Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

Hello all! I hope this paradigm answers most of your questions, but please contact me at alex.abarca@yale.edu if you have any outstanding questions. I’m also happy to discuss debate in general. I’m a first-generation, low-income student and down to answer any questions about college!

I competed in NPDL-Parliamentary all four years in high school. I was a two-time NPDL TOC qualifier, a four-time state qualifier in IX (CHSSA), and a four-time national qualifier in IX (NSDA). I top spoke at the Jack Howe Long Beach Invitational and won the 2020 Stanford Invitational. In college, I was a member of the Yale Debate Association, served as tournament director for the 2022 Yale Invitational and Yale Osterweis Invitational, and judged both tournaments.

I have judged elimination rounds at NPDL-TOC 2021-2023 and the semifinal and final rounds in 2022. I have experience judging the West Coast Circuit and the NYPDL/East Coast Circuits.

I’m happy to judge either lay or tech rounds, but I see myself more as a traditional judge. I don’t like to think of debate as a game – we sometimes discuss heavy topics in rounds and articulate policies with theoretical real-world implications. Viewing debate as a game is unfair to our logic and skills, the people and situations we draw from when writing resolutions, and people who want to learn from this activity. Thankfully, theory usage as a strategy to win has begun to fall out of fashion in the community – I’m happy to judge theory debate when it’s well-warranted and called for. If you do it in an attempt to shut your opponent out of the round, I may vote for you, but don’t expect to speak above a 25.

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I avoid speed and jargon unless you and your opponents agree on it (jargon such as turn/cross-apply/extend is great if both teams understand it!). I encourage the 1AR/1NR (PMR/LOR) to collapse functionally towards the most critical arguments and weigh (against both sides, even-ifs, and counterfactuals) using a variety of weighing styles (scope, magnitude, brink, etc.). In constructive speeches, connect your arguments to a definite weighing mechanism and the resolution. Be explicit in your definition and operationalization of terms (this will make your life easier when impacting arguments). As mentioned above, I am generally unreceptive to Kritiks or Theory unless they are well-warranted in the round and executed well and have some basis in either the resolution or an in-round fairness violation.

I encourage everyone to share their pronouns – although you are certainly not required to. Do not make harmful generalizations about groups of people in your argumentation. If your opponents argue with you on your rhetoric, I have a medium threshold for dropping you. If I vote for you, your speaks will suffer. Share content warnings with us before each speech where there is new content.

As a note for me: I have ADHD – please ignore my facial expressions and body gestures for the most part. If I stop flowing and give you a confused look, that’s a sign that you’ve lost me in terms of argumentation.

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

I look at the flow and see where the critical arguments in the round fall. From there, I consider which side won more of those critical arguments. I will vote as strictly on the flow as possible. In the case where everything is a wash, presumption flows to the opp unless there is a counterplan, in which case presumption flows gov.

In-Round Intervention

The act of having a paradigm means none of us are tabula rasa philosophically. However, I will not intervene in the round unless arguments or inaccuracies are called out. If something is factually wrong (especially in my field, Comparative Political Development/Representation Linkages), I have a low threshold for tossing an argument or fact out.

Argumentation

Have a clear framework, weighing mechanism or criterion, and have sound plan-text.

Use cohesive logic with well-structured link chains. Have strong and defined warrants coupled with transparent impact chains. If I hear, “This will improve the economy,” I will not be happy. In what way, in which sector, who will benefit from these improvements? This a gentle reminder that the more expansive the magnitude and severity of the impact, the tighter and more cohesive the link chain.

For refutation, please substantially interact with the argument. Consider the claim, warrant, link (internal/external), and impacts of the argument. I've been judging rounds recently where I keep using "ships passing in the night" in my RDF, and I'd rather not have to say that phrase again. Cloudy refutations mean I must intervene more in the flow, which is potentially bad for you.

In the rebuttal speeches, please have voting issues, explicit weighing, and collapse down to the most important arguments. Except for the PMR/1AR, you do not need to go down the flow line-by-line. In the case of the PMR/1AR, I suggest you interact with the most substantial new arguments in the opposition/negation block and not waste your five minutes going down the flow.

Organization:

Please signpost – I flow on spreadsheets, so signposting makes my life easier. If you don’t have clear signposting, there’s a high chance of me dropping an argument accidentally. I prefer using jargon such as turn/extend/cross-apply/etc., but only when both teams are comfortable using such language. Regardless of jargon, make it clear where you are on the flow.

Framework:

Provide a mechanism for flowing the round. Use this reference point to weigh all the arguments. Lately, I have judged rounds without such a reference – these rounds inevitably become a mess of “prefer our side – no, prefer our side.” Why should I prefer your side? How do your impacts and logic better link to the weighing mechanism? Impacts in a void are unhelpful – debate and life are relative.

Speaker Scores:

I start around 28 and then go up or down. More substantial argumentation and speaking will warrant higher speaker scores – where your contribution to the round is substantial. I disagree with judges who think anything rhetorical is irrelevant – how you convey your ideas matters, or why don’t we type out responses online and save ourselves the hassle of attending tournaments?

Theory

If used correctly, I am open to hearing almost any theory argument. I'm happy to judge the round if you sincerely believe a Kritik or Theory Shell is warranted. If you use a K or theory for strategic purposes, I will have a low threshold for voting against you if called out by your opponents. The history of theory debate is that marginalized groups and debaters used it to access better the space they had historically been shut out of. Using theory debate as a strategic decision without acknowledging these historical reasons is a disservice to the art of theory, philosophy, and the people who used them. I also believe that we can read more conceptual and technical arguments in a way that makes them more accessible while still retaining their core purpose.

As a first-generation, low-income, queer(bi), and Latinx former debater, I don’t think being against K’s as strategic gains is against minority debaters. I think we should all be inclusive first and then go to theory when that’s functionally not realistic or save it for the moments when we need that access or want an issue spotlighted in an accessible manner.

Hello everyone!

My name is Kaley and i'm a freshman on the Yale debate team. I did debate for 3 years of high school usually doing public forum debate. I love debate and it's been a huge part of my life for the past several years.

With that being said, I'm probably a more traditional judge. I'm not entirely against voting on anything in particular, however, I think it's unfortunate when people do underhanded things for the sake of winning rather than a love of the game (ex. the usual spreading, theory, Ks, etc, etc.). I can appreciate something that I think is strategically valuable, but I don't appreciate things that are done for the sake of being abusive or exclusionary. I will still vote for you if I think you won (but i will be very sad), so make sure that you can do it well.

Outside of that I try not to allow my own opinions to affect my decisions. If the opponent says the sky is green, the sky is green unless you say otherwise. Additionally, please sign post, it makes my flow much cleaner and that philosophy much easier to accomplish.

Be nice, have fun! This is a wonderful activity and community that I hope we can all enjoy! :)

Shoot me an email at KaleyKathleen@icloud.com if you have any additional questions! I'm super nice so don't be afraid to reach out

Pronouns: she/her

TLDR: be ethical

I debated for Seven Lakes in TX for four years. Primarily Congress and Extemp, Public Forum and World Schools here and there.

Email if you have questions before/after round! corinaaniceto743@gmail.com

Overall:

1. Misgendering (especially if not corrected or done intentionally) is an automatic drop for me.

2. It's not as simple as it sounds running a case without implicit biases. Be considerate.

3. I check cards, do not use anything fake or reinterpreted.

4. Trigger warnings are important, but it is absolutely not an excuse to use extremely insensitive, descriptive rhetoric.

Extemp:

Please, answer the question. Your subpoints should directly support your response. Good sourcing is expected, entertaining speeches are given bonuses. Make sure to signpost and don't scream.

I welcome creative structures. Though, I can tell if your two point speech was only a result of being ill-prepared.

I appreciate sourcing even more. Academic sources are preferred: think government data, think tanks, books, etc. News organizations should fall shorter on the list.

CX should be a benefit to you, don't choke. Show me what you know.

Congress:

Rehash is the easiest way for me to drop your rankings. If you GENUINELY have new analysis to add, you should be good enough at reframing that it doesn't become rehash.

I appreciate solid sponsors/authors. Two stock arguments is not a sponsor.

Late round crystals should be well done, focus on weighing and not new arguments.

Clash is important, but wasting 20 seconds name dropping is not. You have 3 minutes, use them well.

If your side hasn't properly addressed a strong opposing arg, I will appreciate clashing it.

Don't ask questions that have zero relevance to the speech's content or anything overly vague during CX. I'm won't be impressed if you ask a million questions that lead the round nowhere. Don't be overly aggressive, I will down you for being disrespectful, ie. cutting the other person off.

Especially with precedence charts, I always use quality > quantity of speeches.

Presentation matters, do not have your eyes glued to a pad or google doc. Especially not printed sheets

PF:

I will vote off theory and Ks. I'm extremely progressive but I can tell when this is being abused. Just be respectful.

Weigh early, extending is important, analysis is just as important as your cards.

Roadmaps are appreciated.

Cross is important, make the most of it, but don't get overly aggressive

I weigh evidence quality.

Number your responses and collapse well.

Content warnings or exemptions through google forms are highly appreciated.

I will disclose if allowed.

I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. I'm pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

I have only judged a few tournaments. Please no jargon, and speak slowly and clearly.

Debate the topic given, no theory debates.

Experience: LD Debate 4 years in High School. Presently a coach for both speech and debate.

Paradigm: I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Therefore I don't have any hard rules such as "voting on framework". It is up to the competitors to make well reasoned arguments why their arguments have priority on the ballot within the hierarchy of other arguments in the round.

This means that for an argument to make it to the ballot it must be fully supported throughout the round by the debater, cradle to grave. Extending arguments is very important, especially in the case of a dropped argument or a cross application.

Spreading: I generally don't like speed reading because it usually used at the expense of eloquence. However context is important so at circuit tournaments it might be acceptable if you really feel it is important to your round.

Finally, if something isn't read it doesn't go on the flow. For example, if you say "I have a card that proves this" but do not read that card, it will not go on the flow.

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 all. I was asked to step in and help out judge so you will notice my paradigm and survey are lacking! I'll go over before round and answer any questions. Good luck at ToC debaters!

I'm Marcel, I'm a debater and judge from the New York University PDU.

I'm a pretty fair judge and I flow every single thing, I decide my wins based on the merits of each argument and how they hold up over the course of the debate.

So, do your best to signpost and highlight your logical flow and your contentions to ensure that your precise argument comes across as crystal clear as possible.

Otherwise, have a good time!

Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for three years. I am a scientist by training but mentor and work with attorneys.

Eloquent, logical, well-supported arguments will impress me. Speaking at a sprint and using techy debate tricks will not.

I appreciate debates that address the entire topic, approached from a global perspective. I prefer evidence-based arguments with solid analysis over emotional appeals or exaggerated hypotheses.

Please make debate accessible to me, other judges and your opponents by speaking clearly and concisely. I am unlikely to vote in favor of kritiks.

I hope you will have fun and approach debate as if you are in a real-life situation where something important is at stake, and you are doing your best to convince others to join you.

I was a reasonably competitive policy debater for all four years of high school and for one tournament in college. I also practiced law for nine years. Spreading is fine; I can definitely still recognize quality over nonsense mumbling. I will not tolerate disrespectful/unethical behavior, shady tactics and unnecessary aggression. The flow is determinative in that I will not make arguments for you if you didn't articulate it in the round. Proper skill in navigating the flow is something I very much appreciate and respect.

Finally, be passionate even if you don’t personally believe in what you’re arguing for; learn to be an advocate. Have fun!!

I'm a parent judge with East Coast parliamentary debate judging experience.

I will flow but ultimately make my decisions based on the quality and strength of the debaters' arguments.

Please speak at a reasonable pace and limit debate jargon - I can't give you the credit you deserve if I can't understand you.

Be respectful of everyone involved: teammates, opponents, judges, and any spectator. Have fun!

Hello, my name is Sarah Crow. I'm a parent of two debaters, and have judged debate tournaments since 2019. I have a policy background, and my career is focused on California's social safety net.

In terms of content in the debate, I have a few expectations.

All arguments should be about the actual resolution. That means no personal attacks, and no Kritiks. This will lead to a more educational and interesting debate.

Good signposting is appreciated, and will be reflected in speaker points. It makes the round easier to follow, and makes arguments generally more persuasive.

I value quality of arguments over quantity; don't introduce arguments just because you feel as though you don't have enough. Focus on the quality of your arguments.

I appreciate a nice civil round, and I expect kindness from all involved.

Good luck!

Introduction (I forgot to Update)

Note for Last-Chance: I basically forgot to update my paradigm again. I will be judging LD, so here is the TDLR: I am a progressive judge, no Tricks, literally run whatever you want. I will note that I would rather you run what you are most comfortable and best in. I'd rather watch a good Trad round than watch you run a K badly because you think it will give you points because it's my favorite argument. This is the best piece of advice I will give you! Other than that, good luck; also, don't be afraid to run trad because I am progressive. I am open to both!!!

Education

Lincoln East High School 2018 - 2022

Columbia University 2022 - Present

Pronouns

He/Him/His

Email

Please add me to the email chain zjdino27@gmail.com.

Bio

Hello, my name is Zoran, and I've been competing in debate/speech for the last four and a half years (yeesh). I was a part of the Lincoln East Debate/Speech teams, where I've competed in two years of LD, two years of Policy, three years in Extemp, and a mixture of congress here and there. Overall had great success in the Nebraska circuit on both teams, qualified for Nationals in Policy, Extemp, and Congress multiple times, and competed at NIETOC (Speech). I also competed on the National circuit in high school for both LD/Policy, so I understand the differences between national and local. Currently, I compete with the Columbia Debate Society, where I judge APDA and compete in APDA/BP. Lastly, I am studying Political science and Business.

-

General Information

Online

• Cameras: I am perfectly fine if you have your camera off for reasons, whether it be for tech/personal matters. I will have my camera on and would be happy if all of you did the same, but I understand, given the circumstances.

• Speed: Generally, go a little slower and speak louder for online rounds; this will help everyone involved in the current round!

Speed/Clarity

I am good with higher speeds, do keep in mind it's been a while since I've competed in the high school circuit, so I will need a bit of time to adjust. I will say SPEED if you are going too fast. On the other hand, please be CLEAR; people don't understand how important it is. I do not care that I have the speech doc. I will say CLEAR two times for each speaker. If you continue to be unclear, I will drop speaks and not flow your speech.

Revised Speaks

• 30: Best speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Perfect speech | 99th percentile

• 29.0 - 29.9: Top speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | little to no flaws | 90th percentile

• 28.0 - 28.9: Above average speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Few flaws | 75th percentile

• 27.0 - 27.9: MID speaker at tournament | Flaws were present | 50th percentile (Where most speaks will now fall)

• 26.0 - 26.9: Below Average Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Many flaws | 25th percentile

• 25.0 - 25.9: Weak Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Filled with flaws | 10th percentile

• Below 25: You said something egregious (this has happened already at a tournament. Let's not have it happen again)

Ethics

I want to include this section because I am a biracial debater who participated in a predominantly White circuit—moreover, the lessons and equity I have seen come from the APDA circuit in college. I do not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, gender discrimination, ableism, etc., when I am judging. I will call out any form of this I see in rounds and automatically drop the team doing such acts. The team that has done such acts will get tanked speech 25 or lower, and the winning team will get 29s. This is more out of respect for what has been said in rounds.

Moreover, if you believe I may be unethical regarding how I hand out RFDS, my flowing style, or anything else. Please email me (with the email above), so I can improve in the future! Debate is fundamental to me and can be stressful and challenging for everyone. I hope this eases your tensions and sets a lens for how I view ethics in rounds.

-

Paradigm

TLDR

I was a progressive/traditional debater in high school, where I competed on the national and Nebraska circuits in Policy, LD, and Congress. I am fine with everything, and my favorite argument is the K. My least favorite is the CP. But I will vote on anything. I am still a newer judge, so if that concerns you, strike me, but I have judged numerous nat circuit policy rounds.

Flowing

I flow tags & authors on the case level. I fully flow entire shells for topicality/theory/FW, so please read the t-shell slowly. I am extremely annoyed when teams on the neg read the shell as evidence. It's not helpful when more and more debaters are not sending shells over speech docs, please slow down for shells at the very least. I am fine with speed, but not when it comes to a straight shell. In addition, slowing down on tags/authors also helps differentiate the flow, especially in online debate. I need to tell you are switching audibly; you can still go fast, but it should not be the same speed as the card.

Game/Education

Tbh persuade me on this, I can see both sides, so whoever is winning the flow for the round decides.

LD/Policy

General

I am combing both of these because I see a lot of crossovers already, and it's applicable where necessary. I will have an LD-specific section at the bottom for some nuance stuff.

Disclosure

I am mixed on disclosure. I will go ahead and vote on it; if you are running it, please send a screenshot with the wiki page. I am not looking for you. If AFF says they are breaking new, and it's true, don't run it. However, if you are running an identity K like anti-Blackness or are a minority debater, I am persuaded to hear disclosure bad arguments. Overall though, it is a procedural fairness argument.

Tabula Rasa

If you know what this means, you understand how I view rounds.

Plans/LARPing (LD)

I like the plan if it's formatted well and the plan text is engaging. The more hyper-specific the plan, the better. Please give me something truly unique. Also, if you want to LARP in LD by using a straight Util (Standard/Value/V-C) or insert a plan text go full f***ing ahead. I will love you. I am perfectly fine with traditional LD (more details below), but I am okay with you all breaking LD. One caveat is to make sure the plan links to the topic somehow. I will still hear the theory/FW arg on plans aff bad. But if it doesn't link, I have to vote you down (unless they drop the FW/theory, lol).

K/Performance Affs

I love K affs. I ran a Deleuze K Aff for most of the senior year; I am perfectly fine with it, but could you make sure it links to the topic in some capacity? If it doesn't, then FW/theory will be more persuasive. Also, if you are hit with theory/FW, I found it very powerful to use your authors to argue against it instead of basic analytics or general block files. Improves the ethos to such a degree. I also ran a performance Aff on anti-Blackness with Tupac lyrics. So yeah, I am the best person for this in many rounds, so this is your chance to run this stuff. Please do it!

Kritik/K

K is love, K is life. I am a K debater through the through. I am tired of policy teams not closing on the K. I understand it's not the right call, but I like it. I am also tire of policy teams running 2/3 card K (this might be a personal gripe). General links to the topic are fine but weak if the link is directly tied to the affirmative. More specific the link, the better! I only buy the perm if you de-link from the K. Like, don't read perm evidence if you didn't argue on the link debate. I am familiar with Deleuze, anti-Blackness, Cap, Set-col, and security, and I am least familiar with Puar, obscure authors, and model-minority myth. But I like a meaty K, and if you spend an entire 2NC on the K, you are my hero (please make it worth a whole 2NC).

Disad/DA

Tbh, little to say here. I like DAs like all of them (Linear politics etc.); could you ensure the link and UQ are clear? I've seen this more and more, where people run a K link with an impact with no alt. I don't know if this is a DA, but if you want to run your K as a DA without alt solvency, Go for it. Offense is offense.

FW/Theory

I will always prefer you engage with the affirmative if possible. I think boring FW/theory shells are cringe and suck the life out of interesting rounds. For example, if the aff is disclosed and mentions this, well, I find the FW/theory dumb. In addition, when it's a common K argument, It's even more cringe. Yet, I will vote on it if debated well. The only time I see theory on the level of FW necessary is if aff gets up and some Unicorns invade America, go full ahead; that ain't predictable in the slightest. I mentioned this above, but if your performance/k aff can link to the topic area, I see its relevance. On the other hand, for other theory arguments, go for them. Some are more persuasive than others. Vague alt and disclosure are always good.

• Speed Theory: I am making a section for this, unless needed, such as for accommodation. This is bad in policy. I can buy this a bit more in LD, but I feel there are easy accommodations like disclosure, asking for speech docs beforehand, whatever. However, if your opponent is not accommodating to you, please run the theory and provide evidence, whether it be an email chain. I will vote on this!

Topicality

I ran a lot of topicality (minor repair test) and found it pretty cool. It might just be the NATO topic, but it's been a little confusing (probably due to topic knowledge) a lot of the t arguments, so make sure to explain in detail the t flow for me. This is arguably one of the easiest places to vote. I default to reasonability.

CP/PIC

My worse argument. I wasn't much of a counter-plan debater in high school, but I understand the nitty gritty. But, the techier the CP flow becomes, you will lose me. Also, if you are closing on the CP, could you please explain this to me? If there is one area where I could squirrel, it will be the CP/PIC flow. Also, could you make sure the CP/PIC is competitive? I am also fine with word PICs.

LD-Specific

• Preface: It's been a while since I have competed in LD. I was progressive but still ran trad, when needed. I have no topic knowledge for (Columbia 2023) so bear with me.

• Value/Standard/V-C: If you are running traditional, that is perfectly fine with me. I start primarily at the top level with the framework for the round. I do not care if you have the Value/V-C or just a standard. Don't think if you win FW, you win the round unless it's a Kant vs. Util round LMFAO

• Contention-Level: Contention-level is where you win rounds in LD. Making sure to have strong offense and defense is key

• RVI: Ye, y'all get RVIs; theory in the 1NC is hella abusive, so I buy it.

• LARPing: I mentioned this earlier, but I am fine with this in LD, link to the topic, of course, but neg will probably read FW. Now, would this be amazing if you both decide to LARP; I will love you. I would email your competitor beforehand if you want to do this, and I will evalaute the round like a minature policy round.

Condo

I think Condo is good. I will listen to condo bad args, so don't worry about that. My biggest pet peeve is when going a condo route, make sure what you are closing on makes sense together or just entirely collapse to one flow in the 2NR. For example, do not close on a topicality shell and an Aropess K in the 2NR; those literally do not make sense together. But, ye, if you want to spam the flow with 3 Ks, 2 CPs, and a DA, we are chilling.

Truth vs. Tech

I prefer tech more, but I do not want the most blippy args coming out of nowhere. I see the two as compliments; the higher quality evidence with insane tech is *chef's kiss*

Tricks

Right now, I am open to trick debate (for the time being). I am still unaware of the nuance of it all and have yet to hit many tricks debaters or judged. But this will be updated if it's a terrible way to debate.

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.

About me:He/him pronouns. Current junior at Columbia University. Competed in parli for all 4 years of high school for Menlo-Atherton High School + some time in middle school. Last time I competed/judged was in 2021 so I'm a bit rusty, but I still remember most of everything and at the very least will be able to follow whatever tech or jargon you throw at me. If you can run it, I am willing to vote for it. Just don't speak too quickly (good rule of thumb is if you're doing clutch breaths I probably will miss some things). Feel free to spread though so long as you're okay with me missing a bit in the line by line.

TLDR: Tech > truth, standard flow judge (I'd like to think), but don't spread too quickly. Will vote on anything so long as it can be argued. I ran a bunch of wacky arguments when I competed, so feel free to try something unorthodox, especially if you think you can defend it. I have some defaults (perms are tests, CPs are advocacies, etc.), but will happily change my stance if you say otherwise. This is just in case you/your opponent don't clarify in your speeches how to evaluate these arguments, so make sure you are explicit in how you want me to evaluate everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Longer answer

General voting procedure

I first evaluate ordering arguments (e.g. theory is a priori, K over theory or vice versa, etc.). I then work down the line-by-line to see who won each argument. For arguments on the same voting level, I then turn to impact weighing (e.g. disads vs ads, theory vs theory). I won't do any weighing for you, so especially for things like theory or Ks make sure you articulate an impact. I generally allow shadow extensions for things that went without response, but if you think it's egregious or excessive feel free to POO shadow extensions.

Case

I love classic case as much as theory/Ks, so feel free to run either. No real preference for how this is done. Don't feel like making it a policy round is necessary (I acknowledge the existence of value and fact rounds). Make sure you weigh impacts. I'm fine with impacts being introduced in the rebuttal speeches, but don't push it. If it's a logical extension of the argument, I'll allow it, otherwise it's getting dropped. I won't protect the flow -- it's up to you to POO if you think they're being abusive, unless it's getting excessive (after 2 valid POOs I'll start to protect).

Tech vs Truth

I am tech > truth, but I have a pretty low threshold for counters very radical/untrue claims (e.g. it won't take a lot of work to flip my vote on the argument). That being said, they still need to be responded to, whether as a quick aside or as a substantive rebuttal in the line-by-line.

Counterplans

Love them, go for them, but will still vote for theory arguing CPs aren't allowed if it's argued well. I generally treat CPs as being an advocacy, unconditional, and lean towards PICs bad, so if you want to run a conditional CP, CP as an opportunity cost, or a PIC, just make sure you come prepared with some arguments in your favor. But again, will still vote for any of these, and if you win the line-by-line or it goes without response then feel free to run it. For value/fact round I am hesitant to allow Counterplans, but if you can make an argument as to why it should be allowed then go for it. For Gov teams -- if you turn an obviously policy round into a fact/value round, I am very open to arguments from the Opp saying counterplans should be allowed.

I default to Perm is a test. Unless you specifically say it's an advocacy, or the Opp specifically argues it should be an advocacy, I will assume you saying "we perm the CP" is a test of exclusivity. Feel free to argue otherwise, more than happy to vote either way on this.

Theory

I loved theory when I competed. I give much more credence to in-round abuse theory as opposed to frivolous or more abstract theory, but I'll vote on any theory regardless. Huge preference for shells over unstructured theory, but will vote on either (unstructured may be called for depending on who else is in the room or if you've never run it as a shell before, so no worries if it's not a shell). I will vote on RVIs as well if they're sufficiently argued, and again much more open to RVI arguments for frivolous theory than for in-round abuse. Also very open to arguments against theory being a priori, dropping team/argument, competing interps vs. reasonability etc. Just tell me what to vote for and why.

To clarify, I have no defaults. If you want to run theory, it's up to you to clarify it comes before case and all that.

Topicality

I always ran topicality as theory, so just refer to what I wrote above. Always welcomed, but I have a preference for topicality on actual abuse rather than frivolous args. However, I will still vote for either.

Ks

I probably have the least experience with Ks, but I still ran a couple and will still vote on them. All I ask is you actually be ready to explain your argument/defend it and take some POIs (particularly on the thesis). Counter Ks, theory responses, case over K, no solvency args etc. are all valid and welcome, just be ready to defend them.

I particularly enjoy anthro Ks and biopower, but will vote on any K so long as it's well argued.

Same as theory, no defaults on ordering. Tell me K comes before case and why.

Hello, I’m a lay parent judge. Content is the critical aspect of how I score. However, if you speak too quickly your content will not come through clearly enough. Especially for PF, try to use almost all of your time, as someone who uses only a small fraction of their time (especially in PF, Parli can sometimes have ample time) often performs as if they have less to say. Also, I do not permit offtime roadmaps, they aren't based in the rules. If you wish to roadmap please use your allotted time. Many thanks!

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.

Hello My Name is Judge Forde and I have been judging debate for 3 years. I have been apart of the debate community for 4 years, where I started as a coach during my last years of High School. I mainly Judge Public Forum and I am willing to learn more about other competitions. Most of my tournaments have been through New York while others were not to far from New York. I am proud to be apart of these competitions and I look forward to Judging more Tournaments. Thank you for Welcoming me Aboard.

East Coast parent judge, new to debate. Organization and clarity of arguments are important. I do not take into consideration statistical arguments. Running Theory/Kritiks are not judged positively. Experience is East Coast, have no knowledge of West Coast-specific terminology (if used, please define).

Logic and analysis over examples.

Be respectful and have fun debating.

I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.

I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.

Hello! My name is Zev Ginsberg, I am a current undergraduate at Florida State University. I have judged PF and Parli both in person and remotely, but I am still relatively new to judging. As such, I ask that you please speak clearly and signpost effectively so I may most faithfully adjudicate your round.

State what your contentions will be, then say your contentions, then summarize your contentions. It is your job to prove to me which contentions and points I should be voting on. Ultimately, I will choose the winner based on which team has more successfully proven their position to be valid and true.

Finally, please be respectful of your teammates, opponents, and, most importantly, have fun!

Thank you!

Zev

This is my third year judging parliamentary debates; my son is on the debate team at Berkeley High School. In real life, I am an attorney and a significant portion of my practice involves litigating appeals on behalf of defendants convicted of crimes. I would rather be convinced by substantive arguments than "theory" technicalities.

Hi, I'm a parent judge with experience judging east-coast parliamentary debate. I am primarily a flow judge, and I can handle speed (although I prefer if you do not spread). When presenting arguments, I value quality and well-developed link chains over quantity. Clear signposting really helps me, so please be explicit about which contention or refutation you are addressing.

I try to base my decision on the strength of your reasoning and impacts, rather than my personal beliefs. However, if you have any questions about my decision, feel free to ask, just be polite about it.

Please do not run theory or Ks with me. My experience is primarily with east-coast parli, so I'm not familiar with these types of arguments. If you believe it's absolutely necessary to use them, explain them clearly and logically.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I served as NPDL Reporting Director in the 2022-2023 season. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns. I really love debate.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace (for formats with a grace period). I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

I do not especially like frivolous theory (tropicality, note the r, makes me sad) and will do my best not to vote for it.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that (I would actually encourage you not to take more than that).

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

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).

Caitlin Hodge (she/her)

Affiliation: Princeton University

Background: I did 5 years of both World Schools Style and Asian Parliamentary, and 2 years of BP Debate in High School. Currently debate in both the BP format and APDA format.

Cases: I am happy to hear cases on almost anything although I think that nuance in cases about the USA are often lost on me, as I am from New Zealand. In saying this, I appreciate case warnings and content warnings - I am only opposed to hearing cases with graphic or extensive descriptions of death or violence.

POC:I am okay with POC time being used by Opp for prep, but only if this is also okay with Gov. I don’t like when Opp uses POC to ask questions that have no relevance to the round, I would rather you simply use the time to prep rather than do this.

POIs: Please don't badger and please frame POIs clearly. Do not engage in cross floor debate- this is annoying.

Theory: I am fine with theory if it is beneficial to the round. If you introduce theory, I am not the most familiar with it so please tell me how to judge the round.

Roadmaps:Off-time roadmaps are nice, but please follow them. Don’t tell me you’ll give me on-case followed by off-case and just do whatever you like. It will mess up my flow :(

General:Even if you give a roadmap, please signpost when you are moving from on-case to off-case. Please weigh for me, preemptive weighing is slay but weighing at reply is necessary!

Speed:Please don’t spread. I flow on paper and can keep up with a faster talking speed but not spreading. Additionally, I think it makes debate more inaccessible so I’m not a fan.

POOs: Please be nice when calling POO. If it's on my flow, it’s not new. If it’s a cross application, that’s okay, if it’s an extension it depends on how far the extension is extending :)

Parliamentary debate is an interesting and wonderful activity.

I think that the side which has thought more deeply about the topic should generally win the round - I appreciate a great creative argument but that argument needs to be true. My favorite kinds of arguments are absolutely true things that are often a blind spot to debaters.

I like feeling my opinion being actually changed by a certain argument, and I'm interventionist in that I think that if a rebuttal doesn't actually address a given point I will ignore it. Quality > quantity. I'm sure you've been taught (because I had been taught) that you should rebut every argument, even if you don't really have a great point to say. I disagree, and I appreciate when you have the 'round vision', and further, the respect for the truth, to know when a point is going to make it through and simply begin weighing earlier in the round. Strive towards your side of the truth, not just a win.

I will understand what you mean by nearly any theory or kritik. This does not mean I will be convinced by it. If you're making an argument about non-topical issues that are life-and-death and doing so carelessly, i.e. instrumentalizing them to win a debate round, I will give you very low speaks, and you will probably not win that round. This is not to say that such arguments are bad; I think they're important and good. You just have to treat them seriously and sincerely.

I will understand your points well if you have clear, linear warranting (x means y, y means z, and so on and so forth). If you don't have warrants or have insufficient warrants, it won't affect the outcome of the round unless the opposing side points out particular instances, which I think is a perfectly good rebuttal. I will still give you fewer speaks. If you're disorganized I will have a hard time flowing you, which will also lead to fewer speaks, and possibly you losing a round you think you ought to have won, because I have missed something important you've said.

If you do not weigh I will weigh for you.

Pet peeve: Don't talk about 'utilitarianism' as an alternative to 'morality.' Utilitarianism is a form of morality.

Pick motions that you know will be interesting to debate, not ones that you think you're the most likely to win or least likely to lose. You'll regret doing the inverse at some point.

If you are bigoted by accident I will drop speaks and, because bigotry is false, I'll ignore the point. I'll also talk to you after the round, and maybe to equity. If you're bigoted either out of unapologetic sincerity or because you think it was giving you some kind of competitive advantage I will drop you. I might still drop you if it's unintentional; it does detract, significantly.

Please speak at a normal pace. I prefer substance over style but enjoy good rhetoric. No ks. Theory will not be appreciated as a tool to win - only use it to point out actual abuse. Warranting should be supported with evidence. Weighing is important. Signposting is greatly appreciated.

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.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

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 :)

My Background

I coached for about 10 years at Diablo Valley College, where I coached Paliamentary debate (NPDA), IPDA, and NFA-LD. I've coached High School Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress for about 6 years now. I co-run a Youtube channel called Proteus Debate Academy, where I talk about debate.

I try to write as much feedback on ballots as I can, both in terms of advice and explaining how and why I made the decision I made.

Let's have a fun round with good vibes and great arguments.

What I Like Most to See in Rounds

Good link refutation and good weighing. In most rounds (that don't involve theory and so on) I'm left believing that some of the aff's arguments flow through and some of the neg's arguments flow through. Your impact weighing will guide how I make my decision at that point.

What I don't mind seeing

I'm comfortable with theory debate. I don't live and die for it, but sure, go for those arguments if they're called for.

If you're not familiar with the exact structure and jargon of a theory argument, all you need to know is that if you think your opponent did something unfair are bad for education, I would need to know (a) what you think debaters ought to do in those situations, (b) what your opponent did wrong that violates that expectation, (c) why your model for how debate should be is better than theirs, and (d) why you think that's a serious enough issue that your opponent should lose the whole round for it.

What You Should be Somewhat Wary of Running

I understand Kritiks. I've voted on many Ks, I'll probably vote on many more. But with that said, it's worth mentioning that I have a high propensity to doubt the solvency of most kritiks' alternatives. If you're running the Kritik, it might be really important to really clearly explain: who does the alt? What does doing the alt actually entail in literal terms? How does doing the alternative solve the harms outlined in the K?

If your K claims to have an impact on the real world, I should have a say in whether I want to cause that real world effect. I'm not gonna make decisions in the "real world" based on someone happening to drop an argument and now I have to murder the state or something.

How am I on speed?

I can keep up with speed. If you're going too fast, I'll call slow. With that said, it's important to me that your debating be inclusive: both of your opponent and your other judges. I encourage you to please call verbally say "slow" if your opponent is speaking too quicklyfor you to understand.Please slow down if that happens.If your opponent does not accommodate your request to slow down, please tell me in your next speech if you feel their use of speed harmed your ability to engage with the debate enough that they should be voted down for it. It's very likely that I'll be receptive to that argument.

Other Debate Pet Peaves

Evidence sharing in evidenciary debate formats. Have your evidence ready to share. If someone calls for a card, it's not acceptable for you to not have it or for it to take a lifetime to track the card down.

Please feel free to ask me more in-person about anything I've written here or about anything I didn't cover!

For PF James Logan:
I'm a freshman in college and I did parliamentary debate in high school for four years. I was pretty bad at PF so please articulate your arguments and please don't spread. If you run a K it should be justified and well articulated, but to be honest, I'm pretty skeptical of them unless there is a really blatant and justified reason for running them (ie obviously skewed topic).

Here's a generic paradigm that I agree with:

Traditional Approach: I am inclined towards a traditional debate style that emphasizes clear and well-structured arguments without relying on experimental or circuit-style techniques. This means I am not a fan of speed (spread debate) or Kritiks (Ks) (unless its clearly necessary as a means to have a fair debate). Instead, I value a clear and comprehensible presentation of ideas.

Clarity Over Quantity: Articulate your arguments clearly and concisely. I prefer substance over quantity, so focus on the quality of your points rather than overwhelming me with sheer volume.

Etiquette and Conduct:

Respectful Engagement: Maintain a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.

Judgment Criteria:

Clarity and Coherence: The clarity of your arguments and their connection to the resolution will play a significant role in my evaluation.

she/her; Menlo Atherton '21, Duke ‘25; 4 years of lay/flow parli (2017-2021); haven't coached/competed since I graduated high school

TLDR: when in doubt, treat me like a lay judge who cares more about argumentation than delivery

Important Stuff:

• Don't run friv T please!
• I like CPs but you need to prove good mutual exclusivity because I also buy perms.
• Don't spread your opponents out of the round (I'm bad with speed, sorry), and clarify all terms and jargon you are asked to clarify.
• I protect the flow, but call POOs to remind me, especially for shadow extensions.
• Warrant, impact and weigh!! Don't rely on solely evidence, this is parli, I like seeing interesting arguments.
• Impact calculus: I don't just default to magnitude, I'll like a probability argument if it's well done.
• It's been so long since I've worked with K framework, so I honestly discourage running any Ks unless you are seriously confident that it warrants a non-case debate. If you do decide to, you need to go slow(ish) or else I won't follow.

"Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - My coach and professor Dr. Mungin.

I founded the Debate Club at Benicia High School in 2015 and became the program’s coach in 2017 after graduating from Benicia. For the past seven years, I have coached Parliamentary and Public Forum. Likewise, I competed in Parli, Extemp, and Impromptu at Solano Community College. Later receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science — Summa Cum Laude and a Master of Public Policy and Administration at CSU Sacramento. I now work in the California State Legislature as a Legislative Assistant. Similarly, I have worked on several political campaigns.

Need to Know:

I don't tend to have strong preferences for how you should debate. I instead prefer to see the diversity of styles out there.

My feedback normally consists of what I believe you didn't adequately respond to and how you could have gone about doing so. This is more so to aid in future rounds than anything else.

Spreading:

I don't spread but I do talk at a fast pace. I recommend you do so also or slower when you prefer so I that I can flow.

Speaker Points:

One time in a PF round evidence was read that there has only ever been one successful coup. Later that same team asked during cross: "Name one successful coup? No, wait name two. We know there's only ever been one." A good joke increases your speaker points dramatically.

My approach to judging is holistic. A single blunder won't break your case so don't panic if you lost on a critical issue. I try to look at everything you did - style, content, humor, teamwork etc.

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

I come from a circuit parliamentary debate background, and I am a current college debater.

On equity: I strongly prefer Content Warnings prior to rounds if your case/position may invoke sensitive material, and I ask that POIs be conducted respectfully. Both factors may impact speaker points.

On general preferences: I'm tabula rasa, with a few exceptions:

1. I'm willing to judge theory (and to a lesser extent kritiks), but I'm less willing to vote on them unless I am convinced that there is legitimate abuse/unfairness occurring in the round. If such a criteria has been met and the off-case is presented as you would to a non-tech debater, however, I am willing to vote on them over substance.
2. I strongly dislike spreading, unless a) all debaters/judges are asked to consent beforehand, b) a speechdoc is sent to all members, c) enunciation is clear. I generally believe that spreading isn't necessary to convey any given point, and this may be reflected in lower speaker points if I believe that spreading is being used as a vehicle to hide dubious argumentation. However, this is mostly a hedge against extreme cases:I'm generally very amenable to rapid speaking, insofar as it is clear.
3. Specific to parliamentary debate: "common knowledge" ought to imply knowledge that an average person would know. I'm less willing to believe arguments that substantially hinge on statistics, studies, or other forms of it (even if it really has been on the front page of the New York Times) unless you win the warranting on it.

On framework and weighing:

1. I will default to utilitarianism unless there is warranting for why an alternative is preferable in the context of the round.
2. I'd like to have both links and impacts weighed so I can be as non-interventionist as possible. Specifically on impact weighing in parliamentary debate, I'd like to not just hear a comparison of magnitudes (e.g. 50 million lives vs. 30 million lives) sincethese numbers are inherently speculative. Thus I prefer that teams prioritize qualitative weighing.

On speaking: in addition to aforementioned criteria, Iwill award speaks (in order of decreasing importance) based on structure of speech, signposting, and speaking style.

I will also stop flowing after the grace period expires. If there is no grace period, I will stop flowing at time.

Last of all, good luck, and have fun!

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

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.

Generally enjoy creative arguments that make the debate more engaging for all parties involved. I consider structure integral for coherent speeches. Strategy and a considered awareness of the direction one wants the debate to go in is always lovey to see. Do not be afraid of verbosity. Analysis is key, never make me reach the conclusion/impact for you. Remember that this is truly a game; you're not necessarily trying to win, you're just trying to be better than your opposition.

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

I'm Harrison Malkin, a native of New Jersey. I debated throughout my four years at Ithaca College in domestic and international competitions. My specialty is in Lincoln Douglas and British Parliamentary Style. Free speech and challenging discourse are important things. As my former professor would say: "My stance is that there is nothing that we cannot discuss, nor are there subjects that we cannot engage playfully...My challenge was to be sensitive, responsive, and accommodating without being patronizing and condescending." I think it's important to engage in respectful, organized, and educational debates without spewing hate or mockery.

I think speaking too fast in order to invoke more points is counterintuitive and negative to the debating community. I prefer debaters to be clear, articulate, and intentional with their words. I'm interested in the style, as well as the persuasiveness of debaters. And in any given debate, voting issues should be explicit. Tell me why your case is more compelling. Any argument is fair game.

In general, don't hesitate to ask me questions. I'm here to help and to offer constructive criticism.

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

My name is Sathvik. I did circuit LD and Parli for 4 years in High School (and won the TOC in parli my senior year of HS). I am fine hearing everything (I haven’t been that involved in debate since 2021) even though when I debated I mostly LARPed/policy and read some theory/philosophy with an occasional K. Feel free to go fast-ish, I will flow from the doc. I am not the biggest fan of identity based K's but will not intervene against them. Tech > Truth. I love tricks and theory and any new type of argument I haven't heard before. Most importantly, be nice and have fun! Speaker points start at 28.8 and go up or down based on quality of speech and strategy.

Email:sathvikn@stanford.edu

Parent judge, moderate experience with Parli and some PF, I maintain as detailed a flow as possible, truth>tech

(if there is jargon in this paradigm it is because my daughter actually wrote it while consulting me on the content, not because I understand debate jargon)

Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace (don't spread!), signpost, limit jargon, etc. (if I don't understand you, it doesn't go on my flow, if it doesn't go on my flow, I'm not taking it into consideration)

Just saying cross-apply this with (x contention) is not a valid refutation in the absence of an explanation

Clearly state and weigh your impacts, provide clear logical links, POO any rules violations

Not super experienced with Ks or Theory, it is likely best not to run it with me and if you do, you must explain it well and in detail

Be respectful to your opponents and me. I will give you lower speaks if you are not.

A big pet peeve of mine is when debaters tell me how to vote ("judge, you MUST vote government on this"). I'm sorry, I know it's just what you do in debate, but it's really annoying - tell me how I can vote, give me voting issues, weigh your impacts against those of your opponents, but please for the love of God do not order me to vote for your side. I'm the judge, I'm here for a reason, I'll tell you who won (after flowing the round and evaluating it to the best of my ability)

I did speech and debate in high school and college and love seeing all of you engage in it as I know what an educational and fun activity it can be. Above all, I hope that you have a fun, educational, and constructive debate and that I can facilitate that to the best of my ability. Good luck!!

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.

IPDA DEBATE

This is my judging philosophy shown in my Tabroom judging paradigm.

ABOUT ME: I have been judging the IPDA debate for over four years now. This is my favorite and preferred type of debate to judge.

MY JUDGING PARADIGM AT A GLANCE: IPDA Debate is an audience-friendly style of intercollegiate debate. In stark contrast to NFA-LD, CEDA CX, NDT, or NPDA, I will not tolerate any heckling or spreading. I ascribe to the principles of IPDA as mentioned within the IPDA Constitution and its By-Laws. Hence, I expect a highly rhetorical and oratorical-based style/approach from both debaters. This means you lose my ballot if you insist on excessive speed, "spreading" or stacking too many contentions, not being cordial, or using unnecessary meta-debate jargon and techniques.

PREP TIME: Preparation time occurs before the actual debate round. The 30-minute prep-time period shall commence upon the first negative strike. That means you’ll need to choose your topics wisely but promptly. I also advise debaters to prep ALONE without the presence of other fellow teammates or coaches to limit distractions. Plus, I believe that students should be crafting their arguments and evidence without assistance.

DISCLOSURE: Normally, I don’t coach debaters to disclose their weighing mechanism or argumentation framework to their opponents before the round since it could give the other side an unfair advantage. Nevertheless, I recognize that debaters from different regions may exercise their ability to disclose their side to their opponent as a courtesy gesture. Therefore, if you want to announce your argumentation framework and weighing mechanism to your opponent, you are more than welcome to do so.

DEFINITIONS: AFFIRMATIVE has FIAT POWER and has the right to define the resolution and to provide a useful framework that will guide the entire debate round. The AFF has the right to limit the parameters of the resolution but must do so reasonably. Suppose the AFF provides resolutions that are extratropical (definitions that go beyond the scope of the resolution) “non-topical” (definitions that bear no relevance to the resolution at hand), or abusive or difficult to comprehend. In that case, the NEG has the right to provide alternative definitions that fit the resolution better.

CRITERIA/WEIGHING MECHANISM: Once again, the AFF has FIAT POWER. That means the AFF has the right to set the parameters of the debate that they think is best. However, the AFF must do so reasonably. The AFF must also take time to explain to me why they chose that weighing mechanism. I’ve witnessed many rounds where the AFF provided a weighing mechanism that didn’t fit the resolution or failed to explain their criteria choice adequately. This act resulted in a loss for the AFF for that round. The NEG is more than welcome to provide an alternative criterion if they disagree with the AFF’s weighing mechanism.

ROADMAPPING & SIGNPOSTING: I highly encourage debaters to roadmap all their arguments before the debate round and signpost between main ideas and their subpoints. I expect debaters to keep their argumentation “taglines” concise and intuitive. Moreover, I want to hear organized and detailed debaters and respect their own time limits.

ARGUMENTATION & REFUTATION: For AFF debaters, I expect well-developed definitions, criteria, and arguments with well-reasoned evidence. Since AFF has fiat power and has the “burden of proof,” I expect a thorough explanation of arguments (your claim), evidence (your warrants), and any logical connections to the resolution at hand (your impacts). To the NEG, I expect a direct “clash” of the AFF’s claims and warrants in your constructive case. Since the NEG has a “burden of clash,” you are free to provide disadvantages (DA) or counter plans (CP) to the AFF’s contentions. The NEG should link any off-case positions to whichever NEG philosophy they espouse. To both AFF and NEG debaters, your evidence must have the 5 “R’s”: RECENT, RELIABLE, REPUTABLE, RELEVANT, and REPRESENTATIVE. Your proof must be well-sourced and referenced throughout the speech

ETHICS: I expect both debaters to be courteous and to refrain from heckling or interrupting each other. I expect debaters to refer to each other as “my opponent” and call their names directly. I also expect both debaters to follow the rules of IPDA debate, refrain from looking at other web pages, and have their phones on “airplane mode” during the debate round.

TOPICALITY & META-DEBATE: At times, I understand that their side must present topical arguments addressing their opponent’s deviation from the debate topic at hand. However, I don’t want debaters to spend most of their speaking time issuing topicality arguments or mentioning topicality violations. I also don’t want debaters to regurgitate complex debate terms and jargon that a lay judge cannot easily comprehend.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS SPEECHES

ORAL INTERPRETATION

I have coached many oral interpretation rounds and developed specific tastes for observing and watching these rounds. I highly value oral interpretation performers that make their performances their own! As a seasoned forensicator, I can quickly tell someone is immersed in their performance piece instead of wholly detached from it.

Don’t just perform for the sake of performing. I want to hear WHY your piece matters. As of late, I feel that oral interpretation has become a lot more persuasive, where performers have added a great deal of advocacy and activism within their performances. Your blocking, facial expressions, posturing, volume, accent, voice, eye contact, and cadence must all be highly expressive and illustrative of your chosen theme, storyline/characters. I will also judge how well your initial teaser, explanation, tension, buildup, climax, and conclusions flow within your piece. I also expect a clean binder technique. I have deducted many speaker points from oral interpretation performers who exhibited sloppy binder techniques and page turns. Lastly, I expect page-turn transitions between scenes and characters to be smooth, not choppy or disjointed.

PROSE: I expect Prose performers to have an illustrious array of Prose literature cut from various texts. I also expect Prose pieces to be centered on storytelling based on a first-person narrative. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy well-developed Prose performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking. I have judged and witnessed many Prose performances resemble DI pieces and vice-versa. This should not be so. As a follower of the AFA-NIET rules and guidelines, Prose and DI categories should be kept separate! I will rank down any Prose performance that resembles a DI piece. Your Prose should focus on storytelling and illustrate how that story develops from a first-person narrative.

POETRY: I love judging this speech event because I witness creative performances. I will judge Poetry rounds based on poetic literature cut from various sources. You are welcome to present a poetry performance either through a first-person or third-person narrative. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy Poetry performances that are well-developed with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking

DRAMATIC INTERPRETATION: As per the AFA-NIET rules, I will judge DI performances based on the character-driven themes you’ve chosen to perform during the round. I expect DI performances to be derived from a play script cutting that features different characters that evolve within the piece. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy well-developed DI performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion, seamless transitions, and highly expressive blocking. I have judged and witnessed many DI performances resemble Prose pieces and vice-versa. This should not be so. As a follower of the AFA-NIET rules and guidelines, I believe that DI and Prose categories should be kept separate! I will rank down any DI performance that in any way resembles a Prose piece.

PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION: This is my favorite oral interpretation speech to judge. Here, your piece can be centered on literally anything! Therefore, I expect a vast and diverse array of cuttings from many literature sources. Newspaper articles, Tiktok videos, song lyrics, poems, free verse, slam poetry, current events, novels, biographies, and more. This is your opportunity to get very creative about how you construct and interpret your piece. Just as long as it’s organized, free-flowing, and within the 8-to-10-minute limit format. I have witnessed many solid POI pieces get ranked down because the performer either went overtime, under time or wasn’t expressive enough. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. As with the other oral interpretation speeches, I enjoy well-developed POI performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking.

DUO: As one performer once said, “DUO is like DI, but with friends!” A true and funny statement. Please refer back to my comments on DI performances. I will also judge how well the partners’ roles enhanced the performance and the synchronization of the two performers. Duo partners should look directly at each other but must always maintain eye contact with the audience and the space around them.

LIMITED PREPARATION

IMPROMPTU: I expect Impromptu speakers to ask me their time hand signals before the round. I also don’t allow extra time for speakers to read the quotation after flipping the prompt on the desk. Speakers generally use up about 2 minutes to prepare their 5-minute speech. I will rank down speakers who go vastly under time or overtime. I will also rank down speakers who take excessive preparation time and rely on their notecards too much during the round. “Canned” attention getters (AGD) and examples will also be ranked down. I will judge speakers based on the merits of their interpretation of the quotation, their taglines, arguments, relevant supporting examples, and summarization at the very end. Speakers should keep their arguments and supporting examples succinct because this is a limited preparation event.

EXTEMPOREANEOUS: I expect Extemp speakers to report to their designated extemp draw location on time. I also expect extemp speakers to have a cursory knowledge about the question they’ve selected. I appreciate extempers who tell me what their question is before they begin speaking. Extemporaneous speakers should always ask me what their time hand signals are before they commence their speech. I will rank down speakers who do not adhere to the 7-minute speaking time limit and who don’t adequately explain their arguments and examples. I will also rank down speakers whose arguments are poorly developed or deviate from their chosen question. “Canned” attention getters (AGD) and examples will also be ranked down. Like IPDA debate, I value speakers who explain their arguments and examples in an audience-friendly format with no spreading or speed talking.

PUBLIC ADDRESS SPEECH

Public Address (PA) speeches have always been fascinating to me. During my competition days, I used to compete in only PA’s! I expect PA speakers to have their speeches completely memorized and rehearsed before the round. I will rank down any PA speaker who is not fully memorized or relies on notecards during their speech. I expect PA speeches to be thoroughly referenced with at least 8 – 10 recent sources from within the past calendar year. Speeches should be centered on topics that pertain to each speech category ascribed by the AFA-NIET rules and by-laws. PA speeches must be at least 8 minutes long and should go over the 10-minute limit.

INFORMATIVE: Informative speeches are designed to inform the audience about a new scientific innovation or discovery, historical events or individuals, or informative speeches about social causes or issues currently happening within our society. Therefore, I expect informative speeches to be topical, timely, and intriguing. I will rank down informative speeches with old and recycled topics or poorly conceived themes. Generally, I expect info speeches to 8 – 10 minutes long with well-constructed implications.

PERSUASIVE: Persuasive speeches are designed to change and alter the audience's beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about an important subject. These speeches are a form of advocacy. Therefore, I expect your Persuasive to highlight the depth/extent of the problem(s) and explain how that problem came to be before finally explaining solutions. I expect your solutions to be practical, plausible, and plausible. These speeches must also be 8 – 10 minutes long.

AFTER-DINNER SPEAKING: After-Dinner speaking speeches (ADS) are often modeled in a persuasive speaking format. Like my comments for Persuasive, I expect ADS speeches to change and alter the audience's beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about an important subject. These speeches are a form of advocacy. Jokes should be unique and must be done in good taste. I will rank down speeches with excessive swearing, references to sexual objects or genitalia, or jokes that are racist or offensive. I will also rank down ADS speeches with too many self-deprecating jokes. I expect your ADS solutions to be practical, plausible, and imaginative. These speeches must also be 8 – 10 minutes long.

COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS: Communication Analysis (or Rhetorical Criticism) is a factual speech about an artifact explained through a theoretical framework centered upon a research question. Therefore, I will judge your CA based on the merits of your artifact, your explanation of the theoretical model, the application and implication of the model, and your research question. I will also critique how well you explained the significance of your artifact to me. I will rank down any CA that doesn’t adequately describe what their artifact is and why it matters. CA speeches should be topical and informative about artifacts worthy of analysis.

Parli: I'm a semi-experienced judge; I've judged at approx 7 tournaments. I'm a research manager in my job which means I frequently develop insights with rationales & evidence. I am most interested in your logic and persuasion. I'm not a "technical judge." Please keep your pace no faster than medium so I can fully comprehend your well constructed arguments. Thanks!

Extemp: I've judged one tournament with extemp rounds. I look for clear structure, elements that make your points relatable for "regular people" like me, evidence that links well to your claims and ability to pace well to get your full structure in during the time given.

Speech:I have more experience with Parli and less with Speech but I lean on my background in theater and improv to guide some of my observations. In interpretation events (e.g. POI, DI), I'm looking for cohesive themes that weave together your sources and ideas into a strong POV. I pay attention to thoughtful, appropriate movement that enhances your scenes. I'm looking for distinct characters with clear personalities conveyed through line delivery, vocal and facial expression, varying intensity. I appreciate the hard work it takes to be vulnerable and genuine. In Extemp, I'm looking for a well organized, logical plan showing your clear POV on how you are approaching the topic. I hope to see who you are shine through your analysis and delivery.

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

High school teacher - economics, government, history.

Pronouns - he

Approach to judging

- I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round; defense almost never wins rounds.

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

- If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

- I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, and in these cases, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

- I prefer teams to take at least two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, if the tournament doesn't allow POCs, you should take clarification POIs after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Tag teaming should be kept to a minimum. Pass notes.

- Don't go over time in your speech. I stop flowing when the timer beeps. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

I am a lay/parent judge with limited experience. I deliberate on arguments and delivery. I do not find speed effective as I do not have time to evaluate what you are saying. I expect courtesy and civility.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

Tabroom paradigm

The tldr if you are almost done with prep and just realized i have a paradigm:

East cost/BP level lay, truth> tech, do not love theory/K’s, honest and well-weighed arguments will get you very far, be kind and respectful. In general, if you are nice (+ bonus points if you weigh) I will happily and fairly judge whatever round you have!

Background on me:

• she/her

• I’ve been debating and judging competitively for 4 years. I have experience in American Parli (Exclusively east coast parli), British Parli (my fav), and World Schools.

• Debating as a freshman at Wesleyan University now!

• Particular areas of interest: government, law, courts, justice, social movements + social action, history, feminism, Jewish history + culture, IR, art

• Particular areas of disinterest: sports, econ/finance (you can run these but no jargon)

• I was an equity officer on the NYPDL board for two years and ran equity in local middle school leagues for a few years. Equity is very important to me.

• I adore debate and the debating community! If you ever want help, feedback, advice, support, don’t hesitate to reach out! + do your part to keep this community awesome. Good vibes in and out of round please! (to contact me: juliaswenja@gmailcom)

Things to know if i’m judging you:

My general philosophy: Debate is about being the most persuasive, not being the sneakiest → for this reason, clear+ intuitive arguments, polite + equitable behavior, and honest weighing are the most important things to me.

• Truth > tech but not by miles. Be reasonable and honest, and warrant and weigh.

• Equity is very important to me: treat every person in the room with respect and politeness, and treat every argument with thoughtfulness and nuance. Be aware of the position you speak from, and be conscious of how your identity informs your advantage in the debate world. Respect and kindness are non negotiable parts of being a persuasive speaker and member of this awesome community.

• Theory/K’s: I am an east coast/BP judge, so think east coast/BP level lay. I will not autodrop anyone, but I have no experience at all with theory or Ks of any kind and have a high level of skepticism about it. I wouldn’t recommend running theory in front of me: I will judge fairly whatever debate happens but will be quite grumpy with you.

• Speed: I am a good flower and can keep up with any speed east coast or BP. No spreading please!

• Signposting: signpost please!

• Content warnings: any obviously triggering content needs to be content warned. Don’t run very graphic violence in front of me please.

• Offtime roadmaps: Not my fav. You were given an amount of time by the debate gods. Use it!

• Rhetoric: I love a strategic use of rhetoric/emotion. Can be a powerful tool in persuasion!

• Rebuttals: I adore rebuttal speeches, and a strong LOR/PMR has a lot of power for me. Good round vision and weighing will make me VERY happy. I dislike dishonesty or redundancy in rebuttals.

• organization/flowing/coverage: I’m not a strict flow judge and don’t care a ton about dropped arguments. However, prioritizing and strategic coverage is important. Spend lots of time on the best arguments!

• Definitions debate: noooooooothank you

• Cases:

• Sneaky cases/Counter plans: I have a preference for straight opping and goving motions. I don’t like sneaky strategic decisions and prefer not to judge them unless there isn’t a different clear path to victory. If you run a CP, please commit to it.

• Creativity: I have no strong preference for creative cases: if they’re good arguments, run them, if not, keep it simple. Please don’t sacrifice intuitive and clear cases to creative ones. I will chuckle if you run something funny or clever but there won’t be extra points for creativity.

• Quality vs. quantity: I love dense + heavily warranted cases! Feel free to throw as many mechs as possible

• Principles: I have no strong bias for or against principled arguments. If the argument is warranted strongly and weighed well, I will happily vote on it. If not, I probably won’t.

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 :^)

First, don't worry about this paradigm, just debate and have fun!

I debated for Sierra Canyon from 2019-2023 in WSD, BP, Parli, and PDP (Public Debate Program).

Most of the events I participated in were heavily focused on style, and I consider speaking skills to be equally as important as strategy and argumentation, so make sure you make an effort to present your case and rebuttals engagingly with strong public speaking.

Most of all, be ethical, clear, and present yourself well. Make sure to weigh.

Ok that's it bye

Hi everyone! I am a collegiate judge who has 4+ years of experience in the forensics community at the high school level. I have extensive experience debating and judging Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglass, but I am also familiar with many other debate formats like Parli, Policy, etc.

I consider myself to be a “tabula rasa” judge, meaning I walk into the round a clean slate as if I have no prior knowledge on the topic you debate.

Here are some of my more specific preferences:

Please signpost frequently and make it clear what argument you’re addressing, that way I can flow it more smoothly.

Additionally, make it clear when you are cross-applying or dropping an argument so I can make note of it.

I am okay with speed, but if you talk so fast without clear enunciation that I can’t properly understand you, you run the risk of me missing your arguments which could hurt your case. Same goes for theory, Ks, etc.---if you swamp me with overly-technical language, it could serve against you.

I place a huge emphasis on voter issues and impact weighing. Tell me what I should be voting on---this is how I should be making my final decision.

And ultimately please be respectful of your opponent :)

Background: I've debated for 8 years between high school and college (since 2015), mostly in Extemp & Amercian Parli. I have tons of experience competing, judging, and running tournaments.

Paradigm: Arguments that focus on weighing and logic are more persuasive than those that rest on statistics. Statistics are often biased; logic stands the test of time. I heavily value weighing mechanisms in rounds. A debater with a consistent vision in a round that carries through in all speeches is most effective. Accordingly, rebuttal speeches are very important and should consist of much more weighing than further argumentation. Really take the time to explain why your argument leads to a better outcome than your opponents'. This means that constructives should be extremely well-organized and easy to follow to set up rebuttal speeches in a way that does not make the round messy.

Other miscellaneous things:

1. Definition debates are the worst, I generally err on the side of gov/aff unless there is good reason not to (usually abuse that is called out by opp/neg);

2. Treat everyone in your rounds fairly and do not belittle arguments or speakers. Remember why debate is important: for education & in order to have a constructive conversation -- no side is inherently better than another;

3. Spreading is fine but signposting is always important (if you want to make sure I flow it--signpost it!) Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1;

4. And finally, theory shells should only be used if absolutely necessary and reasons for doing so should be explained in ways that apply to the specific round at hand (and not to all rounds in general).

Good luck!

Easter egg: If you use the phrase "dandy" in one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)2

1 credit: preston bushnell & 2 inspired by: cara weathers

hi, im riyana (she/her) i've been debating since sophomore yr, and i'm a freshman at brown! my email is riyana_srihari@brown.edu—feel free to ask me any questions there :)

ill make this more robust asap....but the tldr is that these are just preferences and i want to hear you debate the way you like to debate!!

general:

first of all, PLEASE ask me questions before the round starts about anything in this paradigm!

i'll give you 10 seconds of grace but will stop flowing what you're saying after that.

please give content warnings!

texts are binding.

also…before you read an argument PLEASE think about how it will help you win!!! i can’t keep doing link work for you guys LOL

case:

i love case debate!! terminalized impacts are great, and impact calculus + weighing is necessary for me as a judge, so PLEASE tell me why i should vote for you. i rly like unique link chains when they're explained well! CPs are valid, CP theory is valid, and perms are a test of competition. make sure to read net benefits to the counterplan (independent reasons to vote for the counterplan), and make sure that it's mutually exclusive! lmk if you have any questions about case debate; i'm happy to elaborate.

theory:

theory is cool! please have a clear interp and text. please also run theory in good faith—frivolous theory is fun when it's well-constructed, and not just being run to win against inexperienced debaters. i prob won't vote on double-win theory (i ran it once it was so stupid #biggestregret), and definitely won't vote on theory that polices the physical presentation of people in the round, but i'll vote on everything else. i default to competing interps, and need a brightline if you want me to vote on reasonability. i’ll also default to drop the debater, but PLEASE PLEASE layer and read a-priori!!! you can't run theory without layering!!!

kritiks:

my fav type of debate to judge at the moment!! i'm most familiar with materialism and proletarian/material feminism, i'll vote for rejecting the res or framework theory (and neg Ks), and i'll vote on performance Ks (but never ran them, so i don't have a ton of familiarity with them). please ask me before/after the round or email me at riyana.srihari@gmail.com if you have any questions about kritiks, and i'll answer them to the best of my ability + send you any resources i have!!

case:

i love case debate!! i do not love ppl lying or fabricating evidence, so please do not do that. terminalized impacts are great, and impact calculus + weighing is necessary for me as a judge, so PLEASE tell me why i should vote for you.

POOs/POIs:

obviously, don't be mean about asking a ton of POIs + interrupting your opponents — i generally think 2-3 POIs is the max in one speech. say questions, not statements in POIs!! please!!! i won't evaluate new args, but call POOs if you're feeling like an argument is new.

accessibility:

don't misgender your opponent. again, a safe debate space is my highest priority, so i'll drop you for any rhetorical violence. be kind!

speaker points:

my baseline for speaker points is 28.5, i’ll give you high speaks for good argumentation and generally believe that speaker points have a lot of room for blatant bias, so i’ll do my best to give speaks based on content and not presentation.

feel free to ask me questions!!!! :)

I look forward to fun, creative, and potentially entertaining rhetoric."

anthony "andy" stowers forest (they/any pronouns)

anthonymstowers@gmail.com

My personal bright lines (updated for TOC PF):

#1: I will drop you if you claim that victims of human trafficking, child abuse, and childhood sexual assault are more likely to be criminals. This is unnecessary and harmful, do. not. do. it.

#2: Please omit graphic depictions of SA, child abuse, and human trafficking.

#3: My yarmulke is not an invitation for you to make hateful comments about Muslims or Palestinians, nor is it an invitation to make weird (and usually ignorant) virtue-signalling comments about Israel, Oct 7th, or the Holocaust. In rounds, these comments happen often. Please be cool, I love my Muslim friends very much and they love me very much too.

Technical debate preferences:

-SPECIFY SCOPE.

-Any speed is fine w/ me. If your opponent is spreading and you don't want to, that's also fine.

-K is fine, as long as it's genuinely well-considered and sportsmanlike (eg don't run K against a novice who clearly doesn't know what K is.).

-Speak with respect about all groups of people. I have beloved friends from China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria.... It's really tough to take xenophobic arguments seriously when I've been received with unbelievable hospitality by the people you're talking about.

-Please don't waste the entire debate arguing about the rules: make verbal note of the violation and move on. I can take it from there.

-Please do not make your main impact in every round nuclear apocalypse or climate apocalypse (or claim your argument can uniquely prevent them). I think those things are high-probability no matter WHAT, and I don't think it's realistic to say that one side or the other will uniquely cause or prevent them.

-Differentiating people and government is critical. The Russian government makes extremely questionable choices. Russian PEOPLE have fed me repeatedly when I was a stranger to them, showed me cool sights in their hometowns, and made sure I was safe visiting dangerous places (both in Russia and in the US). I really do try to be tech over truth in a lot of ways, but it tends to be laughable to me when I hear broad generalizations about Russian, Chinese, or Iranian PEOPLE (etc.) being anti-American. I need you to make that people vs. government differentiation because otherwise some of the claims being made are absolutely laughable in comparison to what interactions with these groups of people are actually like.

Parent judge with a fair amount of experience.

Speak as slowly as you need to in order to make your arguments clear. Generally the time you save by speaking too fast is not worth it, especially if I can’t understand what you’re saying. The confidence that you show when you don’t rush is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the handful of additional points you might make speaking faster.

I find it very helpful when you give a roadmap in terms of your overall argument, and also when you make clear at the start of your speech how many points you intend to make to support your argument. If you remind me as you go through your speech which point you are speaking to, even better. Similarly, when you are responding to or rebutting your opponent’s speech, be clear as to which point you are addressing.

My practice is to include everything you say in my flow and I focus on tech and truth largely equally. You can lose a round if you don’t respond to an important point that the other team makes, even if I think their point is wrong (unless it’s wrong about a very basic and obvious fact), but I’m going to focus more on the totality of the arguments and which are most persuasive rather than an overly-strict view of what you do and don’t respond to.

I will give Gov some leeway to define the terms of the debate and to set the framework, but not if they do so in a way that makes a real discussion of the issue impossible because it is overly one-sided.

I think POIs can be useful in clarifying arguments, but I don’t like it when they are used in a way that is really intended to interrupt or distract an opponent. Don’t do that.

You need to devote substantial time to weighing in rebuttals, but you don’t need to wait until then. Weighing — which I view as you telling me why a particular point in your favor is more important than other points that may not be in your favor — can be done throughout the round.

I try to judge based on substance not delivery (other than the speed point above) but the words that you choose, not repeating yourself unnecessarily, and using humor where appropriate, can make your argument more persuasive.

No Ks.

Be nice always.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I am a lay judge with about a year of experience judging. I will flow and greatly appreciate signposting throughout. In the end, I will vote on the impacts of the arguments that flow through, so try to make it clear to me where something goes on the flow. Too much speed make will make it harder for me flow accurately, so use it only when necessary.

I favor logic over truth, so if you do not know a lot about a topic but apply logic to what you do know, I will work with that. Just make sure your logic and causality are strong. That said warranting is important and strong factual warranting is undeniably persuasive, so if you have examples use them. But don’t make things up and I prefer you don’t look things up. If I don’t think an example would be common knowledge to a well informed person, I’ll give it less weight and it will be a lower bar for your opponent to refute.

On definitions, Gov definitions control, but I strongly favor using common sense meaning and dictionary definitions, so please don’t try to drastically change the nature/scope of the debate. It won’t work to your favor! I will consider different / alternative frameworks so definitely address your opponents framework if different from the your own. I don’t have much experience with K for theory arguments so am unlikely to vote on these or to disqualify anyone.

Some details: Please introduce yourself! I’m fine if the intro and a very brief roadmap are off time, but it should be so quick that it doesn’t matter. Don’t over do POIs. Keep any POOs in the final speeches very brief.

Most importantly, respect your opponents and engage with them and their arguments with civility. I’m unlikely to vote for a side that shows disdain or belittles their opponent or their arguments. Point out the flaws but if your argument is better, show me why

Summary: I am a college debater and high school coach who understands the fundamentals of debate and loves hearing people argue.

Background:

4 years High School Parliamentary debate at Analy High School

2 years British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley

2 years Coaching at Berkeley High School

Judging:

I will flow the round and give the win based on which team can provide a more persuasive case. I am not a judge that will give you an auto-loss for not understanding the 17-step formula that the opposition (or your own team) expects you or others to know before the round, but I do consider weighing and proving your arguments to be true as integral to the round.

TO WIN THE ROUND, YOU MUST:
1. Show up to the debate (hopefully)

2. Have good arguments

3. Explain why those arguments matter (the impacts)

4. Attack your opponent's arguments

5. Explain why your arguments are stronger than your opponents (the weighing)

While that seems simple, I've seen many rounds where most of those steps go missing.

Although I will be flowing the round, I will not be filling in the blanks for your case. If you'd like to make my life easier, please signpost as you speak, so I understand where you are in the round.

Evidence alone does not win you rounds. Stating evidence doesn't mean I will understand why it is essential to your case, nor will I understand its general warranting unless you can explicitly tell me.

If there are fundamental disagreements about Definitions or Weighing Mechanisms, I will generally default to Government unless Opposition can prove the definition abusive.

Miscellaneous Jargon:

If you need to spread, you may, but I would prefer if you don't. I can't vote for your side if I can't flow your arguments.

Do not expect me to understand your Shells and Ks and Theory arguments. I generally do not vote on jargon UNLESS it can be clearly explained why it is more important than the debate round you were assigned to defend.

Reminder:

You are a fantastic human who's trying your best, so don't feel bad if you make a mistake or lose the round :)

Extremely experienced parli debater (1997 APDA Team of the Year).

Please speak at a conversational pace.

I am not familiar with any debate jargon because we used plain English back in my day.

Use arguments that would persuade a smart and informed layperson who has never seen a debate round and is open-minded about the round's topic. I will decide based on who makes the most objectively persuasive arguments (irrespective of my personal views).

Only appeal to moral principles that are pretty much universal. I don't care whether or not your position fits with my personal concept of morality-- I am looking for the best arguments that can be mustered in support of your position.

Focus on what is important, especially in rebuttals. If the other side fails to respond to some of your arguments, explain why those arguments are important enough that I should care.

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer

At this point, I have heard a fair number of debates, but I am a parent judge.

Speak as slowly as you need to in order to make your arguments clear. Generally the time you save by speaking too fast is not worth it, especially if I can’t understand what you’re saying. The confidence that you show when you don’t rush is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the handful of additional points you might make speaking faster.

I find it very helpful when you give a roadmap in terms of your overall argument, and also when you make clear at the start of your speech how many points you intend to make to support your argument. If you remind me as you go through your speech which point you are speaking to, even better. Similarly, when you are responding to or rebutting your opponent’s speech, be clear as to which point(s) you are addressing.

Also, please do not use debater jargon. I might understand you, or I might not. Either way, you are much more likely to convince me if you explain your points clearly and fully from start to finish. You may be tempted to try to save time by saying something like: “Judge, you should delink this argument from 3.C on the flow because there’s no XYZ warranting here.” But I may not understand you, and even if I do, the point will have less force to me buried in jargon without further explanation.

Whether or not argument is explicitly labeled as “weighing”, I am most likely to be swayed by a few thoroughly argued key issues, accompanied by analysis convincing me that those issues decisively cover the critical territory. A team may have the better argument on every point except the decisive argument that logically controls the overall outcome, but in my ballot I’ll try my best to follow that critical, controlling argument.

Do your best to take the topic seriously. Put differently, I respect government's right to define the terms of the debate, within the bounds established by the topic, unless the opposition can convince me that government's framing falls outside of a fair reading of the topic. In my experience, this doesn't happen often, but when it does it can be decisive. Also, please take each other's arguments seriously - I much prefer debates in which each side squarely and fairly addresses the other side's best arguments.

I find that evidence is more often an issue in public forum, but in any form of debate, there are limits to what sort of evidence is credible, or how much I will trust it. For example, evidence claiming to predict the future is always uncertain. Opinion evidence is only as convincing as the reasoning and facts that support it. Solid empirical evidence, ideally paired with deep analysis, often carries the day in a public forum debate, though logical analysis can beat empirical evidence if the analysis explains away the observation.

And evidence in any form of debate that the other side convinces me is unreliable will undercut the credibility of an argument. If you tell me that something is a fact, I expect it to be true.

Most of all, be nice to each other, and have fun! In my experience, the most skilled debaters are often the most gracious.

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

TL;DR - Be respectful. Stay organized/signpost. Don’t say anything sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist. Evaluate impacts. Please give me voters. You will get low speaker points if you are unkind to your opponents OR your partner. If you’re really a dick, you will get dropped. Write a topical aff. Clash, clash, clash! The worst debates are two ships passing in the night. These are just my preferences - it’s your round, do what you want.

Overview - I believe the role of a paradigm is to disclose biases, not to pretend I don’t have them. My threshold for response for pro-fascism/pro-eugenics/pro-imperialist/pro-colonialist arguments is simply to say “this argument is fascist/eugenicist/imperialist/colonialist because of [this warranted analysis].” You can tell me why those things are bad, but you don’t have to. I’ll vote on it anyway.

Professionalism - I don’t care. I love off-time road maps. Women are often unfairly punished by judges for being “aggressive” or “rude” when using the exact same techniques that men use. I do not and will not penalize women for being passionate about this activity.

Tech vs. Truth - Both are important. That being said, tech over truth. However, if you blatantly lie and I am aware that you are blatantly lying (i.e. claiming the Earth is flat), I will simply drop the argument, and I don’t really care if your opponents’ responses to it are incomplete/bad. If an argument is idiotic, vacuous, or just false, my threshold for response is VERY low.

Impacts - I tend to be more sympathetic to structural impacts than many judges. Probability is much more nuanced than a conceded link. Please tell me why your impacts matter and compare them to your opponent’s impacts. If you are winning on magnitude and they are winning on probability, tell me why magnitude conceptually is more important than probability.

Speed -I can hang. If I can’t, I’ll say slow, clear, or signpost. If after I call slow you don’t slow and I miss something, that hurts my understanding of your case, which hurts your chances of winning my ballot. More importantly, let’s talk about your opponents. If your opponents call slow multiple times and you don’t slow… good luck winning my ballot. I think spreading is fine. I think spreading when your opponents can’t understand you is abusive.

Kritiks - To be entirely honest, I’m not at all inclined to vote on a K if I see a team from a rich/private/large school leveraging some aspect of their identity in order to dunk on kids from a small/underfunded school. The threshold for response here for me is very low: if the other team points out how unfair it is for rich kids with every structural advantage to leverage a tool that has historically been used to give opportunity to underdogs in debate, I’ll probably buy that with very little convincing. If your opponents point out that your team has virtually infinite funding, resource, coaches, and backfiles about every single topic in the world, I’m inclined to buy that.

I NEED you to explain to me why my vote specifically is important. If your K is specifically about education/changing my consciousness, why do I have to vote for you? Either you’re an opportunist trying to find the most uncontroversial argument possible in order to secure the most ballots, or you are genuinely here to proselytize people to your cause, in which case I will change my consciousness accordingly and vote for the team that was not afforded infinite prep time.

Prioritize solvency. Prioritize pre-fiat/post-fiat analysis. I will take your alt literally. If I see that you are running a kritik that is designed to be confusing and that has completely skewed your opponents from the round (especially if you are the aff), I am extraordinarily inclined to vote against you. Always tell me the role of the ballot. Prioritize telling me why the K alone is better than the perm if a perm is possible. I am typically inclined to buy perms for most K’s, unless you hold my hand and walk me through why the perm is bad/links back into the K. If you run a performance K/another K that is designed to be evaluated more subjectively than traditional debate, I will evaluate subjectively. I’m willing to vote on disclosure; I don’t think it’s fair if one team has infinite prep time for their K and the other team has zero prep to respond.

Please make sure that your competitors are able to actually engage in the round. Please do not force your competitors to either adopt racist/sexist/homophobic positions or lose the round. As a queer woman of color, I dislike siloing your opponents into this terrible catch-22 in order to secure a ballot. Respectfully responding to your identity K is typically not an -ism, and I tend to be unsympathetic towards argumentation that opposes clash in debate. That’s what the speech half of speech and debate is for. That being said, if someone is reproducing structural violence in round, I tend to evaluate them rather harshly.

Theory -I am more inclined to vote on proven abuse, but I can be swayed. If the aff is very clearly untopical, it is very very easy for me to pull the trigger on topicality. I have a medium threshold for spec, though I am much much much more inclined to vote on proven abuse.

Counterplans - I love counterplans. I default to believing in neg fiat, but I can be convinced to vote otherwise. You are likely to lose if you are conditional and if your opponents have any basic reasoning about why conditionality is bad. I think running multiple counterplans tends towards being abusive. You must win that the CP alone is better than doing the perm OR that the perm is impossible.

Parli - I default to net benefits unless told otherwise, but I love clash on the top-of-case/weighing mechanisms, and will happily vote under a different weighing mechanism. I evaluate theory first, then framework, then case. I flow, and it is rare that I drop anything, but if I call slow, clear, or signpost, please listen. Communicating with your partner is fine (try and be discreet if possible), but if your partner is the vessel that you are possessing in order to deliver every speech in the round, both of your speaks will likely be lower.

Speaker Points - No weird arbitrary rules for getting high speaks. Be persuasive, be compelling, and be organized. I default to around 28.

Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:

1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.

2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.

3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.

4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.

5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.

6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.

7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.

8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.

9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Hi! I'm Maya (she/her) and I competed in parli with the MVLA S&D team (and am now attending Swarthmore College!). I'm so excited to judge you and I hope you have fun at this tournament! Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (weird vocab, further preferences, etc.) before the round.

TL;DR Be nice, I will drop you if you're blatantly offensive. Debate is for learning, not skewing your opponents out of the round however you can. Engaging with your opponents arguments, doing comparative analysis, and signposting make me happy, messy debates make me sad. I will buy whatever you read if it's conceded and extended, but I will like you more if you keep the debate educational. If you read a K or tricksy argument be prepared to explain it well. I'm proud of you for joining debate and making sure you learn and have at least a little fun is my top priority!

A Few General Things:

BE NICE. As much as I'm sure we all love winning, the point of debate is education. If you're rude, I won't like you (I will drop your speaker points) and if you bully the other team or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you (this hopefully/most likely won't apply to you!).

I am comfortable with moderately fast speed(~300 wpm) and will ask you to slow or clear as necessary. I'm open to 30 speaks theory and will allocate points based on how strategic your speech was rather than how good of a speaker you are (speaker points used in the latter manner have a history of being exclusionary and problematic).

Please time yourselves (and your opponents if you'd like). Ask if you'd like me to time but I won't really be paying attention to my phone so you should still time yourself anyways. Please try to not go more than 30 seconds over your allotted speaking time, and feel free to call out your opponents if they do by holding up your timer or something similar. I won't flow any new arguments after the grace period is up (and even grace is sketchy, it should just be used to wrap up your speech not blip in a few more responses).

I have only competed in parliamentary debate so please feel free to ask me more specific questions about my preferences for any event. I know the basic rules of each event, have watched demo rounds, and will just vote however you tell me to in round - I love layering, impact framing, weighing, etc. It just makes it so much easier for me to evaluate the flow.

I will buy just about anything you say as long as it's not offensive. You can tell me about aliens or conspiracy theories, but please back them up with at least some logical analysis and be ready to respond to opponent refutations. Please don't make up warrants, if I catch you I will either drop you or lower your speaks depending on how significant the warrant was to your case (I have definitely misinterpreted warrants before and understand the difference between misinterpreting & straight up lying so don't stress, just be honest!).

I'm familiar with the structure of typical ULI debate arguments (and internal links) and can flow pretty well so I will just vote however you tell me to. Comparative weighing makes me smile, if I don't hear any framing or weighing arguments I will cry and have to figure out which sheet is the most important on my own, which probably won't help your case.

Case Debate

- please please please signpost. Tell me when you're on Uniqueness, Links, Impacts, when you're moving onto a new sheet, etc. When doing responses either number them or do some sort of "they say", if you're going down the flow/laid out a clear off-time road map then embedded clash (not explicitly signposting) is okay.

- again, please be nice during cross. Being aggressive is fine, I get you want perceptual dominance, but if you continually interrupt your opponent and don't let them ask any questions then I will dock your speaks. I will not be flowing cross or tag teaming, if you want me to flow a point say it in your speech.

- same as speech times, please time your running prep and say when you are starting time (so if opponents want to time you they can do so as well). If you go more than 30 seconds overtime I will dock speaks (though if you want me to see your opponents going overtime hold up your timer otherwise I won't know).

- weighing or just generally making comparative arguments between you and your opponents makes it so much easier to evaluate without intervening (using personal biases) and I will like you a lot more if you do it. If I don't know what's a voter or what's my top priority then evaluating gets messy and you get to deal with a sad judge (there's not really an impact to the round but do you really want to make your judge sad?)

- I have more case prefs in the Parli notes below, feel free to check them out and see what applies.

* apparently theory is a thing in PF. Check out the parli notes to see more specifics, basically I will vote on whatever you read (though I might be slightly biased against shells like spec & no neg fiat). Theory at this level should be read sparingly, especially when events like novice PF are so focused on having well-prepped case-level arguments.

PF & LD

I think there's a pretty good chance that I'll be judging more than parli for upcoming tournaments, so if you're curious:

• As a parli debater, I don't usually view warrants as a top priority but I know it's different for other events. I won't be great about flowing specific warrants – I will try – but if you want me to look to a specific piece of evidence please highlight it and emphasize the key parts for me, don't just blip them in and extend in your final speech (I may miss it on my flow and think it's a new point). I probably won't call cards unless prompted, so be prepared to call out your opponents if you think their stats are sketchy. If I do find out you've made up warrants you will be docked speaks and this will definitely affect the strength of your case.
• If you read a value, tell me why I should evaluate the round under that criterion and then tell me why you win under it – I can't vote for a team just because they have an uncontested value criterion if their case doesn't apply.
• Please time your own/your opponent's cross, prep & speech times, you can hold up your stopwatch to the camera or send a message to chat if your opponent is going way over time, if they're past the grace period I will stop them. I may keep a timer, but I'm not super consistent about that.

Parli General Notes

[this is tech stuff]: I default to K > Theory > Case, but you can definitely convince me otherwise. feel free to ask me specifics but I mean if you're going to go for layering then you should really just tell me how to layer and I will buy whatever you say unless your opponents contest it.

• please layer the IVIs for me, and I'm not a huge fan of friv IVIs :). do they come before theory, and why? etc.

I will try to be as unbiased as possible, but I'm also aware that I am a human with unconscious biases and will do my best to check that. Unless something is blatantly offensive I will buy any conceded arguments but please do not say an argument has been conceded when it hasn't.

If your opponents ask 2 or more POIs, please take at least 1 unless there's flex time. If you don't I definitely won't buy must ask questions counterinterps and I will probably drop you by like 0.5 speaks.

I will do my best to protect the flow but I recommend that you call the POO just to make sure I catch it. I buy golden turns and am not a fan of shadow extensions (I probably won't strike it from the flow, but I will give it less weight).

I'm familiar with debate jargon, but your opponents might not be. Again, just be nice.

Case

I love a nice clean case debate :) Signposting makes me really happy and makes it easier for me to flow. Have clear and organized uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts, that's all I ask. I think I tend to vote for the team that has the clearest & strongest link story and arguments for why their impacts outweigh. I will do my best not to intervene, I buy anything if it goes uncontested, but if your link is sketchy then my internal biases may take over.

I've said this earlier on but I love weighing. Just tell me what to do, it makes it so much easier to vote. If the other team does any weighing or framing, contest that. Because then I have 2 weighing claims and it's all a big mess again and now I'm sad. On that issue, do engage with your opponents. Your case comes first, but that doesn't mean you can have no refutations. Then, especially without those weighing claims, the flow gets really messy, I'm sad, and I will likely have to intervene (use my biases on which argument comes first) and make a decision you might not like.

IMO case debate is pretty straightforward so just debate how you usually do and I'll give you feedback where I can. Try to keep a good balance of offense and defense when making responses.

Counterplans: I love these, I view them as an opportunity cost to the aff. Read whatever you want, agent, delay, process, PIC, whatever, but be ready to face theory if you do. Please have solvency, I have a high threshold for what it means to be mutually exclusive so you'll definitely need a DA if you want to compete via net benefits (I don't buy counterplans along the lines of "don't do the aff, instead do this completely unrelated thing that could be done in the same world as the aff plan" unless the aff totally drops it/doesn't perm it). I buy the perm as a test of competition, but again, explain to me why there are more net benefits to the perm than just the CP. I don't have an opinion on condo, so I could be convinced either way if a condo shell is read.

Theory

I prefer interp -> violation -> standards -> voters. You do you but it'll make it easier for me to flow and evaluate if it's read this way. I default to competing interps over reasonability, but you can easily change my mind – also, I won't do anything with the shell unless you tell me drop debater/argument and whether or not it's a priori/whatever order you want the debate to be evaluated on.

Please be nice to novices who have not learned theory yet! I get that it's another way for you to win, but again, debate is supposed to be educational and I will like you more if you try to create a positive, encouraging community for everyone. This doesn't mean you can't read theory, but just be patient with your opponents and be ready to explain if they ask any POIs.

I would prefer that you keep the debate educational, especially at the novice level – ie avoid frivolous T if possible. If your opponents are cool with it, though, I think funny T is funny.

Similar to impacts, do weighing where you can. What voter am I prioritizing? How do you win on that voter? Which standard is most important?

Ks

I buy anything. Again, BE NICE. Ks are confusing to your opponents and to me. Explain clearly for everyone's sake and be patient (though I will be understanding if you're rushing to finish reading your K). I've read lit for setcol and queer theory + debated some cap and funky K affs, so I will probably be able to understand your K but I'm probably not going to know the context for any of your warrants – if you're going for one, explain it to me please.

Against Ks, I'm very open to hearing theory arguments and layering arguments, but I probably have a softer spot for debaters that engage with the layer of the K and come up with innovative responses rather than generic arguments.

Other

I don't know any tricks or phil arguments, but as always, I'm happy to evaluate them as long as they are explained well.

Mistakes happen! I've definitely read some sketchy arguments that I myself didn't particularly appreciate, and will not look down on you for reading a sketchy argument. Your opponents are probably going to have good refutations so just look at this as another learning experience and opportunity to improve. Especially if you're a novice, it's the prime time to make mistakes, have terrible prep and 2 minute speeches, make epic fails (all of which I've done), as long as you take what you've learned and use it to improve :)

If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading my paradigm. Know that I am so proud of you for having the confidence to go up, compete, and speak in front of practical strangers for however long your event lasts. Debating and competing in speech is scary, I've been there and still am there most of the time. While I will be judging you in terms of who wins, know I will not be judging you as a person based on how good of a debater you are. I can't wait to see you grow and become the scariest competitors on the circuit!

I am a civil litigation attorney who appeared in state and federal courts for over 20 years, and have sat as an arbitrator, judge pro tempore or settlement master for Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. I did not participate in debate when I was in school but believe I can be a fair and impartial judge. I have judged a few rounds of parliamentary debate since 2021.

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