Hey guys I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 1 year.

Please speak and a decent pace and make sure your arguments have been made clear. If you speak to fast or not clearly, It will be much harder for me to cast a ballot in your favor. Signposting is extremely important and helps me understand the points you are addressing. I will be casting my ballot based on who is more clear, have a clear flow of thoughts and a proper link chain to follow with. Make sure to have good, relative, and reliable evidence.

Brett Boelkens

Background

LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)

LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)

Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)

Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)

TLDR

-Put me (brettboelkens@gmail.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)

-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool

-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.

-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space

-Signpost please

-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.

-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.

-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be

-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool

-Write prep down on Zoom chat

-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview

-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded

-Quote I stole from Gomez:

I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.

-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something

-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”

-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.

Disadvantages

-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense

-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp

-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more

Counterplans

-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun

-Its probably best to functional and textual competition

-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato

-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate

-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to

Kritiks

-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me

-Ks should have specific links to the aff

-Links of omission aren’t a thing

-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery

Theory / T

-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.

- Current thoughts on common theory issues

-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable

-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's

-Condo good

-PICS good

-International fiat good

-Consult Process CP bad

-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations

-PIKS bad

-Word PIKS bad

-RVIs bad

-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on

-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful

CX Specific Notes

-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that

-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate

LD Specific Notes

-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.

-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments

-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified

-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please

-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR

-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge

-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.

-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”

This is my first year judging and I have only judged a few online tournaments at this point. As a judge, I appreciate a clear and concise delivery that emphasizes stronger points rather than a multitude of weaker points. I look for debaters who conduct themselves respectfully and clearly throughout the debate. I also keep an eye out for how debaters address points from their opponent too.

First time parent judge. Please keep track of your and your opponents speech time as I will not be checking it. Please speak slow and clear, and try not to use too much jargon. No spreading, speak well, and paint a good picture/argument

I will vote for arguments in this order:

C>T>K

Just go with your preparation and keep it relevant to your topic and do your best. You'll be judged by each of the judging criteria outlined for each event. I'm given equal weights for each criteria at this time (may do weighting in near future).  

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year judging in policy, PF, and LD events. Please do not spread or speak super fast: If I cannot understand you and follow your flow, I will not be able to judge you.

I am a scientist by training so I am mostly looking for the logic connecting the evidence with the statement, and if the opposing side was able to identify the conflict of evidence either existing in assumption and study methodology. I do not judge the credibility of the evidence by its author or organization but more on what the opposing team picks up to clash and answers to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

Hi! I'm Cassia. I'm a current HS junior and a parli debater on the norcal circuit for Silicon Valley International and MVLA. In the past I've debated for Nueva, Aragon, and Juniper. I've been involved in debate for over 4 years now. My background is primarily in west coast parli, but I also competed in PF at the novice level back in the day. I've coached novices for over a year in parli, and also some other events for a hot second. My pronouns are she/her. If you want my email for questions, ask me in-round or in-person.

Don't shake my hand and please try to not like aggressively make eye contact or stare at me. I will probably like you more as a person out of round if you don't do these things. I'm also noise sensitive, especially with regards to loud noises/shouting, so being sensitive to that would be cool. Whispering and tag teaming and all of that is fine, just not the "I'm bigger than you raaa"-speak.

If I have nothing for your event, sorry (insert shrug emoji. they don't seem to work on here, so). Just get the relevant stuff from the parli things and assume that I literally don't care about who wrote your card unless they're a nazi, only whether it makes sense. On the topic of nazis, don't be one of those regardless of your event please thanks.

VARSITY PARLI

• I'm tech>truth. What this means is that I will vote on any argument, even if I know it to be false. What this does not mean is that I will vote for non-implicated blips.
  
  

• I default to layering pre-fiat impacts > post-fiat impacts.
  
  

• Extend it to your final speech if you want to weigh it.
  
  

• I don't protect the flow. Call the POO or it’ll be evaluated.
  
  

• That said, shadow extensions are new args to me. Call the POO on them.
  
  

• Tag teaming is fine.
  
  

• I flow POI answers, but not questions. POI questions are not arguments.
  
  

• Presumption is meh. I default to neg, unless a fiated advocacy is read by the neg, in which case I presume aff.
  
  

• Accessibility is important, and should be protected. I will do so with my ballot in the case of in-round violence.
  
  

• That said, speed is cool as long as you don’t spread your opponents out. I can keep up with faster parli speeds, but not like circuit LD-level spreading. I’ll call slow or clear. You should too.
  
  

• 29 for winners, 28 for losers, 25 if you’re violent (see below for some specific things)
  
  

• 30 speaks for meme positions (summon lawyers, replace the entire navy with black people) and extend them through
  
  

• I’ll probably be timing you and I stop flowing after time.
  
  

• Don’t steal prep
  
  

If you think that the res is violent, I'm super fine judging a round with a different res. I've done this before and it upsets tab a lot less than the double bye thing, it seems. If y'all want a double bye, I will advocate for you to the tournament (tab will hate me probably but I'm not down to force debaters into bad situations. i've been there.). I'm also fine flipping a coin. I've been in situations where I've been told by tab that it's totally cool to have to defend people who want me dead, and I don't want to put you in those situations. Just let me know and I'll see what I can do.

TLDR for the rest: Cool Original K > Boring Backfile K > Theory > Tech Case > Tricks >>> Lay Case.

Things that are violent (not an exhaustive list):

• Skep
  
  

• Impact turning any -ism.
  
  

• Making claims that devalue people (“we need to get the homeless ppl off of the streets cuz they reduce property values”)
  
  

• Making reductive weighing claims that flat out lie about the magnitude of oppression (“Amerika isn’t a racist country”)
  
  

• Appropriative things like daoism or inshallah theory
  
  

• Misgendering/deadnaming people
  
  

K

Pleeeaaase run your wacky Ks in front of me. I've ran some fun Ks as a competitor, and I want to keep kritikal debate in parli alive. Performances and aff Ks are cool. The lit bases I'm most well-versed in, though don't be dissuaded from running other Ks, are queer theory, disability theory, critical mad studies, marxism, mlm, anthro, some anarchisms, and baudrillard/semiocap.

There are a few things that I don't want people to run in front of me: anything appropriative (daoism, etc), cishet white feminism, etc.

Access is cool. I tend to believe that Ks do much more good than harm, but don't spread your opponents out. Take POIs. All of that.

Theory

Theory is cool.

Defaults:

• Competing interps > reasonability
  
  

• Drop the argument unless the violation is inseparable from the performance of the violating team, in which case I'll drop the debater.
  
  

• No RVIs
  
  

• Nothing is a voter unless you warrant it being a voter
  
  

I have a very high threshold for T-FW or USFG. Ethan Park (hi ethan!!) tells me that it isn't clear what this means, so I'll clarify. If you run these things in front of me, expect me to be automatically somewhat suspicious of claims like truth testing skews eval or no crossapps that basically aim to frame out the K. I won't just vote against these claims if they're warranted, but don't undercover them if you want me to actually vote on them. There you go, Ethan.

Case

• Trichot isn't real.
  
  

• Run whatever you want.
  
  

• I don’t default to a framework
  
  

• Do metaweighing; I don’t automatically buy magnitude>whatever else
  
  

• TERMINALIZE
  
  
  

• That said, if you say we do magnitude and it comes first and they say nothing I probably vote for you
  
  

• perms are tests of competition, not advocacies.
  
  

• Dedev will make me happy, since I don't see it very often. Also, cool frameworks are cool. Even structural harm framing is good enough to make me not as bored.
  
  

• Also, memes. Shaur’s summon a million lawyers CP comes to mind. That sorta CP will get you 30 speaks
  
  

If you want like some basic things that I like in case, read the novice section that I wrote

Tricks

• I’ll vote on tricks
  
  

• Not skep. I’ll drop 25 for skep.
  
  

NOVICE PARLI(this is gonna sound mean but it's mainly because i coach novices and i see the same mistakes a lot. i don't hate you, i promise.)

Have impacts. Have terminalized impacts. Weigh your impacts. The economy is not an impact. Constitutionality is not an impact. Legality is not an impact. Free speech is not an impact. None of these things matter to me unless you tell me why they should. They might be your internal link into a livelihood or death impact (that poverty statistic of taking years off of the lifespan comes to mind). The team that terminalizes in my novice rounds wins most of the time. If you're the only team that terminalizes or weighs, I probably don't even need to look at the flow to vote for you. Absent weighing under a framework, I get forced to intervene. Hoorah! If there's an extinction level impact that gets articulated as such, I'll probably vote on that. If there isn't something of disproportionately high magnitude, I might just vote on who wins the most impacts or strength of link. I don't like doing this. Please don't make me.

Signpost. This goes especially for responses. Tell me what it is that you're responding to and what sheet we're on every time you switch.

Run the perm. That's all, enough said. There is literally no reason not to.

Be rhetorically ethical. I find that novices tend to make problematic claims without thinking. Some things that I might intervene to vote you down for might include (and these are all things that I've seen in either speech or debate) claiming that more homeless people on the street is bad because it drives down property values or that Muslims in India are "butchering" Hindus. All of these things and more will get you a drop 25 at the end of your speech unless you immediately correct them. I also reserve the right to stop the debate if someone in the room has been made to feel uncomfortable/unsafe by in-round rhetoric.

I hate speaker points and I hate them more now than I used to. 28 if you lose, 29 if you win, 30 if you tell me why I should give 30.

Collapse. Just do it™.

SPEECH

I despise judging speech and I'm paradigmatically opposed to how speech is evaluated, partially because of personal experiences. If I'm your speech judge, I'll probably end up ignoring things like eye contact and tone, so just say fun and insightful things. I give max speaks unless someone makes a problematic claim.

Julie, please don't make me judge speech at Keefer next year I'm begging you.

• First time Judge
• No experience with Parli debate
• Appreciates slow, clear talking
• Will judge based on clarity and quality of the speeches
• Signposting greatly appreciated

I am a parent judge, and vote on debate events based on clarity of the argument supported by evidence, examples. Quality wins over quantity. Be respectful to the other speakers. I judge speech events based on good structure identifying the problem and solution with examples and conviction on both. Additionally looking at impact of the speech with poise, vocal variety and strong delivery with effective body movement.

For me arguments are most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of clarity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. I tend to frame it like this: I prefer articulation over information. I've heard many brilliant cases made that unfortunately ended up going over my head because they were delivered at a dizzying pace. The flows that tend to be the most effective are slightly more measured.

For me, ideas and concepts that can be explained to anyone who just happens to take an interest are more effective, in my experience, than overly technical language or abstruse rattling off of sheer data. As a judge, I value transparency and accessibility above anything else. This informs my judicial philosophy and shapes my attitude towards what makes for an effective debate.

Hi, I am a new parent judge and excited to be here. I weigh on impacts. Please make your arguments clearly. Have fun in the process! Thank you.

Hi debaters!

This is my first year judging, and I'm excited to see your skills! Being a parent of a high schooler myself, I know how much work goes into debate. Just remember to be respectful to everyone involved, that's most important.

When it comes to judging, I care most about the logic behind your arguments, not how many fancy words you use. Strong evidence and clear facts matter more than just throwing out references. Of course, speak clearly so I can follow your points easily, but I won't be counting how fast you talk or how dramatic your hand gestures are.

Lastly, have fun and enjoy the event.

I am Zixia Jiang, a parent judge.

• I will try to avoid personal biases or pre-existing knowledge to influence my decisions.
• Please use signposting to state your points.
• Please speak slowly and clearly. Avoid rapid speech (spreading) and minimize the use of debate jargon. Explain any specific terms in plain English.
• I will be taking notes during each speech to keep track of the key arguments and rebuttals.
• In your final speeches, provide a concise summary of the main points you want me to consider when making my decision.
• Be courteous and respectful to each other. Remember, you're here to help each other improve.

Whoever wins this round is whoever has the best argument.

TRUTH > tech

I'm a parent judge, so please no crazy techy Ks or Theory.

Theory: That being said, if an argument is extratopical, go for it and run extratopicality. Don't default to theory every single round, but use only it if it's relevant. If it's a complicated sort of theory, I probably haven't heard of it and might not understand it.

Kritiks: I find most of them stupid. Only run them if you have good links.

The better the argument, the more likely you're gonna win a round.

Convince me through strong signposting, a clear argument, and clear refutations. I love clear, numbered voting issues. Stats are good. If I find out stats are fabricated though, I will vote against you.

No abusive plans, CPs, or defintions. Win a round fair and square. Good luck.

✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨

Hello! My name is Satish Kumar and I am a first-time parent judge. I wanted to share what I will be looking for in a winning case/argument and some other useful things that you might want to know beforehand.

• I will not be using K or Theory to judge a round or place theory priority first. This is my first time so I would like a more case argument focused on debate and clashes rather than procedural arguments.
• PLEASE! SIGNPOST!!! I can not stress this enough. I am a first-time parent judge so I need to know what you are talking about. I will be flowing the main contentions and rebuttals to those, but it is your responsibility to highlight the top of the case like definitions, actor, plan, and solvency. If I do not find it in the Gov speech, I will look towards the Opp speech to provide it for me. Please SIGNPOST CONTENTIONS such as tagline and what your sub-points are and evidence.
• I will be making sure that I will not mix my knowledge of things while judging this round. I will not challenge any statements any side makes during my evaluation unless the opposing team refutes that statement. I will judge competing definitions/actors based on FAIRNESS. Whichever one feels more fair towards both sides of the debate is what I will pick, so if you have a problem with the opposing side's definition, please explain what yours is and why it is fair.
• Please do not use excessive jargon because it will only make it harder for me to understand you. I will favor whichever side can explain their contentions and logic in the simplest way possible. Also I will not be monitoring the round to see whether the teams are in line with the rules and not breaking them, so it is your responsibility to catch your opponent's mistakes if they are breaking the rules such as introducing new arguments, etc. Do not talk fast. I will judge debate rounds primarily based on who has the better argument.

Overall, have fun!

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.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

I am a parent judge.

Common sense will be my paradigm as below.

• Be nice to opponents.
• Prepare reasonable back data to enforce your opinion.
• Listen carefully about opponent's opinion and response with respect.
• Make stress on own's opinion. Imperative that key points are summarized.

In addition, based on Parliamentary Debate rule,

I will choose better team through these

- subjective, but I consider quality of argumentation, rhetorical skill, and wit.

- I will not use my own biases to taint your decision.

- I evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs.

- I will not make my decision ON ARGUMENTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THE ROUND.

- I will not use ANY NEW ARGUMENTS BROUGHT UP DURING THE REBUTTALS.

I enjoy logical argumentation and reasoning. There is no need to impress me with complicated jargon, as they do not add to your argument. I also do not enjoy speed debating and spreading, where some debators try to say things as fast as possible, as that is not reflected in our real world of reasoning.

I am a new judge and thus would like clear, effective signposting. Do not use overly complicated jargon and make sure your speaking is strong. Speaking ability and emotion is important as well.

Ok, I guess it is customary to first tell you at least a bit about myself. When my home needed repairs, I took a class at a community college. I learned to do my own wiring, plumbing and basic building. That wasn't my vocation, that was for fun,

STRUCTURE/ FORMAT: Follow the rules and tenants of the type of debate you are in. You have a topic, do not lose sight of that topic. Each team must have a framework that supports their position all on its own. Remember rules regarding introducing new arguments, cross-ex, ext. specific to your debates. These are not issues I should have to remind you of, but I will deduct points for.

CONTENT: Then, they can also refute the other side's contentions as well, but I don't like seeing a team wasting time pouring over their notes trying to find exact quotes to refute. Use your time wisely, make sure your contentions alone support your statements, then, you can refute your opponent. Make sure and look at the big picture, look back at your topic over and over, don't get tunnel vision on a single idea.

SUMMARY:I judge the totality of the debate, the quality of the issues presented, and who argued their position best.

Hi!

I am a parent judge who has judged parli debate for 6 years.

- Please make your arguments clear/logical.

- Use strong evidence and clearly explain your impacts. I highly take evidence and impacts into account, so this could really win you my vote!

- Be organized. Signpost! It is really helpful for me to flow your arguments if you tell me where you are on the flow. Off time roadmaps are also always helpful.

- No spreading. I need to be able to understand you if I am going to flow your arguments. I think speaking too fast is not only hard for me to understand but also completely unfair to your opponents who may have difficulty following your case as well.

- No theory, K, or other advanced debate strategies. I am not experienced in specific debate rules and I highly lean towards on case debate! If you run theory or K, I will still try and flow it but be warned that you will most likely lose the round.

- Please be respectful of your opponents.

Good Luck!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Welcome! I hope your soul is doing well! Debate is a beautiful thing! I'm so excited to hear all the cool things you come up with!

MOST IMPORTANT: this is high school debate (maybe middle school). your wins and losses do not matter. the only thing that matters is learning and enjoying yourself. so be RESPECTFUL. don't be exclusionary. learn as much as you can. have fun!!!!

TLDR: weigh, good strategy, run what you want, be inclusive, be kind

Me: 4 years of HS parli for Bishop O'Dowd (NPDI& stanford sems, TOC octos), on my 5th year of coaching/teaching (camp, MVLA, Menlo School), considered myself a flay (comfortable w parents and experienced judges) debater. Medium-flow judge? (I guess you can decide that for yourself)

Case (Contentions, a plan, a counter plan... not Kritiks or Theory): I love a good case debate. your links are prob the weakest part of your case, so bolster those a bunch. terminalize impacts (why do I care about the economy or climate change? prob bc they relate to death and dehumanization). Ok with tricky CPs if you know your opponents and know they can engage, be prepared for the theory debate. If you don't weigh your impacts (probability, timeframe, magnitude, reversibility) I will cry. and I'm an ugly crier

Theory (what you run to argue about the rules of debate, trying to stop debaters from being unfair in rounds... or to be silly) : i love theory debates. If you're running theory and the other team doesn't know what theory is, EXPLAIN IT!! I love when teams help other teams learn!

Ks (Kritiks!): I am in no way a K debater's dream judge, but I do love hearing them! I 200% have not read your lit, so EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. If your opponent is confused you better be answering a bunch of questions. try to make your K accessible.

Tricks: If a 5 year old can't understand your argument, I won't either. WTF is a grain of sand. I don't know. People have spent hours trying to explain this stuff to me and I STILL don't get it, so you prob won't be able to make it make sense in 8 mins. But good luck, you do you

Style: do whatever makes you most comfortable. stand up, sit down, do a little dance, take your shoes off. I don't care. My speaks are on strategic moves, fun arguments (I like some passion too). Strategy is VERY important and is probably the fastest way to my ballot- by the 2nd constructive, you should have a clear story/ start weighing. PLEASE signpost (number things, tell me when you're moving on to the next advantage). I don't go below 28 unless you intentionally spread someone out of the round or say something offensive. I <3 jokes

Speed: Medium speed is fine. Don't spread (when ppl talk SUPER fast), but you can talk pretty fast. If I can't understand you I will yell clear/slow and if you don't I will put my pen down/ stop typing. Go at a speed that makes the round accessible to everyone (even if that's slower than your ideal). If someone yells slow and you don't slow down I will be very annoyed. On that note- advocate for yourself! ask your opponents to slow down! I vote very quickly on justified speed theory (what you run when someone has spoken so quickly that you're shut out of the round).

Call the POO! (I will do my best to protect on my own but if it's sketchy I prefer you call it)

If you have debate anxiety or are stressed, LET ME KNOW! I've been there! the panic attacks? Nausea? want to cry? You're still an amazing debater (I was too!). we can spend a min or two before the round talking about why learning is most important, maybe doing some breathing, mini dance party if that will help you. You deserve to be in this round as much as anyone else does!

I AM SO GLAD YOU ARE HERE! I AM SO GLAD YOU DO DEBATE!! YOU'RE GONNA DO GREAT AND LEARN SO MUCH!!

in the words of the wonderful Riley Shahar -"If the round, or this space, is inaccessible for you for any reason at any point, please let me know and I will do whatever possible to help."

I tried my best to explain everything, but if you don't know one of the terms in this paradigm, shoot me an email! Parli jargon is weird and I know it can feel hard to ask what things mean! RFD? POI? RVI? MOI? TTYLXOX? what's with all these acronyms?!? (cc your partner or another adult and include a link to your favorite cat video)! aldenor@stanford.edu

I am a parent judge with experience judging PF for the past two years. I have very basic knowledge on this topic. Please be respectful.

I am a native speaker of French, I like it when participants strive for clarity over speed, and substance over jargon.

Therefore, I propose a paradigm grounded in the following principles:

• Introduction and Taglines: Let's begin with introductions, establishing yourselves and your perspectives.
• Be yourself, be proud of your opinions, don´t hesitate to ask questions or mention fun facts
• My legal background has instilled in me the value of precision and structure.
• Respectful Discourse: Let's engage in respectful exchanges, acknowledging opposing viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks.Remember,we are all here to learn and grow,not to belittle or demean.
• As a parent judge, I will evaluate your performance withfairness and empathy.
• As a French, I like crepes and baguettes a lot, but I love pancakes maybe as much
• Merci et bonne chance!

Hello all-

Debate is fun lol read my paradigm if you want.

Background: Done parli for 2 years now, sophomore @Menlo-Atherton. Debated with the one and only!

TL;DR: I hate judging so please make it fun I beg you. Crazy T hack please signpost

GIVE TEXT OF ALL YOUR ALTS/INTERPS/PLANS. TEXTS ARE BINDING. BEGIN EVERY SPEECH WITH AN ORDER.

Speed: 150 wpm - 250 wpm is ideal but don't go above. Fav type of debate will be like 4 mins of tech case and 2 t shells lol.

Prefs

1) Theory/T/Tricks in shell form (plz be creative). No defaults. RVIs, OCIs, and metatheory are cool. Definitely enjoy a good friv shell.

2) Tech case

3) Paragraph theory

4) Ks: Fun sometimes lol. Rejection is never an alt. Receptive to T-USFG against the aff. Against neg Ks can definitely read policymaking > Ks, Ks bad, state inevitable, etc. as long as you explain it. Whoever's against the K should ask a lot of POIs.

100) Lay case: East coast parli is fun sometimes but I do not want to judge that round lol plz whatever you do spice it up

Please read layering on separate sheets

Speaks: I default to 27.5

• instant 30 if you run/beat friv
• every quality and sensical chess grandmaster reference +0.5
• "try or die" -0.5
• Saying "contention" in a policy round -0.5 (once only loll)
• no speak change if u read a K, still gotta do it wellll
• also this goes without saying: If your opponents say slow, please do as needed. Spreading T on brand new teams might get you the win but I will drop ur speaks completely

Good luck to both teams and have some fun lol please don't be intimidated by this paradigm
Shout out to allegra for revolutionizing the parli circuit!! ????️????️????️????️????️

Hi Folks - I am a new parent Judge. Please make your arguments clearly and at decent pace for me a make a proper judgement.

Hello everyone,

I am a parent judge who has judged a number of tournaments over the last year. Here are a few of my tournament do's and don'ts.

1. Truth> Tech. I value logical linking and clear explanation over technical debate. I find that tech is often used to skew participants out of the round, and as a judge, I find it someone difficult to follow. With that being said, I will take theory into account if there is a legitimate abuse, and if I can understand what is being conveyed (basically, you can make your point surrounding the abuse clear without the overuse of jargon). I will never layer tech first unless there is a very very clear reason why articulated by the side that is running it.
2. I am not a huge fan of excessive jargon. I prefer not to have to decode another language while you're speaking. I am familiar with many of the basic terms, but at a point, it detriments your point and gets lost on me.
3. Weigh, weigh, weigh, and terminalize. When I look to my flow at the end of the round, I tend to look at impacts first, and then logical linking. You have to tell me why your arguments matter, otherwise they are just words that you're saying.
4. Please be kind to each other!

Hi!! My name is Charlotte and I'm a junior debating on Nueva's parli team. Please make sure you signpost where you are on the flow and make sure to have clear impacts. Also it would make my job a lot easier if you do your best to tell a clear story in the LOR/PMR with impact weighing!! I will vote based on arguments, not the way you speak.

What I think makes for a great debate: thorough responses on the opposing team's case, clear collapse (choosing a few arguments that you think you're winning on and then proving you win the round because of that in the last speech), well structured contentions, overviews, great evidence, and, (#1 tip:) a clear narrative/story for your side.

but above all: be inclusive and have fun!!!!! good luck!!

Dear Participants,

Welcome to the debate round. I am looking forward to knowing your thoughts by conscientiously listening to your viewpoints on the topic under discussion. I have a fair experience in judging debate rounds and am a parent judge as well.

Please, try to talk at a voice level respecting the audience and allotted time. Also, stay relaxed and calm which will help you be more productive in the rounds. I am confident you will do your best.

Good Luck,

Taruna

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Oakwood School

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do, and for how many years?

Not in debate but I grew up in Illinois and competed in the IHSA division all four years in HI and HDA ( it's duo but only humorous pieces) for 4 years and placed 3rd at Regionals in HI and was a finalist in HDA my junior year and 4th at Regionals in HI and HDA my senior year and was a Sectional finalist in both events but missed going to state by one point in each event from a judge who told us "don't break the fourth wall" when giving our introductions so I promise to be an amazing judge for you (outta spite for what that parent judge did to us lol) if I am judging any interp or duo rounds.

As far as debate goes I got familiar with debate through my previous employment with Enreach Education in Shanghai, China, and have been coaching debate for the past year.

How often do you judge debate? Almost every tournament I have students entered in.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Yes, I will use a hand motion that is slow and smooth to signal to speak slower/clearer

Evaluating the Round

1. How do you evaluate framework in the round? I’m looking for if they directly addressed the topic, understood the basic issue, and clearly explained their position

2. Do you expect to see a value and a value criterion? Yes

3. What are your thoughts on reading plan texts, counterplans, or kritiks in LD? I think it’s okay.

4. What is most important to you when you decide who wins? What team was overall more prepared for this debate

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

I’m there to see you do your best so put your best foot forward. This is your time to shine and show me that you have put in the work and know your facts/framework/contentions. I enjoy humorous but not snarky responses.

If I am judging Parli I am not the biggest fan of tag teaming. You should not have to rely on your partner feeding you what to say verbally when you are speaking. Be confident yourself! Passing notes to help a struggling partner is fine but when it comes to tag teaming you should be able to state your arguments and rebuttals in your own words so I am most likely going to choose whatever team has a more even balance of stronger speakers instead of a team with one strong person carrying the debate.

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

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

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

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

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framework

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

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

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

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

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

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

Speaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Points of Information/Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge, and will ignore theory during debate.

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

I am a parent judge. hungfw@yahoo.com

Please don't speak too fast and don't have any complicated debate jargon that is not explained.

Good luck!

Hi Debaters,

Here are a few helpful tips to help you understand my preferences as a judge. I’m relatively new to judging, however, I do have a Law Degree and have plenty of debating experience.

1) SLOW DOWN..BE ORGANIZED. I'm very sensitive to "Spreading". If you throw a lot at me, it'll just get lost in the noise. I won't digest your points, and you'll hurt your credibility with me. Do your best to offer your arguments in structured and logical formats. If your argument will contain more than one element, try to preface your comments by indicating there are multiple items you want to speak to, then follow up with a structured approach to addressing them in order. (For example, "I believe there are 3 main arguments in favor of this approach. First,..., Second,..., Third...)

2) Speak clearly and confidently. Try to avoid "Um" and "Ah" as fillers between pauses. If you need time to think, let yourself take a small moment/pause in between statements to gather your words. This will add gravitas to your presence.

3) The most effective debate performances are the ones who don't shy away from the opposing arguments. If the opposition has raised points, be sure you capture them and address them when it's your turn to speak. The more comprehensively you counter all claims, the stronger your debate will be perceived.

4) Remember to always remain professional and courteous. At times arguments can get passionate, but always avoid personal attacks, or making statements that demean anyone's character, intelligence, or motives.

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 debated policy for three years in high school. I am a fan of analytical arguments, and like when debaters connect their arguments.

I am a parent judge with some speech and debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.

3rd year flay parent judge