnitude/timeframe if there's an empiric or analytic to prove it. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate claims that are not warranted, but I have a paradigmatic preference for warranted claims over unwarranted claims.

- When you extend an argument, here are some useful things to do:

1. the tagline/warrant you want me to extend
2. a brief explanation of what it is
3. the implication of that argument.

- To me, an implication of an argument is how it functions within an offense/defense paradigm. For example, "we link turn the aff" has an offensive implication because it is a win condition for you. Conversely, saying "the aff has no solvency" has a defensive implication because it means their case is not a win condition for them. If you don't know the implication to an argument, force yourself to come up with one. It will make you better at debate and life but also debate doesn't matter so it's okay.

- In general, collapse to the most strategic arguments. This is why I emphasize treating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm because you can then isolate if an argument has a strategic function to leverage.

case

- I'm most experienced with case debate, and I like good case debates. You can win anything on a disad <3

- Warrant your links. Aka find case studies of where your plan has worked before.

- Do not read disads where the status quo is bad. Squo should solve. Otherwise, its a linear disadvantage. My partner once banned me from writing DAs because this is a hard concept so it's honestly okay. I also don't believe deficit spending DAs are convincing arguments.

- Read CPs that solve for the some/all of the aff. Do not read advantages to your counterplan. Read disads to the aff. Your job as the neg is to disprove the aff. You have not done that if you are passing a plan with its own advantages. Unfortunately, there's no clash.

- I default to functional competition > textual competition because I believe perms are first and foremost a test of competition, not an advocacy. Functional is the substance level of the round. Textual refers to texts.

- Only read uniqueness you can solve for. Aka you cannot solve for your global climate change uniqueness if your plan is only that San Francisco implements solar panels.

theory

- Interps describe the model of debate you defend for all rounds. It is not just about what happened in this round (unless its topicality). Your standards should justify your interp being a good model for debate, and not about what happened to YOU SPECIFICALLY. Along the same lines, you should not be answering the standards of a shell by saying "we did not do this," but rather why the logic of that standard is wrong/good/etc. This is something I also didn't understand until later, so I get if this is difficult to execute.

- I default to competing interps. Reasonability should be read with a brightline. If you say reasonability means I should gut check something, I take this to mean judge intervention based on what I personally think, but this is kinda lame because I personally hate intervention. Therefore, my gut check is to default to competing interps lmao, unless you make it very explicit that you don't want me judging based on the flow whatsoever.

- Please weigh between standards. Treat theory shells like you would case arguments. If both teams are trying to say they solve for war, each team still has to weigh their China/US and Russia/US internal link scenarios against each other. Similarly, if both teams say they solve for fairness, each team has to weigh their predictability and limits standards against each other.

kritiks

- K vs K rounds tend to become pretty messy when neither team leverages their framework or offense, so I end up voting on presumption to limit intervention if I have no choice. Presumption is the idea that if there is a lack of offense in the round, I will vote for the status quo. As a result, I believe presumption defaults negative, unless the negative provides a counter advocacy. In this case, it flips affirmative.

- K's are hard, but here are some things you should do:
1. frame out your opponents with an epistemic/ontological/semiotic skew claim
2. have warranted links that also function as case turns, and
3. find a way for your alternative/advocacy to solve parts of your opponents case.

- If you don't know what these mean, that's okay. All I'm looking for is offense that will win you the round. If there's a bunch of parallel claims being made with no broader explanation as to how I should evaluate the round, this is where my job becomes difficult. If you find yourself confused, we can talk about it later its nbd!

Hello everyone, my name is Anthony (he/him). I’m a 2^nd year NPDA competitor, formerly Irvine Valley College and currently Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. I believe debate is exceptionally rewarding and important, so I hope you find value in your experience. Have fun and be respectful! Part of this activity is judge adaptation, if any of my preferences below are not clear, ask me questions.

Cheating: Don’t do it. Apparently, this is a thing, if it happens, I’ll be detrimental. (Copy-pasting, in-round internet use, etc.)

Speed: I cannot keep up with the fastest spreaders, but feel free to push the limits. If I call slow or clear, then slow down or speak clearly. It’s in your best interest that I am able to keep up with your arguments.

Theory: I enjoy theory debate. Signpost, make good arguments,

Case/DA: Case debate is welcomed. I prefer policy rounds, defending a plan, etc. Again, signpost and make good arguments. Terminalize your impacts, collapse, then tell me how and why you win.

Kritiks/Aff-K’s: I am most inexperienced with K debate. I will not vote you down if this is your strategy but do so carefully. Here are some suggestions if you wish to run K’s and be successful: I have not read your lit base so explain it clearly. I will do my best to judge K rounds, as a competitor, clear explanations of dense arguments will significantly increase your probability of success.

How to Win: Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. By your rebuttal speech’s you must know where you are winning and where you are not, collapse arguments and weigh. If you think you are winning the whole debate, you’re probably wrong, collapse and weigh. I will vote on flow in terms of how you tell me to weigh the round. There will not be a risk of judge intervention if you just tell me what to do and why (weighing).

Hi everyone! I’m Keira (she/her) and I debated on the high school circuit from 2019-2023. I love debate and all kinds of arguments (as long as they aren’t problematic), so feel free to run pretty much anything in front of me. If you ever have any questions feel free to reach out, I would love to discuss anything with you!

TL;DR - Make it as easy for me to vote for you as possible. Weighing is generally how you do that. I will evaluate basically anything that is read as long as it's not a blip and isn’t problematic. Generics are okay, I like creative arguments (but good well-warranted args outweigh regardless of whether they’re generic or not). Turns are wonderful so read lots!

Background on me - I’m a tech > truth judge but take that with a solid grain of salt because I probably have a higher bar for what counts as an ‘argument’ vs blips than other judges (I will vote on any argument as long as it's warranted). Sierra Maciorowski was the biggest influence on my personal debate paradigm. I was very much a NorCal debater who loved both tech and lay debate (so really read whatever you’re comfortable with in front of me) and I did dabble in east coast debate (and now APDA!) for a minute.

Round evaluation - the way I'll evaluate rounds is probably: layering --> weighing --> strength of link. If your rebuttal looks like this I will be very happy :)

Case - I love good case debates. Tech case debates were truly my cup of tea as a debater. Read strong uniqueness that clearly lines up with your links please! But if you’re going to have strong warranted claims anywhere please have them in the links because otherwise I cannot tell if your plan does anything. As for impact weighing: my default is magnitude > probability > timeframe but feel free to change my mind in round.

There are three parts to an argument - a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Please don’t read blips because I can’t vote on something that has no explanation or reason why it matters.

I'm not really a case framework person. I definitely won't penalize you for reading it but I also am not going to vote you up for it. The case framework debate usually doesn't end up being that important for me. I also don't like definitions debates (unless they're really abusive).

I will protect but call POOs because my memory isn’t great and my flows can get a bit messy. Jargon is all good, I will follow. PLEASE signpost so that I can stay organized and know what you're talking about.

Tech - Speed is all good with me but ONLY if your opponents are okay with it too. Do not use speed or tech to exclude others please. If you’re reading something really techy or critical I would really appreciate it if you would take lots of POIs.

Theory - I like theory. My defaults are competing interps > reasonability, drop the debater > drop the argument, and no RVIs but those are all easily changed by whatever happens in round (I LOVE reasonability with a good brightline). I’m down to vote on friv but I also have a much lower threshold for responses to friv.

Ks - Fun! I read many of these. I was particularly fond of K affs (doesn’t mean I won’t drop you to TUSFG but I'm also not a TUSFG hack). I can understand the gist of most arguments and I read a variety of lit bases but still assume I'm unfamiliar with most lit and explain it all. Take questions please because if your opponents can't understand your arguments they can't engage.

Some thoughts - I think K affs get perms but will 100% accept reasons why they don't. I don't like language PIKs (I just don't think I've ever seen one deployed well but feel free to disprove this). Links of omission aren't real links. I very much respect defending topical affs against K negs (its hard tho so good luck). Tricks are mean. I'll also vote on tricks. But not if they're blipped out.

Phil - I have never run phil or hit phil. If you want to try running it, please explain it well or I'm probably just going to end up disregarding it. Also make sure your opponent can engage with these arguments as well. And please don't read violent phil authors.

Speaks - I will usually give between 27-29.5 speaks, probably higher speaks for the winning team because I think speaker points should be a reflection of how well you convinced me your arguments are true or important.If you are offensive in any way or I find your arguments problematic, your speaks will drop. Just be kind please and have fun, that's what debate is all about :)

Don't be violent. Don't read problematic arguments. I will have no problem dropping you and tanking your speaks if you do. Debate is a space for us all to develop and grow together. If at any time you feel that you or anyone else is being excluded, please speak up and I will do my best to change that.

You’re all going to do amazing and I’m so excited to watch your round! If you have any questions feel free to ask at the beginning of the round or reach out by email.

Hello, I’m Peter (he/him). I’m a freshman at Berkeley and am an ex-debater judging for fun (and to get paid lol). I did two years of LD and one year of PF, all of which were pretty lay, so I’m not very experienced with theory/flow debate.

The goal of debate is educational, which means rounds are a lot more meaningful (and fun?) when an actual argument is being made and articulated clearly, as opposed to just trying to confuse/spread your opponent out of the round. In line with being educational, don’t be discriminatory, and don’t cheat, because it's not fun nor constructive for anyone.

Case:

If you don’t read the framework, I’ll default to net benefits. I need to know what metric to measure the round.

Make your impacts clear, kind of like circling your answer on a math test. Otherwise, I might miss the point you are trying to make in the “math work” that you are doing (sorry for the poor analogy).

Prioritize clarity please, like say “we should win because ___.”

(definitely didn’t take these from Sam’s paradigm…)

Theory, Ks, Tech:

As mentioned earlier I have little experience with theory, but I understand its importance in the debate space, so when/if you decide to run it, take a sec to explain what you’re doing. In general, as long as you make it clear why I should vote for you, it should be chill.

You can spread, but I probably won’t be able to follow your argument.

Speaks

If you reference Flatland: The Film (https://youtu.be/avMX-Zft7K4?si=pOop8njNx7XUsavX), and I get the reference, I’ll give you 30. Otherwise, Somewhere between 27-29.

Hello! I am a relatively new judge, but have competed in the Parli circuit for about 2 years.

1. Signpost
2. Warrant
3. Weigh - terminalize things and collapse
4. Honestly just explain things to me, whether that be the case, a T, a K, phil, tricks, etc.
5. Not that great with speed tbh.

Have fun, don't be mean!

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

It's been a long time since I debated/judged/coached on the circuit. I can't follow spreading like I used to. Please slow down a tad (especially if I look visibly confused) and explain stuff thoroughly.

Prefs cheat sheet:

1: fast, technical debate. good K debate (not pomo).

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

• Andrea, she/they. La Reina HS & Yale. Earth & Planetary Science major.
• Include me on the email chain andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
• I have debated and coached for 10 years now - 7 of which were circuit LD & policy in SoCal and 3 years of lay parli in New Haven. Also dabbled in speech & slam poetry - so I have a soft spot for performance... take from that what you will...
• I was coached by Leo Kim. I understand debate very similarly to him, but not exactly the same. Anything not answered in my paradigm can be answered in his.
• I was a K debater and am most familiar with set col & fem. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and go stupid. I think K's need to have some alt or offense or something or at least have an outstanding defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Miscellaneous notes:

• Ways to improve your speaks: emailing me a picture of your flow after the round (and it's a good flow) (tell me you are planning I do this so I can look at your flows before submitting my ballot), telling me to read a specific piece of evidence (and it's good evidence), making puns or jokes (and they're funny)
• NON-CIRCUIT DEBATERS: I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed," then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
• If your opponent asks you not to spread, you better not spread!!!
• If your opponent reads tricks, you can respond by saying "silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" and that will be a sufficient response for me.
• Include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of identity-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide. For example, reading set col pain narratives cause you're thirsty for a ballot is kind of hard to listen to. When you read these positions, ask yourself - how are you showing up for these communities outside of the round? Are you kind to other marginalized debaters? Do you donate to mutual aid funds with your resources? What books and sources do you read to learn more about the arguments, even when it doesn't benefit your case? The consequence of ignoring this is an L-25. If you are confused, ask before the round.
• If you are a circuit/varsity debater, and you are debating a traditional/novice debater, and you do some ridiculous behavior, act rude and condescending, spread them out, read 6 off, use tons of jargon, push them to disclose, etc., you will also receive an L-25. I have no qualms about judge intervention in this respect. I'm so sick of watching these types of rounds. You probably don't deserve to win anyway if you have to revert to these strategies; it's so embarrassing. Practice kindness.
• Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
• I flow primarily from your mouth and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics.
• Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

• You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability and try to adjudicate fairly.
• You read a critical affirmative.
• You mostly go for critical arguments.
• Your positions are creative and entertaining.
• You like fast, technical debate.
• You display a ton of personality in your debates.
• You are great at the topicality debate.
• You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
• You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

• You read an affirmative.
• You negate the affirmative.
• You default to generic negative strategies.
• You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

• You assume I am following along with the speech doc as you go.
• You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique, so you don't have to explain it thoroughly.
• You're bad at debating the critique.
• You don't warrant your arguments.
• You expect high speaker points in every debate unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
• You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
• You like satire.
• You go for tricks.
• You think of human suffering as a tool to help you win the ballot.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

• You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc., arguments.
• You think death is good.
• You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
• Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
• You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
• You speak unclearly.
• Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
• You're disrespectful to your opponents.
• Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Alanna Cronk

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

she/her

Experience: I've been involved in debate for 10 years. Four years of National Circuit and Local Circuit High School LD at Chatfield Senior; four years of College NPDA/NPTE Open Parli for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley; three years of coaching experience for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley and Campolindo High School.

TL;DR: The short version is that I strive to evaluate the round as technically and objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them on the flow, and don't be oppressive/violent. Ks and k affs are great, theory is great, CPs are great, disads are great, case affs are great. Never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed.

______________________________________________________________

Long version: The following details apply to both parli and LD, and if there's a paradigmatic difference between the two events, I will make note of it.

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently comes down to race and gender, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible. I do believe there can be instances of judges intervening in rounds for good, but on whole, as a general model for how debate ought to operate, I think judge intervention does more harm than good.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? As a result, I think tech debate paradigms are more fair and educational, so I default to them.

[3] I use speaker points to reward good strategic calls and execution, rather than performance or rhetorical appeal. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, 'frivolous' theory, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to at least try to read theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think tech debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a technical debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. This means a) tech is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why tech is bad or inaccessible.

- Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity. I use speaks to reward good strategic calls, execution, and well-written files.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

- Specificity is good! I would much rather vote on your super specific investment bubble disad than your generic government spending disad.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs, especially well-constructed/creative advantage CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory :)

- I default to potential abuse over proven abuse, but feel free to do weighing between the two in round.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. Since I default to potential abuse, I vote for the better norm for debate between the interp and the counter interp. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

- I have an extremely high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs. I see myself as primarily a K coach, judge, and former debater.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. Read your pomo nonsense; read your more structuralist positions.

- I care a lot about the quality of Ks. I really love Ks that are dense, well-written, and demonstrate a clear understanding and commitment to the lit base from which they're pulled. I don't love Ks that are nothing more than an assemblage of arguments you think are strategic. Use file writing as an opportunity to show me that you've done your homework. Obviously I won't hack against a K I think is poorly written or anything, I'll vote on the flow, but I might decrease your speaks if I think your K is particularly bad.

- As a debater, I tended to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, all else held equal, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (55-45), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the framework/impacts of the K, thus losing if the aff frames out the interp. If you can read framework and with this debate, you will probably win my ballot.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. This means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm; if I should evaluate the alt as more of a performance instead, please let me know and explain what this means in the context of the round.

- I don't love reject alts. I'd prefer your alt to be specific, concrete, and actionable. This is probably my biggest K pet peeve.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

-Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads (and goes for) an advocacy other than the status quo, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but to be transparent I'm not the biggest fan if they're read frivolously. Specificity is necessary here. If you do go for an IVI, you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate IVIs, but it means that you need to do the work of explaining why it's a priori.

- (Parli) The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new. The LOR can never really lose the round, but it definitely can win it.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

Summary

It’s your debate, I’m down to hear any argument. Comfortable with case/K/T/tricks/phil in roughly that order, but happy to evaluate any argument you make (including rejecting the res). As a debater, I went for a roughly even mix of K/case in tech rounds. Speed is fine if your opponents can handle it. Weighing and warranting win rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the round. Call the POO, articulate the cross-application, make the debate as explicit as possible for me. Email p.descollonges@gmail.com.

Background

I competed in parliamentary debate for six years, mostly at Nueva. I was most successful at tech parli, but also found success at both NorCal and Oregon lay tournaments (see bottom of paradigm for notable results if that matters for your prefs for some reason—it probably shouldn’t). I also debated 4 NPDA tournaments last year. I’m a sophomore at UChicago and coach for Nueva. You can reach me at p.descollonges@gmail.com. To prevent this paradigm from being too unwieldy, I’ve only included actionable preferences (i.e. preferences that have a clear impact on what arguments you should be making). Outside of these explicit preferences, I strive to evaluate all arguments fairly, but if you’re interested in my specific thoughts on an argument, feel free to ask me before/after the round (e.g. whether I personally like condo—I’m more than happy to evaluate it, but I also think condo bad is underused).

NON-PARLI EVENTS (feel free to skip if you are a parli debater!!):

I'm fine with speed up to ~300 wpm. If you're in PF, go as fast as you want. For LD, feel free to spread, I'll slow if needed. For policy, you'll probably need to cut speed, but feel free to ramp and I'll slow when I need to—just give me pen time and a speech doc.

I do not know your event. I do not know your norms. I'm sorry about that! I'll do my best to evaluate your round still. Regardless of event, I will vote on clearly articulated framework/weighing/sequencing claims ALWAYS, especially if I'm not comfortable with your event. In general, I assume defense cannot win rounds. I default to a net benefits/other offense-based framework, I'm willing to evaluate stock issues framing but am probably awful at it and need a justification for it.

My lack of knowledge about norms is not an excuse to be sketchy. I am more than happy to look up the (conviniently nationally codified!) rules for non-Parli events if something feels wrong to me. This doesn't mean I'll drop you for reading a K aff (because hopefully you're reading implicit or explicit args that breaking rules is good if there's a rule against your position); but it does mean that you shouldn't expect to get away with e.g. gross speech time violations. I'll generally defer to anything both teams seem to agree on if both teams seem comfortable and I am unfamiliar with the event, unless you try to convince me to give you a double win or something in that vein.

I am a parli person. This does not mean I don't care about evidence. I have a low threshold for ballot comments about sketchy evidence. I have a much higher, but still comparatively low, threshold for intervening on evidence ethics. I have an extremely low threshold for not voting on evidence your opponents call out as sketchy if it is sketchy. I will read cards necessary to decide my ballot (yes, this includes in PF.) I will not vote against you because e.g. you citing a specific sub-conclusion that helps you from a study that argues generally in the opposite direction unless your opponents point it out, in which case I will read the card. I will affirmatively intervene to disregard or vote down blatantly fabricated, misconstrued, or excessively powertagged evidence in compliance with NSDA evidence rules (7.4.A/B/C). I will also strive to comply with NSDA rules for formal challenges (7.2/3), but am not experienced with this procedure. Please just be ethical with your evidence.

Feel free to read my parli paradigm if you want an idea of more specific preferences! Ask me before the round if you have any questions.

PARLI:

Logistics

I hate protected time, but will grudgingly accept that some tournaments use it. It’s ultimately up to the speaker—I will not intervene if the speaker wants to take a POI during protected time. I will follow tournament rules on grace periods, but grace periods aren’t speech time—please don’t make new arguments. I will disregard them.

Call the POO. I protect in the PMR, but give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker unless a POO is called. Incorrect answers to a POO do not waive this protection. I do not protect in the LOR, because there are situations where the aff would prefer I not protect—call the POO if you want me to drop the arg. In novice/beginner rounds, I reserve the right to protect.

Please don’t shake my hand. I don’t care if you sit, stand, etc.—as long as I can understand you, you’re fine. I don't care what you're wearing.

I’ll give at least one of oral or written feedback depending on the specific circumstances of the round, defaulting to a longer oral RFD with a summary in the ballot. You are welcome to record anything I say after the round and/or request I write it out in the ballot. I will try to get substantive and substantial feedback to you in all circumstances—if the tournament bans disclosure and/or we’re running on a tight double-flighted schedule, expect a longer ballot. My preference is to give both an RFD in which I explain how I analyze the arguments in the round and individual speaker feedback, but in complicated outrounds especially, there’s a chance I won’t get to individual speaker feedback. If you’re specifically curious, always feel free to ask. I’m open to postrounding, but if I’m talking to you, I can’t change my ballot. If you think there was a genuine equity issue in the round and I've already submitted my ballot, the person to talk to is the tournament equity director, not me.

I’ll ask for any information I need for my ballot (e.g. speaker positions). No double-wins, no double-losses except in rounds with equity issues.

Speaker Points

If the tournament seeds based on speaks (speaks, -1HL, or z-score) as the first tiebreaker for teams with the same number of wins, I’ll default to 29s (or as close as possible). I’ll give 30s to anyone who impresses me, particularly with strategic argumentation. I will not hesitate to drop your score as a clear signal that I disapprove of some behavior (see equity section below), but will not go below 29 due to mistakes or perceptions of you as a “weaker” debater.

If the tournament does not seed based on speaks as the first tiebreaker, I’ll give speaks in the ~26.5-29.7 range in most rounds. You’ll get higher speaks for good strategic calls, clean argument execution, and cool extemporaneous warranting. Arguments I like that I haven’t heard before are 30s. I won’t go below 26.5 except as a statement of active disapproval (i.e. if you get a 26.5 or below, your debating was not bad/sloppy/inexperienced, it was problematic).

Equity

Please strive to be a good person in round and out of round. Be respectful to your opponents. I will stop the round if necessary to protect any participant in it. If you are uncomfortable, I’d appreciate it if you communicated that to me (or the tournament staff!) in some way.

Misgendering your opponents will result in lost speaker points at minimum and a round loss if egregious and/or intentional. This is also true for gendered/racialized/etc. negative comments or behavior. As a white man, I don’t have a great way to evaluate the exact harms of specific behaviors, so I’ll generally defer to preferences expressed by affected individuals in dicey situations and/or go to the tournament.

Regardless of current literature on the net effect of content warnings, in the context of the debate rounds, content warnings seem clearly net-good in terms of their risk-reward tradeoff. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you!

Case

I love case debate. I wish more people did case debate. Good case debate will make me very happy as a judge. That means clear arguments with clear impacts, good interaction with your opponents arguments, and a clear (and preferably explicit) articulation of what offense will win you the round. Warranting is also key. Arguments with well-explicated warrants backing them up will almost always beat arguments without warrants.

The best way to win a close case debate is weighing. The best way to win a close weighing debate is to do metaweighing. Please tell me whether I should prefer e.g. evidence or logic. Please explain to me how that applies to your arguments specifically. If you do this, you will win 90% of the case debates I have seen.

I’d love to see more link turns. I’d love to see more uniqueness leveraged after the PMC/LOC. I’d love to see more warrants on internal links.

CPs

Down for anything. Win the theory debate. I’ll evaluate all CP theory I can think of. I’ll also evaluate all CPs I can think of, but please have good reasons to prefer, especially if you’re reading delay, etc. Condo is fine by default. Dispo means you can kick it if there’s no offense by default. PICs are fine by default.

Advantages to non-mutually-exclusive CPs are not offense (or defense). Advantages to mutually-exclusive CPs are black swans, but I’m open to hearing why they’re offensive. Perm debates are good, but please don’t say anyone is “stealing” anyone’s advantages.

Evidence

Please do not fabricate evidence. Please do not plagiarize unless the tournament requires you to do so (please reference evidence you use rather than presenting it as original analysis). If the tournament empowers me to do so, I will check your evidence after submitting my ballot, and go to tab/equity if I discover something that seems like an intentional fabrication. Obviously, you have limited prep—mistakes are human, and I won’t hold them against you.

If you give me author’s name/date/source for a claim, you’ll likely win contests over whether that literal claim is true or not. This does not modify the strategic position of the claim in the round. If you do not give me a citation for evidence, I will treat your claim as a claim. Given that I try to be tabula rasa, this is normally fine (i.e. in most debates, it won’t matter if you cite a source for the US unemployment rate).

Ks

I like hearing good K debate! I really like hearing new shells, well-thought-out strategies, good historically-backed warranting, and solid links. I really dislike hearing canned shells from backfiles you don’t understand.

I like KvK debate. I am open to rejecting the res, I’m also open to framework. I have a high threshold on Ks bad theory from the aff, but would consider voting for it.

I’m most familiar with Marx, modern Marxists, and queer/disability theory, but I’m open to hearing anything—just explain it well.

Please have specific links that are not links of omission. Please give me a role of the ballot.

I’m not convinced the aff gets a perm in a KvK debate, but I’ll default to allowing it.

T/Theory

I’m happy to listen to literally anything. I generally prefer fairness on T and education on theory, but please don’t feel bound by that. Jurisdiction is absolute BS but I’ll vote for it.

I default to competing interps over reasonability, potential over proven abuse, and drop the argument when it makes sense. I do not default to theory being a priori, make the argument (especially if your opponents could plausibly uplayer theory). I do not understand why an OCI is not a separate shell, but I’ll listen to them. I’ll reluctantly vote on RVIs, the more specific the better. I view RVIs as making local offense on the theory sheet a global voting issue by default, but will appreciate and evaluate specific texts as well.

If an argument boils down to "did the team say the magic words," I'll default to the team that spent the most time on it in absence of argumentation on either side (e.g. what counts as an RVI). If that doesn't make sense to you, ignore it, and rely on good argumentation rather than linguistic technicalities.

Results

College: Second seed at NPDA nats '23;Mile High Swing 1 Finalist

Champion/Co-Champion: Evergreen ‘21, ‘22; Campo ‘21; TFT ‘17; Lewis and Clark ‘22; UoP ‘20; NorCal Champs ‘21, ‘22

Finalist: TOC ‘22

Semifinalist: NPDI ‘19, ‘20, ‘21

edit: Please lower your volume to avoid yelling. I'm sitting 5 ft away from y'all I promise I can hear.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. Policy background, thus a lover of kritiks. Aff Ks are hot, but so are Framework & Disclosure Theory. I default to K > T > Case.

ALSO i usually give oral feedback after the round, i don’t write RFDs so i recommend taking notes

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I finaled the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students. If you’re interested in parli debate tutoring, book an appointment at reneediop.com or email me at dioprenee@gmail.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/renéediop.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO IM OPEN TO ALL KS! Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Hmu after any round to ask a question, get advice, want me to teach you debate, or literally anything else. Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

UPDATED FOR NPDI 2023 :)

Note for NPDI: My paradigm is relatively vague so feel free to shoot me an email during prep if you have any questions

tldr: cool with anything case/friv/K, but not sure what's trending in the circuit rn because I haven't judged since 2021

Background:

• Third year data science at UC Berkeley (currently involved in Model UN so always appreciate a good case debate)

• Competed for Irvington High School 2017-2021 (Varsity Parli Captain); consistently got to out-rounds and competed at TOC in my final year

General Notes:

• Don't be rude or disrespectful

• Don't use any argument to skew your opponents out of the round; be as inclusive and accommodating as possible

• I go into every round assuming I know nothing about the topic, so make it educational in some aspect!

• Let me know before your speech how many sheets/args you're going to run for the sake of my flow

• Fine with speed as long as it's not used to skew opponents out of the round (will indicate you to slow if I can't follow)

Case:

• Flow case is always exciting, but make sure you have a good strategy

• Have a good collapse (make it clear which impacts/args you choose to weigh)

• Links and impacts are of the utmost importance

Theory:

• Okay with all types of theory as long as the interpretation(s) and violation(s) are clearly established

• Friv is okay but feels icky if that's your only strategy

K:

• Fine with them, explain everything

• Familiar with cap, fem ir, biopower, general framework of identity ks

• Please take questions from your opponents if they ask them

Speaker Points:

• Awarded based on strategy, not how 'nicely' you speak

Email me or message me on Facebook if you have any questions pre/post round at drishtigupta@berkeley.edu

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Hi y'all! I'm Rhea, a frosh @ Stanford studying human biology. I debated parli @ Washington for 4 years, & now coach for MVLA & Juniper.

TL;DR: I'm a flow judge. I enjoy efficient and warranted debate with clean collapsing, extensions, and two world analysis. I LOVE Ks, but am happy to listen to interesting case or T debate.

Thoughts on:

• Case: Reading 2 swag contentions > 5 random short ones. Write good warrants and don’t rely solely on the internet. Line by line args and make smart responses. Collapse (!!!), make clean extensions, and weigh well in the rebuttals. I love overviews at the tops of cases/args & I think golden turns are cool, but have a high threshold for new args in last speeches.
• Theory/Topicality: Cool with good T shells. I default to competing interps > reasonability, education > fairness, and theory being a priori but I can be convinced otherwise! Make your interps good & as specific as possible! Friv shells/tricks are funny (I read tropicality in HS lol) but pls don’t use them to skew out your opps, & I’d need a really good justification for why they’re a voting issue. If you read blippy args (i.e. a claim with zero warranting or justification) and expect me to buy it, think again. This is true for all args, but especially tech.
• Ks: Love them! I wrote & read Ks on feminism/gender, queer futurism, and cap/necrocap, so I’m most familiar w/ those literature bases. I love a thoughtful, well-warranted K when it’s run properly, but it’s not an auto path to the ballot (so don’t treat it as such). I’m somewhat familiar w/ more phil args like Buddhism, Daoism, pomo, etc, but down to listen if you explain them well (especially if you can tell me what your alt ACTUALLY does). Down to vote for K Affs, performance Ks, etc if that’s something you want to read. I dislike Ks that force a debate about the personal identities of the debaters in the room instead of a critique of society. I have a low threshold for FW-T on the aff, and a high one for the neg.
• Other thoughts:
• Don’t call POOs just to annoy your opponents. If you’re calling more than 3 and you don’t have a good reason, I will be a tad sad.
• I can handle your speed, but don’t sacrifice clarity and don’t use it to exclude your opponents!
• I dislike presumption args and will almost certainly not vote on it; there will always be *some* offense in 99.9% of debates unless no one speaks the entire round.
• Off-time roadmaps (that don't exceed 15 seconds) are great.
• Don't contradict yourself.
• Please read content warnings if needed.
• Don’t be racist / sexist / homophobic etc, I will auto drop you to maintain a safe and equitable debate space.

Feel free to message me with any questions or ask me about it before or after the round! At the end of the day, this is YOUR space to debate how you want, and to the best of your ability. Be brave, be kind, and have an educational and fun debate.

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

Debate how you’d like. I’m down to evaluate most positions, including any theory/kritik positions. Feel free to reject the resolution. Tech > truth. I protect the flow but call the POO. Good luck have fun :D

high-level stuff:

hi, my name is Sam (he/they) and I have been involved in debate for ~8 years. During my time competing, I debated in parliamentary debate for Nueva, mainly in the NorCal circuit. I am open to all types/stylistic forms of debate, so if you are not a NorCal team please don’t feel the need to change your entire debate style for one round. That being said, please do impact analysis (explain to me which impacts matter the most/matter over other impacts) and weigh (tell me which arguments are the most important). Doing both of these things is the easier path to winning my ballot. I have exactly zero tolerance for any bigotry, and I will intervene against any argument that is racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. By extension, do not misgender your opponents—I will tank your speaks if you don’t correct your mistakes immediately. Content warnings are good for making debate a safe space for everyone, so please use them and respect them.

1. I will try my best to protect the flow. Regardless, always call the POO. Sometimes I miss things, so the best way to guarantee that I won’t miss an important argument is to call the POO. I will try to rule on the POO before you resume your speech to the best of my ability. I can promise anything, but I know this is especially helpful for debaters

2. Please provide texts of advocacies (plans, CPs, alternatives, ROTBs, etc...) when you read them. I default to texts are binding. If we are online, please pass them in the online video chat. If we are in person, please write them down on a sheet of paper and pass that paper around to both your opponents and me.

3. I give speaks based on strategic decisions and argumentative execution. I don’t care how you present your arguments, feel free to sit, stand, or do whatever makes you most comfortable. My range for speaks is 27-29.5. If you get above that you did fantastically and I think you should win the tournament. If you got below that you probably did something bad independent of the arguments you made in the round.

4. I welcome questions about the round/my decision. If you want to ask me questions about the round, please do not hesitate to do so. If we are at an in-person tournament, you are welcome to come find me as well.
   
   

case:

1. If you don’t read a framework, I’m going to default to net benefits. Likewise, if you don’t read a plan, I am just going to assume you are defending the entirety of the resolution as your advocacy. I would strongly recommend that you both read a plantext and a framework, even if it is just net benefits. I will be unhappy if you don’t read a plantext :(

2. Please try to terminalize impacts as much as possible; I need you to give me a specific and quantifiable explanation so I can weigh the round and thus decide the ballot. If you are reading an impact chain to me, please implicate and terminalize all of your impacts. This is also probably a pretty good way to pick up my ballot. You do not need to terminalize impacts like death or suffering to me; I assume they are terminalize in themselves.

3. I’m fine with conditional & dispositional counterplans. Just be prepared to defend them if your opponents read condo theory. If you want to read a non-mutually exclusive counterplan, please read competition for the CP and/or be prepared to beat the perm. In the same vein, I’m very down for any strange counterplans so long as you can justify it. If you don’t ask your opponents what the status of their counterplan is when they read it, I assume it is nebulous until they bring it up or you ask.
   
   

theory:

I’m a big fan of theory, but please make sure to include a specific text and violation if you want to run theory. If you’re going fast, slow on the interp at the very least. If we’re in-person, a written copy of your interpretation would be lovely as well.

1. I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think competing interps is a better model to evaluate theory, however, I will happily listen to reasonability if there is a brightline.

2. I assume all theory is to drop the argument unless told otherwise. I’ll happily vote for drop the debater, but just make sure to explicitly go for that.

3. Feel free to run Framework T/T-USfg/Ks bad theory. I don’t have a default for theory/kritik layering in round, so please read layering. The outcome of most rounds can be changed drastically by one side reading 30 seconds of layering, so please do it. At the very least, it helps me make my decision easier.

4. I’m perfectly fine with RVIs, in fact, I think running RVIs in response to theory is a very good strategy and often underutilized. If you’re going to run an RVI, give me a one-sentence overview of what the RVI is, why I should grant the RVI to you, and other important information you feel is necessary.

5. I’m fine with friv theory. Please be nice to your opponents though—don’t read friv t against another team if you know they don't know how to respond to it. I’m very sympathetic to RVIs on friv shells. I'm more than happy to throw my tech>truth views out the window in favor of accessibility in debate.

kritiks & critical positions:

I love kritik debates and will happily vote for them. KvK debates are my favorite kind of rounds to judge. This may be a hot take, but I also feel like they are the fairest option for neg teams trying to contest the aff K—still feel free to read framework T though.

1. Assume that I don’t understand your lit base and start from square one and go from there. I have experience and knowledge in critical literature but don’t assume anything.

1. For non-topical aff Ks, if you are rejecting the resolution, please give topic-specific reasons as to why you are rejecting the resolution. If you’re reading a topical aff k, I’m hyped to hear it. That doesn’t apply to you.

1. I think disclosure is good but quite unverifiable and invites judge intervention as a result. I am skeptical of voting for disclosure theory, but will probably boost your speaks regardless a bit if someone mentions you disclosed the aff K.

1. I’m not a huge fan of offensive RoBs, but feel free to read them if you want. Please justify and explain the reject alt if you’re reading a reject alt.

assorted tech stuff:

Feel free to read IVIs. I think IVIs can be quite strategic, and I will happily listen to them. I don’t have much experience with other ld/cx arguments that aren’t common in parli, so i'm happy to listen to phil/tricks but no promises I’ll follow along perfectly.

good luck have fun :D

Hey y’all I’m evan's partner. I competed mostly in parli, but I’m familiar with other debate and also did a good bit of speech.

PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. THEY'RE AMONG THE EASIEST WAY TO WIN ROUNDS IN FRONT OF ME.

tl;dr

• I debated for 5 years and am now a coach @MVLA

• Comfortable w most tech, don’t assume I know your lit base, eh on speed

• Truth > tech meaning you have to explain the truth of your argument (warrant- logical/phil/analytical/evidence) for me to buy them (I won’t fill it in)

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication. I need all three to consider an argument. (especially an impact/implication)

• Please weigh and layer your args/impacts, I’d hate to interfere and if I do, you likely won’t get the result you want

• Be sure to explicitly extend arguments (especially uniqueness and impacts), I can't extend them for you, and can't vote very well on arguments dropped.

• Be good, nice, kind people :)

• I'll give you 5-15 seconds grace AT MOST to finish the thought you're on, I don't flow after that.

For the full paradigm (it’s a mess so feel free to clarify):

My experience-- I competed in 70-75 odd tournaments in my career, mostly in Norcal Parli, was mostly a case debater but had a decent understanding of tech, ran some theory, etc etc. Qualled to TOC twice and broke as well, was a SVUDL Parli merchant. Got a pretty good amount of experience with all types of debating- norcal, socal, apda, etc. I also qualled to nats in duo (speech).

General Paradigmatic Things:

1. When I say that I’m “truth over tech” it doesn’t mean I automatically intervene wherever-- it just means that you have to explain to me why your arguments are true for me to buy them. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant (can be empirical, analytical, logical reasoning, etc), and an impact/implication. Absent these aspects I find it hard to buy an argument. Without a warrant, idk why I should buy your argument. Absent an implication, even if the argument might be true, I still can't do anything with that argument.

2. I'm going to say this one more time: PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. Terminalizing impacts doesn't mean that everything ends in extinction. Rather, it means that you've proven that the impact is inherently a good/bad thing under the given framework for the round. Ie, death/dehum/Qol under a util/net ben FW. Read a proper link chain that takes the necessary steps to get from your links to your impacts, I find it hard to buy randomly detached impacts otherwise.

3. I do my very best to protect the flow but please call the POO

4. Y’all figure out how you want to handle POIs between yourselves and the other debaters in the round, my job is to evaluate the round that happens, not control your every move.

5. Please for the love of all things good -- be respectful to one another. This means doing your very human best to make the round accessible to your opponents and also treating everyone with fair respect.

6. As much as I love a good goofy argument, but exercise your good reason and restraint.

7. I default to presuming neg absent a counter-advocacy (otherwise I’ll presume aff). If you tell me to presume a different way, I’ll do that instead. I’d much rather vote on substance than presume, so please don't make me vote on presumption.

8. As stated earlier, I will give y'all a 5-15 second grace period after speech time to finish your thought, I will not flow any new arguments after speech time is up. I will stop you once you hit 30ish seconds over time because we need to move on.
9. Please signpost, and try to progress through the speech in a consistent order, if you lose me on the flow it will only hurt you.

Case Debate Stuff:

1. I am completely down for all forms of case debate. I will do my best to evaluate every round regardless if it's BP/APDA/Norcal/etc. resolution/case read by a team. At the end of the day, I'm here to evaluate the arguments and the round in front of me.

2. I love a good case debate. I was pretty much entirely a flowish case debater for most of my career. Please be mindful about what you’re reading, it’s very easy to slip into saying something problematic while trying to justify arguments under Net Ben/Util. Debate also unfortunately puts us in positions to argue tough topics and it’s our job to make sure we handle those as sensitively and respectfully as possible. Additionally, attempting to justify genocide, outright racism, or anything else of the kind is an autodrop.

3. Onto actual case stuff-- I default to weighing on Net Bens but I’m down for any other framework that y’all wanna try to run

4. Please extend your arguments yourself- I will not do this for you. When there are responses made to your arguments, make sure to engage with them and not just repeat what you said the first time around.

5. Clash is important. Weighing is also important. Try to use your rebuttal speeches to write my ballot for me in the ways that you see fit.

6. I am ALWAYS down for a good framework debate. That being said, it's on you to (1) Justify your framework (especially against your opponents' 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 underboth frameworks (but that's ultimately up to you).

Theory

After much deliberation, I've decided that I'm probably not the judge to run random friv in front of. I will ultimately evaluate the flow, but I'll be incredibly skeptical at best with any friv t args, and I'll happily take any chance to not vote on it. Sorry to the theory debaters who got excited. As I get older I become increasingly open to hearing anything as long as it’s not problematic or exclusionary to any of the debaters in the round. The standard CI > Reasonability, etc. applies here too-- I don’t wanna intervene in the round if I don’t have to. Please read explicit layering claims for your standards and voters. I hate intervening and again, you’re probably gonna be unhappy about the way that I evaluate the round if you don’t tell me how to view the round. PLEASE BE MINDFUL ABOUT READING THINGS IN AN ACCESSIBLE MANNER AND NOT READING ANYTHING THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC OR EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY TO ANYONE WITHIN THE ROUND.

K

Pretty simple here: I’m super down for K debate, but don’t assume I am familiar with your lit base, I do my best to evaluate the flow alone. While evaluating the K I start at the framework and ROB layer before working my way to advocacy (and figuring out the link/impact debate). Don’t ever leave me to evaluate the K by myself. Just like any other type of argument, it’s YOUR job to tell me where, when, and how to vote. Please actually defend your K and engage in genuine clash with your opponent’s responses, just repeating what you said the first time gets me absolutely nowhere (note that you should still be extending, just don’t ONLY extend).

[silly rabbit] Trix [are for kids]

Uhhhh… Honestly, it depends on my mood-- if I’m feeling a little silly goofy, then I guess I might vote on it, and if I’m not in such a mood I won’t. I generally tend to have a higher threshold on tricks because they tend to be blippy, poorly warranted, and I trust that I’m generally capable of making decisions. This also goes for other presumption arguments. In short- run at your own risk.

IVIs ig

Read what you want. I’m personally not a fan of the extreme proliferation of IVIs that I’ve seen in my time and the often frivolous nature in which they tend to be read. That being said, when justified, I’ll vote on them. Please layer them, absent layering claims there’s nothing I can do for you here, and also implicate them.

Other stuff

1. Speaks: I default to 29.2 for the winning team and 28.4 for the other team. I’ll give out 30s if I see top tier debating :)

2. Please read trigger warnings when applicable. If you’re unsure whether something needs a trigger warning, please air on the side of caution.

!!! Please feel free to clarify or ask any further questions about my paradigm/view on debate before the round starts, I’m more than happy to answer and help you out.

Excited to judge your round and I hope you have a great round and great tournament :)

hi everyone!

my name is tristan (she/her) and i'm in my 4th year of competing in npda for uc berkeley. my partner and i won the 2023 npda and npte.

june dense says it best: never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed. i'm down for whatever, barring a few of the things listed below.

cowardice: i understand cheating has become somewhat of a norm in high school parli. if you feel the need to cheat, keep two things in mind. one, get good. two, i will be more than happy to intervene and drop you (and take any additional steps needed to ensure competitive integrity) if a rules violation occurs. note: this only applies in cases of copy-pasting prep or accessing the internet in round, not like you rejecting the res or being condo lol.

trigger warnings: probably a good thing to read. if you forget to give one and get called out on it, just apologize and move on. i would prefer not to evaluate a tw collapse unless the instance is egregious.

speed: go as fast as you want, but please, give me pen time (or keyboard time, rather) when we are switching between sheets. i will slow or clear verbally as needed. i can hang.

theory: i default to competing interps and will vote on any sheet if won. however, i find the trend of frivolous theory vacuous and boring and, if you have a choice between spending two minutes reading tropicality or spending two minutes reading case-turns, i would prefer the latter. t violations should be derived from the text of the advocacy, unless the plan is the res.

condo: condo good. reading condo bad also good. if i have a bias here, it probably occurs when multiple condo advocacies are read.

kritiks: i probably don't have the best understanding of your lit base, but i feel comfortable enough evaluating most positions. throughout my career, my partner and I primarily read occultism, dual power, some eco stuff, and some neolib early in our career.

aff ks: i don't mind if you reject. do what ya gotta do. if I have a bias re; aff-k vs fw-t, i am not aware of it.

and lastly, if lay debate is your thing, don't let this scare you. i will do my best to accommodate your style, just make it easy for me by telling me how i should vote and which impacts are the most important.

*Updated for TOC 2023:

Quick reference for prefs based on your strategy if you don't read anything: Case (1), K(2), Theory/FW(1), Phil(3), Tricks(4), Heg lol (1)

Background: Debated hs parli for 4 years with Los Altos. Last debated in 2019. I haven't done anything related to debate for a few yrs now (other than periodic judging) so I won't be well versed with whatever's popular - be clear and explain.

In general, I will evaluate almost every position and be willing to vote on it, so just debate what you want and make sure it's well articulated. If you think you have an interesting argument that will make the round fun, read it! I debated with Shirley Cheng for the most formative parts of my time in debate, so her paradigm pretty much lines up with how I view things: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=24626

My method for evaluating rounds is very similar to the paradigm above so this is copy pasted from there: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Be accessible or I won't be against intervening

Some other notes:

General:

Call point of orders, but I'll try to protect.

Signpost, slow on tags, repeat interps.

New in the block means I give the aff a lot of credence in answering it - that being said, 2a theory will probably be held to a higher threshold in terms of accessing golden turns

Claims require warrants. Warrants require explanations. I might be less willing to vote solely on blip claims/tricks without warrants and explanations if I can vote elsewhere.

Add sequencing questions in rebuttals and be sure to collapse. Super strategic and makes my evaluation a lot more straightforward. You rebuttal should be my RFD + any preempts.

Case:

I essentially only read case in hs. It would help to have a strategic uniqueness and a good link/internal link scenario. Impacts should still be fully impacted out. Ex: better economy means very little to me while extinction means a lot.

While I will default magnitude absent any weighing, I tend to prefer probability weighing if it's given to me. For me, that comes from the link debate. Link defense can serve as mitigation of the probability of an argument as stated above. Explain how different arguments interact with the links and what that means for my evaluation. Flag specific things in the last speeches especially.

Case turns only would be interesting to watch.

Theory:

Down for theory debates

I could be convinced that pics, condo, etc are good or bad.

Nebel T against super small squarely affs would be a fun strategy to watch if you can properly explain it.

Will default competing interpretations

Seems recently in parli, there's been a lot of 2a theory and even 2n theory :// In that case, please layer and order - otherwise it's an even larger mess.

What if all T interps were read as a POI in the 1A?

Split the ballot theory is cool if you both need a 1-1 split at TOC

Ks:

I was not a K debater, so I don't have much background in the lit. I was mostly around methodology Ks, but you can read whatever you want. Regardless of what you read, still make sure explanations are clear and explain jargon.

If you read a K from a backfile and don't have any idea what it says, it will be clear, and I will find it really easy to drop you.

I think nontopical Aff Ks specifically should be disclosed. If they aren't, I'm sympathetic to disclosure arguments and probably have a lower bar for T or other theory arguments. Note this is distinct and doesn't apply to defending the topic and deriving critical impacts + framing. In general, the further you are from defending the topic, the more sympathetic I am to t-fw.

Assume I haven’t heard of your lit.

TL;DR - Be nice and have fun!!! I prefer technical case debate, but I'll do my best to evaluate any arguments you present. I consider myself tech over truth. I'm usually most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and doing a good job explaining how arguments that your opponents dropped put you ahead at the end of the round. Theory is cool, and I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it, but I'll probably be sad. Ks are cool too, but I feel less confident about my ability to properly evaluate them. It's probably best to assume that I'm not familiar with your K lit, and I probably won't vote for an argument I don't understand :(

Introduction/Background

Hey! Shaurya's partner speaking (or typing, I guess)! Welcome to the whimsical world of my probably bland debate opinions (by norcal parli standards at least). Prepare yourself for a few possibly lukewarm takes?!?!?!

But first, a little background: My name is Evan and my pronouns are he/him. I was a Mountain View Los Altos parli debater for about 5 years. I dabbled a tiny bit in LD, PF, Policy, and World Schools back in the day for maybe a few months each. I also did duo interpretation for 3 years before high school (I highly recommend doing duo btw it was probably the most fun I had in speech and debate ever, sorry parli).

I mostly did lay and technical case debate, but I occasionally ran some theory (mostly in response to other theory or Ks), and I ran one K aff with my partner in a few rounds (which I helped write, but it was mostly my partner's work). I've watched and been in a few dozen K rounds so I'm familiar with their general structure and some of their many flavors, but it was never really my thing.

I'm currently a freshman in college studying environmental economics and policy (but don't worry I only understand basic microeconomics, I still have no idea how the stock market works or what it means when the fed raises interest rates).

Also, this paradigm might be long, so feel free to just read the tl;dr and the underlined parts for the important information. The not-underlined stuff isn't really necessary, it's just there in case one of the underlined things wasn't clear or in case you want to know more about my judging philosophy (and because I'm just very bad at being concise whoops).

And, if you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round! I tried to explain most of the debate jargon I use in this paradigm, but I'm sure I didn't really explain everything, so please ask if there's a word/phrase you're not familiar with or if anything is unclear (my goal here is to make my debate opinions understandable, so really you'll be doing me a favor).

How I Reach My Decisions

I usually make my decisions by following these steps:

1. Order the layers in the debate round

Common layers in a round are case, K, and theory. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list. Anything can be a separate layer if you give me a reason it should be weighed before other parts of the debate and give me a reason that the resolution of the arguments in that layer should be able to decide the round regardless of the outcomes in all the layers below it. Everything starts on the same layer by default. If you want me to put anything (including Ks and theory) above anything else, you need to give me a reason I should! The reason can be simple, but I won't fill it in for you.

If the term "case layer" isn't familiar to you, I just mean the part of the debate that has to do with the implications of the plan after we imagine it passes. Often, the whole debate is in the case layer.

I'll first go through the following steps with the top layer (and then with go through them with the layers below if necessary).

The top layer is just the layer I decide is at the top of my order based on the arguments in the round.

2. Determine the weighing mechanism I'm using for the given layer

Win an argument telling me why I should use your weighing mechanism, and I'll use it! I default to net benefits on the case layer and K layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism (but usually the debaters give me a different weighing mechanism for the K layer). I default to competing interpretations on the theory layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism.

3. Order the impacts in the layer

This order depends on the debate. Tell me what this order should be by weighing your impacts in the round! See the "weighing" section for more info.

4. See who's winning the debate on the top impact (and then the impacts below it if necessary)

If there's a clear winner of the top/most important impact, they'll usually win the round, especially if a team wins arguments that the top impact outweighs everything else in the round. For example, if both teams have environmental impacts, and both teams agree that the environment is the most important issue in the round, I'll most likely vote for whichever side I feel is better for the environment (based on the arguments in the round).

If aff wins the top impact, but neg wins all the other impacts, and all the other impacts combined outweigh the top impact, neg could (and theoretically should) still win. The only problem is that it's often hard to quantitatively compare impacts (so it's hard for me to tell if all the other impacts combined outweigh the top impact). If each impact is terminalized, and all the other impacts clearly add up to a bigger number than the top impact, then I'll almost certainly vote for neg (in this scenario). But, if I can only qualitatively/vaguely tell the order of the impacts, and few or none of them have actual numbers attached to them (and no argument is made in the round that the other impacts combined outweigh the top impact), the round will probably be a toss-up. I'll probably try to quantify each impact based on the implications of arguments in the round, but if these numbers aren't stated this is basically judge intervention. The more I have to intervene, the less confident I usually feel about my ballot, so the most likely outcome of this will probably be me voting for the winner of the top impact (to avoid intervening and quantifying every impact so that I can compare them). To avoid this, quantify your impacts if you can and, most importantly, weigh your impacts!

5. If a winner isn't decided based on this layer, I move to the layer below it and repeat steps 2 through 4. I keep doing this until I find a winner!

My Thoughts on Decisions and RFDs

Disclaimer: To be honest I can't think of a case where my opinions in this section would actually affect my decision. I just think if I were still debating I would've liked to hear these things. So if you want you can skip it, but also I'd really appreciate if you give at least the underlined parts a quick read I think this can be important stuff to hear for many debaters.

Ok here's my first possibly lukewarm take: I think debate is an educational game, but it's a subjective (educational) game of persuasion. In other words, debate is more like apples to apples than it is like chess. You can't look at all the moves/arguments made in a round and know without a shadow of a doubt who won at the end.

I think in almost every round there's a valid RFD (reason for decision) for either side. If that's true, I think it follows that any decision about who "won" is really just an opinion. So I think, ultimately, no matter how tech over truth or tabula rasa a judge is, rounds are won by persuading a judge to believe that your arguments won. It just happens to be the case that I'm usually most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and doing a good job explaining how arguments that your opponents dropped strengthen your case or put you ahead at the end of the round.

That also means all RFDs, mine included, are really just opinions. As with any opinion, I'd ask you to hear it out, but you have no obligation to agree. My advice is to take from it only what's valuable to you. Regardless of whether I voted for or against your arguments, check if there's anything in my RFD that you can use to become an even better debater.

Also notice that I'm not voting for or against you, I'm just voting for or against the arguments you made in that round. There is, of course, so much more to everyone than the arguments they make in a 60-minute debate round on a silly parli topic!

Also, remember that I'm human and I make mistakes. Some of my opinions are more well-founded than others. If you felt you won that round, then walk out of that round feeling like a winner! I can't stop you! And if you felt you lost that round, walk out of that round ready to become an even better debater and kill it in your next round! Regardless, and most importantly, I hope you also walk out of that round feeling like you learned something and had some fun along the way!!

What do I think is a strategic argument

I know I said one of the things I'm most persuaded by is a strategic argument, and I know that's a little vague, so I figured I'd try to briefly explain what I meant here. I don't have an exact definition of a strategic argument, but in general, I think a strategic argument is composed of a clear claim, good evidence to support that claim, and an implication that is explained well in the context of the round.

In my opinion, a clear claim just means I can easily understand the gist/thesis of the argument. Usually, that means the team presenting the argument gave me a clear and consistent summary of the argument across their speeches. In the first speech, this means presenting the pieces of the argument in a logical order. In the second speech, overviews or other quick summaries of your arguments and why you're winning the round are helpful. The last speech is probably the most important place to make the claim of your argument crystal clear since I think the best final speeches are ones that give a simple summary of the round and why their arguments are winning.

Good evidence to support your claim just means having a variety of well-explained reasons that your claim is true. If you present things like statistics or historical facts, be sure to explain their relevance to your claim/argument.

To explain your implication well in the context of the round, don't just tell me why your argument is true, be sure to tell me why your argument means I should vote for you. Better yet, tell me how your arguments are more important than your opponents' arguments or prove their arguments wrong. Set yourself up to do this by anticipating what arguments your opponents will make and designing your case in a way that makes it easy to respond. To me, that's really at the core of building a strategic argument.

How to win arguments (at least in my book)

In my opinion, the best ways to prove your argument beats your opponent's argument are:

• Leveraging dropped arguments! I will consider fully dropped arguments to be 100% true. Given that, tell me how the dropped argument proves that your opponent's argument is wrong in this debate. But remember, (at least in my opinion) an argument consists of a claim, at least one warrant, and an implication. Be warned: even if an argument is conceded, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have each of those 3 parts!

• Weighing! Tell me why your warrants (logical or "cited") are better than your opponent's warrants and/or tell me why your argument matters more. For more explanation, see the "Weighing" section of this paradigm.

• Using "even if" scenarios! This means tell me why you're winning "even if" I believe that their argument (or at least some part of their argument) is true. Often your argument can't win if I believe everything they say is true, but do your best to pick as many parts of their argument as possible and explain why your winning even if I believe all those parts you picked!

Weighing

Weigh your impacts! If you give me valid arguments about how your impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts and they don't respond, you'll probably win!

Do metaweighing, if you're into that! In other words, tell me which weighing mechanism I should look at first! That means making arguments like magnitude should be considered over/before probability, probability should be considered over/before magnitude, or timeframe should be considered over/before magnitude and probability (bonus points for doing the last one I'd be impressed)! It can make my job a lot easier (and I think whoever does the metaweighing will usually like the outcome).If you do metaweighing, make sure to tell me why you're winning under your metaweighing!

Weigh evidence/arguments! Tell me which evidence I should believe and why, especially if there are two competing pieces of evidence that are critical to the round. Since parli doesn't really have source verification, I probably won't put too much weight in comparing sources. That being said, if one piece of evidence is from a peer-reviewed study and the other is from a random blog post, point that out and tell me that your evidence is more trustworthy. If the difference in source quality is on that level, I'll tend to agree with you. You can also make arguments about things like whether historical evidence should be preferred over predictions of the future. You can make arguments about their evidence not being as applicable to the situation as your evidence. You can point out that their evidence doesn't provide a clear and logical line of reasoning while yours does. Pretty much any argument about how your evidence is better proof of your claim than theirs is will do me a big favor!

Ok back to more boring stuff. Here's how I weigh by default:

Unless arguments in the round tell me otherwise, the way I'll weigh impacts is I'll (sort of) multiply the magnitude of an impact by its probability. For example, if you're impact is 10 million dollars lost, but your impact has a 50% chance of happening, I'll consider it the about same thing as 5 million dollars lost with 100% probability. I'll determine the probability of an impact based on the strength of the link chain leading to that impact at the end of the round.

The only problem with this is that usually levels of probability can't be discerned very precisely. Typically, at the end of a round, I can only assign an impact somewhere around 100%, 50%, or 0% probability. In other words, I've never been in a round where I left thinking, "Wow, I could really tell that impact had a 37% probability!" That means I'll usually look more to magnitude to decide rounds because differences in magnitude are usually more easily discernable than differences in probability.

By default, I'll only use timeframe as a tiebreaker because, to me, its significance is even more unclear than probability. If two impacts are essentially exactly identical to me, I'll consider the one that happens later to be the smaller impact.

In terms of evidence, I'll usually consider "cited" evidence (like statistics and historical facts) stronger than logical evidence (evidence that's just your logical reasoning about why something is true), but this isn't a steadfast opinion/order. I'm definitely open to changing this belief if you win an argument about it in the round. Also, since this is parli, you don't actually have to "cite" your source (since all citations are non-verifiable in parli land). If you don't cite a source, but present something like a statistic or a historical fact, I'll still treat it as "cited" evidence.

New Arguments in the Last Speeches (LOR and PMR)

I'll do my best to protect the flow (meaning I won't consider new arguments made in these speeches), but calling the POO (Point of Order) is still appreciated!

I count new metaweighing arguments as new arguments in the last two speeches, even if they're technically "just weighing". Otherwise, I think the PMR in particular could give a billion reasons why they're winning on whatever weighing mechanism they choose and then argue that I should consider that one weighing mechanism above all else, and hypothetically they would win every round.

Other than metaweighing, I think new impact weighing/comparison is generally fair game in the last two speeches since they're supposed to be summarizing and crystalizing the round. That being said, if a new weighing claim made in the PMR ends up being a pivotal argument in my decision, I'll usually lean toward siding with the negative and stretch more to cross-apply negative arguments that could respond to this weighing claim (since the negative doesn't have a chance to respond to the PMR weighing, but the aff has a chance to respond to the LOR weighing).

Theory

I'll default to evaluating theory using competing interpretations. If you can prove that their interpretation is bad I don't really see why you need to read a counter-interpretation though. If you don't read a counter-interpretation, I'll just assume you're defending the debate status quo (which is usually just their interpretation but replace "must" or "must not" with "may or may not"), kind of like I assume the neg is defending the status quo if they don't read a counterplan. Still, the team reading theory can give disadvantages to your implied counter-interpretation, so not defending it might be an uphill battle. So, in summary, I basically just think of competing interpretations as net benefits of the interpretation.

If you read reasonability and intend to make it a key voting issue in the theory debate, try to give me a bright line. Explain what defines a "reasonable" interpretation so that I'm not deciding the theory debate based on my gut feeling about whether or not it's reasonable. An example of a bright line that Riley taught me is that an interpretation is reasonable if the team presenting it can prove the education lost by the violation outweighs the education lost by reading theory in this round (if this bright line doesn't make sense blame me not Riley I'm I could easily be remembering it wrong, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm looking for in a bright line - just give me another clear metric I can use to decide the theory debate).

Remember when I said I'll be sad if I vote for friv theory. That's probably true in most cases where you don't know your opponents. But, if you do know your opponents and you know everyone in the round will have fun with it, then go for it! I'm not the fun police (I hope), and I'd be more than happy to try to evaluate some wacky theory arguments as long as everyone else in the round is having a good time too. It's just that, in general, my experience with friv theory at tournaments has been that the team on the receiving end usually doesn't have as much experience with tech debate and ends up not really feeling like they had a fighting chance. I'll still vote on friv theory since not doing so entirely feels like too much judge intervention which would be unfair to you. But, if both teams aren't really comfortable with it, I'll be sad.

Kritiks

Ks weren't really my thing in high school, so I don't have too many thoughts on them. I'll probably be more receptive to common sense responses than the average tech judge, even if they don't have the technical jargon commonly used in effective K responses.

Please explain your arguments clearly! Both so your opponents can effectively engage in the round, and so I can do a better job evaluating your arguments. Assume I don't know your K lit because I probably don't!

If you can tell your opponents you'll be reading a K before the round, it would be great if you do. It would be even better if you disclose your advocacy or the thesis of the K you're reading. I think the discussion and insight you get out of the round are a lot more valuable if both teams are able to effectively prepare for the debate they're about to have, and I do think it's often unfair if one team gets 0 minutes to prep responses to a K the other team spent days writing.

That being said, I think disclosure theory debates can get messy since the violation debate is hard to resolve without just taking one team's word for it. If faced with disclosure theory I'll do my best to evaluate it based on the arguments made in the round, but in all honesty, I'll probably feel forced to intervene to reach a decision on the theory shell, so I'll do my best to find something else to decide the round.

I do think I'll probably be a little more receptive to TUSfg/Framework T than the average tech judge, (but if you run framework T you'll certainly still have to work for the win).

I consider the ROB (Roll Of the Ballot) the thesis of your framework section. In my view, the arguments you make in the framework section are the evidence supporting your ROB. If your opponents effectively respond to your framework, but they don't explicitly answer your ROB, I won't consider your ROB conceded (because I'd consider the evidence behind the ROB refuted).

Other random thoughts

Please don't respond to an argument by saying, "This claim doesn't have any evidence, so you shouldn't consider it" and then moving on! They may have no evidence that their claim is right, but if you move on I'm also left with no evidence that their claim is wrong! Your evidence doesn't need to be from an online source. In my opinion, especially in parli, logic is considered evidence. So, if you point out their claim doesn't have evidence and then ALSO give me some logical reason that their claim probably isn't true, you're golden!

Counterplans can be offense because opportunity costs are still costs.

In terms of speed, I can probably handle up to 150 words per minute relatively well. If you go too far above that I might miss some things, but I'll hopefully catch the main ideas for most of what you're saying. I'll slow or clear your if I really can't keep up, but even if I haven't said anything it's best to slow down if there's anything really important that you want to make sure is on my flow and you've been going fast.

My definition of tech over truth is basically just that, if you win an argument in the round or if your opponent concedes an argument, I will believe that argument is true in the context of that round regardless of whether or not I personally think the argument is actually true. In other words, if you tell me the Moon is made of cheese, you give me any plausible logical or cited warrant (which can be as simple as "the moon has holes that look like cheese"), and your opponent concedes it, I will believe the Moon is made of cheese for the purposes of deciding a winner in that round. In my opinion, arguments consist of a claim, at least one warrant, and an implication. Even if an argument is conceded, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have all of those 3 parts!

Tag teaming is fine! I'll only flow what the designated/current speaker is saying though (so the current speaker will have to repeat whatever their partner said if they want me to consider it). My definition of tag teaming is when a person talks during their partner's speech, usually to give them an idea or tell them to respond to some argument.

I won't flow questions asked (or statements made) during POIs or during flex. I think POIs should not be used to make statements or arguments during your opponents' speech. They should be used for clarifying or strategic questions. In my opinion, strategic questions are questions that could strengthen an argument you want to make later based on their response. Strategic questions don't involve effectively stating the thesis of an argument you want to make. Telling them your argument during their speech only gives them more time to think of a good response, so (at least in my opinion) it's probably not the most strategic choice!

Also, I'm sorry if the formatting is messed up, I promise it looks better in the paradigm editor, but for some reason it looks like it doesn't convert well when other people view it :((

Hi, I did speech in high school but plz don't treat me like a lay judge. I do college Parli and Policy. Not that good at either but we're working on it.

Tech > Truth, I won't write much because I don't want you to over adapt to me

Debate is most definitely a game

I weirdly like more sheets in the round, I find those rounds the most fun

I'm pretty neutral on about every theory position so feel free to be condo, read a PIC etc. I think the only thing I probably lean towards believing is multi-fiat is probably bad and being dispo in Parli is probably not great. But you still need to win the arguments for me to buy them

I will listen to just about any argument (including tricks) :) as long as we're not being racist or something

Don't worry about me with speed, just check in with your opponents to make sure they're chill. If you're diabolically fast then I'll call slow when needed. This doesn't matter in policy obviously

Friv is completely fine with me. I think the only T shell I've ever found silly is disclosure in Parli or like when teams read interps that teams can't read Ks. Yes, they can read Ks but more importantly, there are so many better interps to read against Ks

I kinda love David Worth's paradigm (Rice's Parli coach) so I'm gonna steal a few things he puts in there: 1. I have to understand an argument to vote for it. So run whatever you want but if you read something because you think you'll win since the other team won't understand it, be careful because I might not understand it either. 2. Realize that everyone has sacrificed something to be in the round that you are in, so let's make sure we are being respectful in round to everyone. Cross is not a time for you to flex on the other team

I flow on paper so plz give me some pen time and time to switch sheets

Call the Point of Order because I am bad at protecting the flow

I would like to think that I am not biased towards Ks because I compete at a K biased school I'd say but there's a chance that I have some so make sure to extra explain why theory is an a priori but you probably should already being doing that soooo cool

I don't understand your K lit base btw. But I'll listen to anything. I'll be most familiar with Set Col (not Fanon tho, Tuck & Yang are the goats), Lacan, Marx, while I do not understand Deleuze I think they're epic and I like hearing their arguments in round

I'll disclose after round unless explicitly instructed not to

The RFD will sound pretty bad because idk how to word things immediately so wait and read the Tabroom RFD after the tourney to actually learn stuff

#FreeHolden

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

I debate Parli for four years at WHS and now I study nuclear engineering @ Berkeley

TLDR: I am a flow judge and evaluate tech>truth, I like evidence-based debates and will always evaluate evidence-based arguments and refs over every logical warrant unless you give me explicit reasons to do otherwise. If you are running a K you might want to refer to that part of the paradigm. I will also evaluate scientific evidence above all other types of evidence, I'll refer you to the K section if you want to know how this affects Ks.

Presentation:

please keep yourself to a speed that will let me comprehend you, (i.e. please don't spread your lungs out, I can take fast speeds but I'm growing old and my ability to understand speeches delivered at mach speed is waning).

I don't really care about formalities, just signpost.

I dislike speaker points, I will give you them based on how well you wrote your arguments

All texts in chat

Case:

This really should be like every other judge in parli debate. Evidence, warrants, impacts, extensions, etc. I like wide collapses because it gives me multiple reasons to prefer your advocacy. If you have a narrow collapse and it is a big-stick/round winner impact then I will obviously evaluate that above. You have to weigh impacts, if you don't you will lose. If both sides fail to weigh impacts, I will default to who wins their links.

- Constitutionality is NOT an impact, the constitution can be amended and changed.

Theory:

I am quite familiar with theory and was a bit of a theory hack in high school. I dislike lay theory a lot, don't try running it because it's really unclear what I'm supposed to do with it. If you are going to run theory, run it in Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters format. Theory is very viable when run correctly and I will not hesitate to vote on it. Also, extend your standards and make sure to do work on them because I often evaluate that before any major voter level arguments.

Some notes on Theory:

If your opponent runs Trigger Warning Theory, just apologize and make sure to read trigger warnings in future speeches. I don't want people arguing against the concept of trigger warnings because that's not only morally reprehensible but it also sets a dangerous precedent. If you still do not read relevant trigger warnings after your opponent has asked you or has run theory on you, I will drop you and tank your speaks.

"Friv Theory" is completely fine and I don't really have an issue with it unless it requires your opponents to do something like take off their shoes which can make them really uncomfortable. Otherwise, it is just as valid as any other argument in the debate. Tricks are super fun to judge and make the debate interesting.

I default to competing interps over reasonability; No preference for Fairness vs Education; If you run a K and decide to leverage it against Theory, it needs to be extremely well done. (If you say that Fairness skews eval of the flow, I will not consider opposition arguments about pre-round equity unless they manage to explain how it also skews eval of the flow); I will not eval "spirit of the interp" arguments.

I evaluate RVIs and have a fairly low threshold for them.

Finally, I am perfectly fine with replacing the weighing mechanism/definition if both sides agree to it and won't penalize either side. It's not necessary to run theory in those instances.

Kritiks

TLDR: You have to run the K super super well, I don't really have a tolerance for bad/weak argumentation on the K level. This means that given the information you provide, your links and impacts have to make logical sense to someone who has never read the source material. Your alt solvency also has to be really well explained, Ks are an all or nothing here, if you run a bad K that makes no logical sense I will point out logical inconsistencies and give your opponent the win by default.

Familiar Lit Areas:

- Security

- SetCol

- Anthro

- Religion

- Cap

Just because I mainly know these specific Lit Areas doesn't mean that I won't evaluate any other K. I love new and interesting Ks with interesting ideologies/ important systematic issues to highlight.

I love Ks and love seeing them be debated but there are very important boundaries to not cross.

POMO

I don't like pomo. I can briefly explain why if you ask but I would stray away from most pomo, nietzsche is fine tho.

Identity Ks

Identity Ks are important in debate because they are used as survival strats by marginalized groups in this space. That being said I have 3 main notes about Identity Ks.

1. Every other judge has already said this but DO NOT RUN A K ABOUT A GROUP YOU ARE NOT PART OF. I will drop you.

2. Do not assume your opponent to be CisHet, this can cause forced outing, and attempting to do so will result in you being dropped

3. Attacking the concept of religion or highlighting its rhetorical violence is NOT the same as attacking members of a specific religion. The former is a valid argument, the latter is an equity violation.

K Generics

Read extensive framework; Bonus points if your framework allows your opponent to leverage their case which means more clash

I will evaluate Theory against Ks so be prepared for that

Links are pretty important and I don't like the Epistemic Skew argument very much because it nonuniques itself imo. This means you have to actually win your links substantially. I am also very receptive to the perm double bind.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round or email me at mehulnair@berkeley.edu.

Hello Wonderful Person,

I appreciate the opportunity to judge. As a judge, my primary goal is to fairly evaluate the arguments presented and provide constructive feedback. I value clarity, strategic argumentation, effective communication, and adaptability.

Communication: Clear and articulate communication is crucial. Ensure that your speech is well-paced, and your arguments are easy to follow. Please provide a clear roadmap and structure for your speeches.

Argumentation: I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Impactful arguments that directly address the resolution or topic are particularly important.

Cross-Examination/POIs and Engagement/Rebuttal: Take and give POIs strategically. Quality matters over quantity. Engage actively with your opponents through POIs and responses during their speeches. Demonstrate an understanding of the key issues in the round. Maintain a respectful demeanor during cross-examination. Engage with your opponent’s arguments. Provide effective rebuttals by directly responding to the core of your opponent’s case. Be strategic in your prioritization of arguments and responsive to the flow of the debate.

Etiquette: Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round. Avoid any form of discriminatory language or behavior.

I look forward to an energetic and insightful exchange of ideas, while you showcase your unique debating style. See you soon!

Lindsay

Hey! I'm Alex and I'm a freshman at Berkeley majoring in econ. I did Parli for all 4 years at Menlo-Atherton HS and now compete with the Debate Society of Berkeley. I was fairly successful - won SVUDL 1 (21') + finals at Cal Parli (21') and Stephen Stewart (22'), but I had my share of 0-5s, 1-4s and 2-3s at the start of my career. I'll disclose and give feedback after the round (so long as the tournament doesn't yell at me for it), but if you want additional comments after that, I can email you more of my thoughts. You can also send me an email (alexparikh-briggs@berkeley.edu) if you want more specific feedback/help with something that happened in round.

Non Parli:

If I end up judging you for an event other than Parli, please just err on the side of caution. Idk the nuances of these events too well, but that isn't to say to treat me like a lay judge. Everything below still applies (mostly).

Misc:

tech>truth. I hate intervention, so I literally won’t intervene against anything unless it’s racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That being said, please just respond to bad arguments so I don’t have to vote on them.

Speed: I will admit, I’m not the greatest with speed. I can handle faster than conversational for sure but I probably can’t handle double breaths. General rule: I think as long as you aren’t going as fast as you possibly can it should be ok. I’ll slow/clear if needed.

POI/POO: Use POI’s. I will flow them. Make sure they are a question, but as long as you do that, I’m fine with tricky/interesting POI’s.

• POO’s: Just call them if you think it’s new. I’ll do my best to protect, but if I screw up, I don’t want that to cost you.

Time: I’ll time and give 0-30 seconds grace (I’ll ask both teams how much grace they want b4 the round starts and we’ll do what you agree on). The millisecond you go overtime, I’m not flowing.

Tag teaming is chill, maybe not every sentence though.

• On that note, I’ll give speaks based on execution of strategy and your overall contribution to the round. This means I don’t care how pretty your speech is, I just care about what you’re saying. I’ll be pretty generous and probably give an average speech around a 28 and adjust from there. Feel free to swear.

If I have nothing to vote on at the end of the round, I’ll presume neg (this shouldn’t happen). If there is a CP, then I’ll presume aff. If the aff then does a perm “do both,” it goes back to NEG. Ask me about this before the round if this is confusing.

Please collapse in rebuttal. Tell me what you want me to vote on.

• If you’re the LOR, DO NOT REPEAT THE MO. (I did this several times, it’s ok, but try not to).

Case:

I did all the different styles - APDA/East Coast, more “Flay'' west coast, and “tech”/NPDA west coast debate. This means that whatever style of debate u want to have is fine with me. That said, here are a few things:

l’ll go off of net bens if I get no other framing. Feel free to be squirrelly, just be ready for fairness/theory arguments.

Every argument should have some form of claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously, feel free to beef these up and use whatever structure you want (Uniqueness/Link/Impact is what I did mostly)

Evidence is cool, just make sure you can explain to me why that evidence is the way it is. For example, if you read me the argument “1 year of poverty takes off 7 years of your life” but can’t tell me why that’s true, I can’t vote on it/evaluate it.

Do weighing. This means DIRECTLY, not implying, why your impact is more important than the other side. I have no defaults. If one team weighs and the other doesn’t I'll just prioritize that framing. If one team goes for magnitude and the other goes for probability, whichever team does meta weighing is what I prefer. If there is no metaweighing, well… I’ll probably have to intervene sadly. Use different forms of weighing like scope, reversibility, etc. Your opponents won’t know how to handle this. I know this is hard, so just do your best. I struggled with it as well.

I really like CP’s. My partner and I literally read advantage CP’s whenever it was possible. Given this, I’ll evaluate whatever CP you want to read, LIKE ACTUALLY, ANYTHING. Just make sure it’s well constructed. Be prepared for your opponents and I to ask you for a text. If it needs to be a paragraph, so be it. I'm down for whacky arguments that you don't think most judges would buy. If it’s not a policy round, just call it a counter advocacy to avoid the trichonomy debate, I'll treat it the same. Same thing if the resolution starts with “This house.”

• If you're the Aff and you’re gonna perm, please tell me whether it’s a test of competition or you’re "doing both"/taking the advocacy. I don’t default here so you need to explain it to me.

• Condo is fine, but be ready for theory.

• Don't do all this work making a nice CP and then lose on a perm. Make sure u think about this during prep. Competition on net bens is fine, u just have to win that then.

Theory:

Definitely my favorite debate argument. I will listen/vote on any theory argument you read. This includes friv t (my threshold for voting on theory is very low lol). I literally ran the interp, during an online tournament, “All participants in a debate round must have their cameras off.” One of the voters was climate change - apparently having ur video on has a 97% greater impact on the environment.

Absolutely no defaults on theory - tell me it’s apriori, tell me drop debater/argument, tell me no RVI’s, tell me competing interps (reasonability is fine too, just give me a brightline), etc.

• On that note, if you’re against friv t, go for an RVI. I don’t understand why people are so against it in parli. You should be able to win the theory argument (friv t is usually easy to respond to) and in that case you win the round.

Again, any shell you can possibly think of is fine. If you run a shell that I haven’t heard before, I’ll boost ur speaks by a full point. I don't really understand how 30 speaks theory works, but if you make it make sense to me, I'll probably just give both of y'all 30 speaks.

The format of your shell, while I’d prefer interp/violation/standards/voters, doesn’t matter. I’ll vote on paragraph theory as long as all of the elements are sort of there.

I'm lumping this with theory because that's where it seems to appear most: IVI's. I'm willing to vote on these, but I need them to be layered and have pre-fiat education/fairness impact that is pretty large. Thus, my threshold for voting on IVI's is much greater than for theory (usually cuz these are just blipped out in 20 seconds, if they're actually explained then probably on par with theory).

K’s:

I will admit, it was hard for me to engage in K’s in high school because that almost always meant my partner and I would get spread out. That being said, if you can slow it down just a tad, I’m totally willing to vote on it. I’m not really familiar with much of the lit you might be using other than cap stuff. Because of what I said above, accessibility matters a lot to me. If you’re running a k, take lots of questions to make sure the other team can engage with you. Also, if they keep saying slow and you just don’t slow, it will be very hard for me to vote for you.

Valid ways to respond to K’s (for teams that aren’t the most familiar):

Read counter-framework/Attack Framework

Attack the Alt

Read Theory

Attack Links

Attack Impacts

I also am not gonna default that K’s come before case, you need to tell me this.

tl;dr: I am open to almost any argument you want to read and will do my best to judge the round the way you lay it out for me.

Background

I’m a first-year at UC Berkeley now competing in NPDA as a 1A/2N and am currently coached by Amanda Miskell, Will White, lila lavender, and June Dense. I competed for EVHS for four years in NPDL debate as mostly a 2A/2N, but I have some experience with 1A/1N when I mavved at NPDI ‘21. My thoughts on debate so far have been mainly shaped by Trevor Greenan, lila lavender, Will White, Amanda Miskell, so feel free to check out their paradigms - I’ll probably evaluate rounds in a similar way.

General

My decision is based almost entirely and primarily on my flow (i.e. tech > truth), however if intervention is inevitable, I will try to find the easiest, least interventiony path to the ballot. In a similar fashion to Trevor, I will prioritize (in roughly this order): conceded arguments with weighing/framing, conceded arguments that are otherwise extended, arguments with substantive warrant analysis, arguments with implicit framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of. Speed is fine, although be mindful of “slow/clear” calls (see lila’s paradigm for the steph stew 2022 incident - I have very similar thoughts on speed). While I do protect, feel free to call your POOs.

Case

My 1ACs/1NCs for the first half of my career were typically two advantages or DAs with large uniqueness blocks and impact work. Given this, I tend to believe strong uniqueness and on the flip side good defensive analytics make arguments compelling. A structured approach to answering case arguments by section with an overview, signposting, and a good collapse is your best bet to beating back these arguments.

I default to fiat being durable, utilitarianism/net benefits as the moral framework, and counterplans being conditional, but am open to arguments to the contrary.

Read any counterplan you want, cheater or not, but I’ll also vote on MG theory here if it’s won.

Theory

Have fun - I lived for theory and I am generally a fan. Collapse to what is strategic - just bc you think I’m a theory hack should not mean you poorly collapse to theory for the hell of it. In fact, I now think bad or unnecessary theory collapses typically lead to a boringish debate compared to a similar quality K or case collapse (still means make strategic choices! if theory makes sense go for it).

My view on theory is that it boils down to case debate with a slightly different structure. This means UQ, links, impact analysis, and collapse should be a big part of any theory debate.

I default to competing interps, and need a good warrant to prefer reasonability + a brightline. Theory is you upholding a model of debate through your interp vs any counterinterp, so you want to do comparative standards and voter work in your collapse.

I did go for MG theory frequently in high school so I will respect your decision to read/go for MG theory, but poorly read multiple sheets in the MG will make me sad.

Kritiks

Since getting into NPDA, I’ve almost exclusively read variations of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) on both the aff and the neg. In high school, I got a lot more into kritiks in my junior and senior year, with a lot of Buddhism, and some MLM and Baudrillard. I find these arguments to be a valuable and fun tool in debate and am happy to evaluate these debates to the best of my ability.

Don’t assume I know your literature and esp in high school if ur reading smt nuts then take questions (it’ll help me too!).

Specific links to the aff are much more compelling than generic links or those of omission, which I will hold a higher threshold on.

I enjoyed K affs a lot more in my senior year and I’m down to hear them. I think FW/T is good when done well - I personally like the “we lead to better versions of ur aff bc truth testing is good” version more than the “drop them!! they didn’t fulfill their burden!!” complaining version but you do you.

Random Specific Thoughts Post NPTE 2023

Genocide seems pretty bad! The PMR seems to exist! Topicality and spec seem to be different things!

I have similar thoughts to Tim: The PMR should probably get to read new offense against the block’s rhetoric bc how would the MG predict that the block was gonna say slurs. IDK seems to make sense to me. And I will not randomly intervene to decide what rhetoric is “reasonably egregious” or not, ESPECIALLY if I’m a CIA-employed Zionist imperialist actor (to clarify which I am not). That seems pretty bad to me idk!

I have no idea wtf extending the perm means. I feel like if you want to extend a perm to get rid of an unconditional counterplan then you have to either read or pick some kind of terminal defense to get rid of your own competition. For example, you need to say “extend this defense” which means the counterplan doesn’t work and so the world of the counterplan solely is the status quo. Then if you extend the perm that makes sense to me because then the uncondo counterplan is the status quo so the world of the perm vs the CP is the same as the world of the aff vs the status quo. If you don’t do this then the only way you can get rid of offense on your counterplan probably seems to be actually kicking it. But I am slightly iffy about this so explain how extending the perm gets rid of the uncondo CP please thx.

Everything seems like fiat based on my understanding - if fiat is saying that we “should” do something and then imagine the consequences of that action then almost everything seems like it fiats an action. This also extends to the pre/post fiat distinction since either smt that is prefiat is saying their speech act has done something to change the world in which case I don’t know why I have to vote for you uniquely if that impact has already occurred, or my ballot will do something in which case the “pre” vs “post” fiat distinction seems mildly blurry to me but idk. This probably does not change the way I evaluate rounds, since I’ll assume the traditional fiat = policymaking fiat paradigm until someone tells me that fiat is what it rly is, in which case you can do a lot more weighing with the policymaking 1AC. This still doesn’t preclude framework analysis, in which case I will default to epistemic modesty over confidence (this means impacts = probability of ur framework being true x ur impact).

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on Instagram (@tejas.prabhune), Messenger (Tejas Prabhune), Discord (papaya#8124), email me at prabhune@berkeley.edu, or ask away before the start of round!

I’m very down to be postrounded at the above places as well - I encourage you to push me to be a better judge.

Hi everyone! I'm a first year student at UC Berkeley who competed in High School Parli for 4 years. I am good with whatever technical arguments you choose to run(Kritiks, Theory etc.) but may ask you to slow down a little. If you run an Aff K I think you probably should disclose, I'd rather not have to evaluate disclosure theory. Please weigh for me. With that being said just be respectful and have fun!

Hello!

I am a college judge and I have debated PF in high school. I've also done Duo Interp and doing British Parliamentary now. I like to see a lot of engagement and lots of clash. Please be respectful of your opponents.

Case: I vote on case, not much theory.

I like to see signposting foremostly and I also like to see clear arguments with warranting, a link chain, and impacts. Constructive speakers need to be clear in each argument and back up each step of the link chain with empirics. Address everything that is relevant. Please do not spread and PLEASE WEIGH. I also don't really like definition debates.

Rebuttals:

Try to cover each argument and respond. Make sure to rebuild your own case as well. Weigh comparatively and using weighing mechanisms.

CX (PF):

Be respectful and ask content based questions. Do not talk over each other and make sure you don't take all the time for yourself.

Have fun!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updates from NPDI 2023

Read the perm. if you go slow know that I will fall asleep. I hate case debate because no one knows how to write unique DAs. Like pls read my paradigm lol i.e. Policy affs 2 (applies to neg as well I guess).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a current student at UC Berkeley’26 and compete for PDB.

In high school, I competed for Flintridge Prep in parli, policy, and a few tournaments in LD. I was coached by Khamani Griffin (my thoughts about debate were influenced by him but are not the same). I was a flex team in HS: policy aff, tech neg, but I also read DAs and CPs bc my district was lay.

I have almost exclusively read the K + K-aff last year (MLM).

Send me speech docs scott.schuster1@icould.com

WSD at bottom. PF at bottom.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General

1. I generally don't care what you read unless it is clearly problematic. You still have to justify what you read. (tab judge: tech>>>>Truth)
2. I can hang with most speed (if online slow down a bit 70-80% top speed). I'll slow if I can't understand you. You don't have to slow unless slowed. Don't spread out novices unless both teams are chill.
3. I'll try to evaluate the round to the best of my ability. if you don't agree/ don't understand email me.
4. I'll try to protect the flow. Still call Point of Orders
5. Speaks are fake. I'll default 28-29.
6. Blueberries (still links to fruit T though so L)
7. I shouldn’t have to say this, but some members of the community need to hear this: don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. if you make these arguments, I will drop you instantly, give lowest speaks, and have a nice conversation with your coach. Also if you cite, read, or defend in any way a Nazi, someone who the Nazi’s used to justify their theory, or someone who was generally related to them I will do the same.

Parli/Policy/TOC LD

Policy affs:

1. I am down to evaluate these. I pref the k aff right now, but I have read policy affs every round in HS.
2. Pls make these interesting. Don’t just paste in generic back-file advantages. I would prefer you to read something I have never heard before than the standard heg or Econ adv you read every round.
3. I will still evaluate generics, but not happily.

DAs/CPs

1. I went for these quite a bit in my district. Similar to policy affs section, don’t read generic DAs If you can.
2. I am down for PICs or cheater CPs.
3. I don’t have a way I lean on condo yet. I’ll vote on condo, but I probably won’t vote on n-1 interps where n is the number of CPs they read.

Theory/Topicality

1. I have read both of these extensively in policy.
2. I have a low threshold to vote on t.
3. I am down to listen to MG theory, loc theory. Tell me which I should evaluate first.
4. I’ll vote on anything that is not Shoes T or Nebel T.
5. I have a high threshold for speed t. Unless you have an access need, I probably won’t vote on speed t.
6. If you read disclosure and are a big/well-funded school, I probably will be very unlikely to vote for you. If I think they just straight drop the arg and vote on that, I probably tank speaks.

K/K-affs

1. These have been my main strategy this year. I am learning more of them and probably will like these debates a lot.
2. My main lit base is Mao. I have heard debates on a few other Ks. I.e. I won’t know your lit base, so pls explain it well.
3. I like FW debates for the K-aff but am also down to hear k v k debates.

WSD

If I am judging you in WSD, I will treat it like any other debate round. I don't care about any of the nonsense point systems. At the end of the day, Worlds is a debate event and all debate events have standard things I am looking for. Warrant your claims. I have yet to see a worlds debater do that. I will not vote on any arguments that rely on warrantless claims.

PF ONLY (If you are in another event I will not eval in this way)

Pf is not policy-lite. Don't treat it as such.

Probably best to strike me if you do any of the things below. I am 100% down for tech when it is read correctly. However, if you read tech and don't know how to deal with it, I will eval it to the best of my ability but tank speaks (i.e. 25s). This includes the K, K-Aff, T, Theory, T-FW, FW (kritical sense). i.e. literally anything that came from LD/Policy/Parli. If you read a K that follows the pattern of "I am some ______ (*insert demographic here*) and I should win for that" without reading any lit I will eval but tank speaks. If I have heard the same aff word for word I will tank speaks. pls write your own cases especially if your team has more than 2 teams.

I have been told PF is starting to read theory from LD/Policy. If this is your shell and you don't have the 4 parts of a shell, I will tank speaks. You need to have an Interp, Vio, Standards, and Voters. No paragraph T for PF.I have also heard you have been reading these positions in the wrong way like you took the name and went a very different direction. If I see this and your T shell is garbage I will have a hard time evaluating it.

If both sides read any of the previously mentioned arguments and do it so poorly I can't eval the debate/ anger me enough I will flip a coin.

If you spread in a manner that is trying to mirror other debaters but you can't spread I will tank speaks. Pls just speak how you would in any normal conversation. Don't double breath if you don't put a word in between the breaths.

Speech docs should be sent on time. prep doesn't stop until you hit send. Don't send speech docs unless going like 250+ WPM. I will call for card docs at the end of the round. Analytics are not nice to put in, they are a must. You have 3 mins + any unused prep time to send the doc after the round or I will drop you and tank speaks. I take evidence ethics in PF EXTREMELY seriously. I will drop if everything is not provided.

I am not the happiest with PF right now, so don’t test me. You can ignore my paradigm, but don’t get mad when I drop you and tank speaks.

Hi y’all, I’m Brenna (she/her). I compete in NPDA, formerly at Diablo Valley College and currently for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. I used to do NFA-LD, speech, and IPDA if that's important to you. I won the 2023 NPDA and NPTE championships with my partner, Tristan Keene. I am also the varsity coach for Campolindo High School. I think that judges should do their best to be unbiased adjudicators, and I will try to do just that. However, I’m not going to pretend that I don’t have *some* preconceived biases and opinions, so it’s probably best I make those known. Thus, this paradigm. Some paradigms I like include: June Dense, Tristan Keene, Adeja Powell, and Will White.

TLDR: I exist at the mercy of the flow. I will literally evaluate anything. I will not fill in gaps for you no matter how small. My preferences will not decide how I evaluate, only how happy I will be after round.

General things about Brenna:

1. I default to the flow and will not intervene UNLESS there is bigotry occurring in the round. This means that if you continue reading this paradigm and find out I don't really like your favorite thing to read, you can still read it. I'll evaluate it. But I won't have fun.
2. If I have a preference towards evaluating case, K or theory debates, I'm not aware of it.
3. 27 is usually my absolute minimum for speaks, I'll only give you less than 27 if you are super mean or problematic. I eval not according to speaking ability but according to execution of strategy. +0.1 point for every dollar you give me before round. If you can't put your money where your mouth is, don't ask me for a 30 arbitrarily.
4. Please collapse. For the love of god, collapse.
5. Please interact with your opponents' arguments. Implied clash is gross.
6. Shadow extensions are new arguments
7. I stop flowing the second the timer goes off.
8. i am a hard ass on cheating. i dont care if everyone does it, if u do it in front of me i will do something about it.
9. I will probably take a long time to make my decision, sorry (see: i exist at the mercy of the flow)
10. Please be nice!

Speed:

I can hang, and when I can’t I will call slow/clear. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed and do give pen time. I'm okay with debaters calling slow on their opponents as many times as they need, and I'd really prefer if the debate was accessible. I really don't want to vote on speed T, but I guess I will if I have to...

Case debate:

It’s good. I like it. In fact, there’s probably nothing I like more than a good case debate. Terminalize your impacts and do impact calculus. I don't really have any notable preferences for case debate except for the following.

General note:

If there is such thing as a uniqueness hack, I am one. I find that most people do not know how to properly write uniqueness or utilize it in debate, which means that if you do, I will be very happy! Winning global uniqueness as an overview to your collapse is a likely way to win my ballot. Uniqueness controls the directionality of the link.

Aff:

It is the job of the MG and the PMR to extend the aff beyond just the statement: "extend the aff". I do not implicitly grant the affirmative team the positions read in the PMC just by virtue of them being read in the PMC. Again, shadow extensions are new arguments.

I read soft left aff's a lot early in my career, and have come to view them as boring and untrue. Either reject the res or embrace the fact that you're defending the state.

Link turns:

Turns are miniature disads, they require uniquness and an impact.

CPs:

I like all except for delay. If you read delay I think you're a bad person.

I think PiC's are fine and super duper justifiable especially if the aff is not a whole law res. I'll vote on PiC's bad, so like... win on the flow i guess?

Condo is good. Condo bad theory is fine. PMR collapses to MG theory have gotten boring to me, but I’ll still vote on ‘em.

Kritiks:

I would say my partner and I have read the K plenty, but are not K debaters by any means. The K's I've read include: Cap, kritiks of rationalism and western epistemology, Eco, fem killjoy, Han Pu Ri, Lacan, and bojack horseman. I will venture to say that outside of a debate context, i am familiar with most lit read in debate.

Please have a really clear thesis and solvency explanation, and I mean clear beyond just the PMC/LOC (ie, please actually know what your K is before you read it, I'm sorry but I will be annoyed if you're reading a K you can't explain past the shell itself). K links should be specific to the aff. Other than that, go buck wild!

Have specific links please, and pleaseeee make sure your alt solves your impacts. that means if you reject fiat, your impacts should be in round/rhetorical/epistemological. if ur k solves for climate change than probably just embrace the object fiat.

Aff K's: Down! I want more than just frame outs in response to Framework T, and keep K v K debate clean PLEASE bc it's so easy for everyone involved to get lost in the sauce.

Theory:

A good T collapse is probably my favorite thing to watch. I am willing to vote on potential abuse on T if you tell me why I should, and I will resort to competing interpretations if no one tells me otherwise.

I guess I'm kinda trad insofar as I would really just prefer to watch rounds where theory is limited to T, spec (a,e,f), PICs bad, or condo bad. I'll vote on other things, but I won't have as much fun. I think the proliferation of "frivolous theory" is a problem, but again, I really really really resort to the flow, and I think it is possible to keep intervention at a 0 on theory specifically. So if you execute "interp: debaters must not wear shoes" or the like perfectly, i will roll my eyes and sign the ballot for you.

My threshold on voting for RVI's is incredibly incredibly high. I think this is due to the fact that I have never seen a well warranted or executed RVI collapse. Prove me wrong.

Tricks:

I think an argument is a claim, a warrant and an implication. Absent that, I'm hesitant to vote on an argument. Take that as you will.

Point-of-order's:

I protect, but call still, please.

I think that about covers it. Good luck, have fun!

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

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

General

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

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

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

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

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

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

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

Case

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

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

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

Theory/Topicality

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

Tech v. Truth

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

Good luck :^)

About me: Senior at UC Berkeley majoring in Environmental Sciences and Legal Studies. Current Head Coach of Maybeck HS, former Assistant Coach for Berkeley High School (2021-2022), former captain of Washington HS's team 2019-2021). During my competitive run, my partner and I championed Stanford's national invitational and broke at Tournament of Champions; I now compete on the Cal Mock Trial Team

Case Debate:

• Argument structure - Please use a consistent argument structure throughout the round (e.g. uniqueness, links, and impacts) and signpost throughout your speech

• Always weigh your impacts - please terminalize and weigh your impacts. It's not enough for you to link out your advantages/disads to death or climate change. You have to explain how I should weigh those against the other impacts in the round.

• Citing evidence - Follow any rules for citing evidence that the tournament provides. If none are provided, citing the name of the source and date of publication is enough for me

Theory Debate:

• Feel free to run whatever kind of theory you want as long as you do sufficient weighing/layering (tell me how I should evaluate this argument compared to everything else in the round)

• Not a fan of frivolous theories and anything that's run to skew your opponents out of the round.

Kritiks:

• I'm generally unreceptive to K's but feel free to run them. If you do, please explain your framework, links, impacts, and alt very clearly and do sufficient weighing/layering.

• Please signpost because I may get lost if you don't

Final Comments:

This is just a brief summary of my judging preferences. Feel free to contact me at abishiva@berkeley.edu if you have any questions! And just remember that debate is a fun and educational activity, so just enjoy yourselves and you'll do great!

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Hey everyone! My name is Rose Velasquez and I am a freshman debater at St. Mary's College of California. I currently do Parliamentary debate. I did debate all throughout high school and also have experience in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions, and World Schools. I also competed in IE's and have experience in Impromptu, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous(IE/NE).

I will disclose after the round unless the tournament has specifically requested against it. I will give feedback for both sides. Feel free to ask any questions about the round or debate in general.

Respect is huge and must be maintained throughout the round. Of course, passion is a good thing, but name-calling is never acceptable. If I feel that one side is being abusive then that will affect my decision. Please refrain from looking at or pointing to your opponents. I (the judge) am the deciding factor so feel free to look at me or into the crowd(I understand some people have issues with eye contact and that will never be something that affects my decision).

In regards to speed and spreading I am not against it as long as your words are clear and understandable. If your opponents ask you to slow down please do so. I do flow so please be aware of that. Organizing your case, letting the room know your order, and keeping your sheets organized is appreciated so that I know what you will be addressing in your speech.

I don't mind Kritiques. I think they are useful to the debate space. However, with that being said I need clear linkage and topicality in order to vote for a K. If it truly has nothing to do with the topic and the assumption the topic is making is not clear it will most likely not be what I am voting for. In regards to responding to K's, if educational quality and topicality are your only responses, and it is clear that the K is actually topical then you have inherently made no response to the K and I will most likely vote for it. If a perm is brought up again the K, there needs to be a clear reason as to why the perm CANNOT happen.

Please state a ROB or ROJ so that I have a base for my decision, otherwise, I will default to Net Benefits. Please state your clear impacts. HOW does one thing lead to the other and WHY is it good or bad? Carry your impacts all the way through the round. In your last speech please clearly go over the main voter issues of the debate and collapse. These are the most important issues and areas you have won in and will have a huge impact on my final decision.

I am fine with topicality as long as it is not excessively abusive and makes sense.

Otherwise, I don't have any specific preferences on strats. Just make sure you are having fun and getting better! :)

hi i’m abi (she/he)! i’m a freshman at berkeley and debated parli at nueva for 4 years.

tldr: i really like tech case debate! i can evaluate k debate (familiar w cap/mlm/whatnot, matfem was my jam!). theory is fine, but friv is not my cup of tea. provide cw’s as appropriate. ask for prefs b4 round/any questions are fine! 15sec of grace, i will be timing on my end :p

debate is an educational activity first and foremost. this means that exclusionary vibes and discrimination have no place here. let’s be accessible, kind, and in community! i will intervene against violence.

this means that if you’re a k team hitting a non-k-experienced team, take a min off time to explain your strat/litbase basics and don’t spread your opponents out of the round. kudos + speaks if you try to take clarification questions from the other team. conversely, if you are a non-k-experienced team hitting a k team, you can run t-usfg or whatever, but i would love to see you engage with your opponent’s k and actual arguments in good faith. there’s a lot to be learned from ks and it breaks my heart to see the influx of anti-k sentiments flooding the circuit.

kritical education is how we break cycles of oppression; to push k’s out of parli means embracing the white, cis-heteronormative, patriarchial practice of debate.

——— details below!!

case! i love case debate! i think it’s fun, especially when both sides have a bunch of well-leveraged warrants and are willing to clash. links and impacts are key! tell me what the plan does and why it’s important. weigh your impacts with either probability/magnitude/timeframe frameworks or based on your collapse-strat and the argument you want me to vote on. remember to signpost and organize and balance offensive arguments with defensive ones! PERMS ARE A TEST OF COMPETITION. please please please read a perm-text. i do protect sorta-kinda-vibes. pmr grandstanding is a time-honored tradition, but if it’s egregious i won’t buy it. please POO!

theory~ please try to run theory on proven abuse, an avalanche of shells can be pretty uninteresting, especially if not run well, and makes for a slightly less fun round. impact your theory out! i default competing interps over reasonability and education over fairness, but explain to me what i should be voting on. if you’re kicking the shell, be clear about layering and EXTEND DEFENSE.

kritiks: spicy! delicious! i am most familiar with cap, nihilsm, and matfem but will gladly listen to cool arguments. i want to hear a well-written monism shell sometime; if you run one well, i’ll give you 30 speaks. please signpost and write REAL links :)) your alt should have solvency pretty please! (reject alts are kinda boring tbh) please don’t read identity ks for an aspect of identity you don’t embody. k affs are a vibe, if you reject the res, tell me why you’re doing so. please be clear about layering here too! if you have any k questions, ask me for my contact info in-round :))

misc... ✨texts are binding✨ please respect slow/clears (from either me or your opponents!) please try to answer 1-2 POIs/speech. tech over truth. i think speaker points are bad so if u quote lyrics from my chemical romance or tell me a cool star wars related fact then i’ll give you a 30. if you're being a dick, i'll bomb your points or drop u lol. i default to 29 speaks.

both sides need to eat more fruit they look malnourished

paradigm lol https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work