I try not to intervene on the flow. I won't fact check unless requested. Cool with off time roadmaps and tag teaming. Call as many PoOs as you want but don't be mean.

If you're rude, mean or disorganized you will lose speaker points. If you're oppressive (ableist, racist, homophobic, etc) you will lose the round.

I am a flay judge. I prefer you signpost your arguments and please do not run any K's, theory, or topicalities. Do not spread through your rounds. Please structure your arguments to the best of your ability.

I have been coaching forensics since 2001, leading programs in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and all Individual Events. I am now the Founder and Executive Director of The Practice Space, a non-profit dedicated to elevating underrepresented voices through public speaking programs, curriculum, and coaching. I also coach debate coaches and have started 5 different forensics programs. In high school, I competed on the national circuit in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, going to elimination rounds at many major tournaments, including State Championships, Stanford Round Robin, Glenbrooks, UC Berkeley, Emory, and winning MLK. I also went to State Finals and Nationals in Individual Events (Dramatic Interpretation and Duo Interpretation).

The following refers to all forms of debate:

As a judge, I believe that speech and debate should be about communication and persuasion. While I can handle speed and know the jargon, debate should ultimately be about making the right choices in the round and giving strong explanations. I flow well and am okay with kritiks and topicality (although not enamored with it). Don’t let speed and jargon get in the way of clear communication. It’s not about winning every argument, but choosing the right ones by identifying the right clash, weighing the arguments, and concluding with a clear and persuasive story of the round. I ultimately judge rounds based on standards.

To me, the final speeches are the most important. Be clear about the standard for the round and don’t forget to impact well. I hate off-time roadmaps and starting off rounds with “time starts now”. Balance defense with offense and paint the picture of your side’s world. Do NOT be rude! I do not vote for people who are rude. If you are on the negative, make sure you leave enough time for clear voting issues in your last speech and don’t spend the whole time on line-by-line. The final affirmative speech should not contain line-by-line.

I was once a policy debater so there is a reasonable chance that I will keep up on my flow. If I don't, that means there is a good chance you are talking like a policy debater yourself (or like an auctioneer, and I won't feel so bad if I miss something).

I will go where you take me. I will rely on your arguments rather than my own domain knowledge.

I do appreciate when debaters spell it out for me, not just why you should win the argument but how that argument should contribute to the decision. I look for clear links and impacts for the pivotal arguments. I understand that jargon is useful shorthand, but I will understand you better if the jargon does not become excessive.

I will tolerate kritiks but set a high bar for arguments that do not attempt to relate to the resolution, or that could be used regardless of the topic at hand (i.e. meta-arguments like that debate is pointless because we live in a flawed society). I appreciate clash delivered with a level of sportsmanship and manners.

I am a parent judge. I have judged only a couple of tournaments. Please avoid speed and jargon, and explain your arguments clearly.

I'm a parent judge and have only judged in a few tournaments. My background is in mathematics, so I appreciate well constructed and logically presented arguments, and clear explanations (e.g. of why your argument is best during rebuttal). I am not enthused by jargon, dubious statistics, or excessive speed.

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

Background

I've debated Lincoln Douglas for two years, with success varying from winning lay tournaments to breaking at bid level tournaments. As a junior and senior I debated in Policy breaking at multiple bid level tournaments. My focus in policy was on critical philosophy, particularly concerning ableism and the prison industrial complex. I am currently a student at the University of California Berkeley where I major in history and legal studies.

Policy Paradigm

1. On Spreading and Slow Rounds. It's been a minute since I've competed, and thus my ear for spreading is not as great as it once was. Please be clear when listing tagline and citations, and demarcate clearly where one argument ends and another begins. I will say "clear" or "slow" if I feel you are just not clear enough. That said spreading isn't bad, it's not overly difficult to listen to, it just needs to be annunciated to the best of your degree.

If one team requests a slow round, that request will be granted. I spread and competed at the high school level but I firmly believe debate should be accessible, especially for people with disabilities and the best debaters can win spreading or not.

2. On Ks. I really like critiques, when I debated most of my focus was on identity critiques (critical disability studies mostly, but have experience with Wilderson, fem, cap). My threshold for Ks like Baudrillard is incredibly high, meaning that if your K relies on highly complex ideas and terminology to which I'm not familiar with, it must be near perfect to receive my ballot. Don't assume I know your literature, please specify, especially when your cards use terms specific to their philosophy or use particular terms of art.

On Policy. While I love Ks, I'm familiar with straight policy analysis. Please impact frame as early as possible in the debate, and make sure you do all the work in 2NRs, 2ARs, don't force me to intervene.

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Speaker points - Signpost well (this is also crucial for your ballot, if I miss a point because you are jumping all over the page thats on you). Condescending Behavior or rude cross examinations will result in severe point loss. Just be nice.

Prep - starts when the flash drive is in the computer, time yourselves. Don't be a dick, and if the times are different by a few seconds it ultimately doesn't matter.

Spread is a cancer on the body of debate which must be excised. If I can’t understand what you are saying, how can I vote for you?

If you run a lot of theory, you need to convince me why I should care - I am not an expert. The last time I took a debate class, you weren't born yet.

Skeptical of Kritik, but if you can persuasively tie to the actual topic, it could work with me.

I want to see engagement and clash more than anything else. This should not be two teams talking about two worlds. To win, you need to address what the other team is saying. This is a simple point, but sometimes overlooked. This happens most frequently when the negative team has a Kritik that they have clearly practised and polished. If you can't relate it persuasively to the actual topic and what your opponents are saying, it's not going to work no matter how smooth your canned speech is.

I strive to be a tabula rasa. If you tell me the moon is made of green cheese, it is, until the other team refutes it. However, the blatantly fabricated statistics in use by some teams are tiresome. Once you get into "pants on fire" territory, I am going to start docking speaker points even if I have to give you the win. FYI, for the team faced with the "pants on fire" argument, you have to point it out to me. It may not take a lot of evidence to refute an argument postualted without warrants, but you still have to call your opponents on it. If you don't, they win the point by default.

I am basically a "flay" judge, meaning I am a lay judge who attempts to keep a flow chart. If you help me by making your arguments easy to flow, you are more likely to win.

Current APDA and BP competitor for UC Berkeley. Previously 4 years experience in high school parliamentary for Foothill Tech high school. President of the Debate Society of Berkeley.

I don't like rules debates. If you unnecessarily contest definitions, it will be represented in my ballot. If you write an abusive case that forces a definitions debate, it will be represented in my ballot.

Generally, I will consider everything in round to be untrue until proven true. Your opponent not responding to a claim does not prove the claim true; claims are only proven true with warrants.

I'm fine with any speed of speaking, but if you're talking truly fast you will have to roadmap well if you want your arguments on my flow.

If you want me to weigh an impact, you have to explain to me why it matters. This might mean explaining to me why something that seems obviously good (i.e. privacy, free speech/choice) is actually inherently good/valuable.

Don't use the final speech to go over your flow. I have my own. Instead, focus on telling me what matters in the round, why it matters, and why your side does it uniquely/better.

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

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

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

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

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

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

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

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

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

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

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

-Weigh standards, voters

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

•Kritik

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

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

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

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

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

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

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

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

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-don't be rude in cross

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

I'm a lay judge who flows on-case arguments. Please avoid running Ts or theory (if you do feel the need, explain and spend time explaining it to me); do not run Kritiks. I have a minor hearing problem (I wear a hearing aid), but please speak loudly and enunciate so I can understand your points. Sign post, and tagline as frequently as possible with case debate, but don't worry about the actual structure. Be courteous to your opponents, and please write the resolution and speakers on the whiteboard if possible.

I am a lay judge who has judged tournaments for almost 5 years.

Kritiks: Please don't run them.

Speed: Don't spread.

Theory: Don't run friv t. Topicality is okay if you explain it well.

Speaks: Speak with clarity, passion, and respect. Structure is very important so make sure to sign post.

POI's: It looks better if you take POI's and answer them well. Try to take and ask at least a few per speech.

POO's: Call them out, but make sure you clearly explain what is new and why it matters. When responding, clearly show me where you said it.

Tag Teaming: Play to your strengths. If you understand something and your partner doesn't or you just want to help them, by all means tag team. Just make sure it's in the spirit of teamwork, not because you don't trust your partner.

Weighing: I value strong last speeches and debaters who can clearly write my ballot for me. Always link back to the criterion.

Be respectful and have fun. Debate is a competition, but make sure you don't take yourself too seriously. Mistakes are okay!

Good luck!

"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.

I am a "lay" judge who has been judging for several years. No spreading. Run theory only when necessary. The clear and powerful presentation of your argument can be as important as its content. Always have a broader awareness of how your points matter. I don't shake hands. Good luck and have fun!

short version: down for almost anyt, b inclusive. if ur racist/sexist/ableist/ all the bad ists ill automatically drop u n tank ur speaks. pls dont treat me like a lay judge it makes it very hard for me to want to vote for u.

Long:

Speed:

im okay with it just slow down and be clear when me/ur opponents ask. -0.5 whenever to speaks when i yell clear and if i cant hear it i wont flow it. im open to arguments against spreading, but they must be clearly structured.

Case:

flow case is my fav kind of debate. i havent been reading the news lately so treat my topic knowledge on the res as non-existent. u can impact every argument to nuc war if u like and ill flow it and treat it as legitimate until the other team responds. please terminalize impacts, if u dont terminalize i wont do it for you unless im forced to do so.

if u straightup lie abt a warrant(make up a study, historical event, statistic) i won't drop u but -0.5 on speaks and ill drop the argument. if u tell me to fact check smt i will.

K:

down on both aff and neg. just explain what ur running bc even if im familiar w smt if u dont explain it i wont do the work for u. also if i dont understand smt i prolly wont vote on it.

if u mo backfill ill b v open to pmr responses

id like debate to b inclusive so just take a lot of q's n stuff so ur opponents get some education even if they dont know what a k is. if u don’t that’s okay but ill prolly b somewhat biased against u subconsciously

k's/lit im familiar with if u care abt that stuff: orientalism, cap, empire, certain forms of dng, puar, nietzsche, colonialism, gbtl, anti-blackness, whiteness, biopower

Theory:

prolly my least fav type of debate. im okay if u run friv theory but ill default to reasonability so make the competing interps argument in voters. if i think ur being friv -0.5 to speaks but ull still pick up if u win the shell. im also not the best at evaluating theory rds so be clear in ur rebuttals to make it easier for me.

Misc:

speaks go like this:

30=winning the tournament

29-29.5 going far in this tournament

28-29 going to break

27-28 avg

26-27 need some work

If u dont call a POO ill count the argument even if its new

my hands r sweaty so just fist bump if u wanna shake

don't make death good/ colonialism good/ racism good / morally reprehensible thing good arguments

Default to K>Theory>Case

Default ROTB is to vote for the team that best deconstructs capitalism so if u don't like that give me another weighing mechanism

if u tag team ill only flow what the speaker is saying and -0.5 every time u do it to speaks

im lazy af and wont do work for u

ill weigh what the voters tell me to weigh. if u don't make ur voter speeches clear then ill be forced to intervene.

I competed in International Extemp in High School, and was a state finalist for the state of Ohio. I have competed in British Parliamentary Debate for the Debate Society of Berkeley for the past four years.

I prefer that debaters engage in the resolution and avoid theoretical or kritical arguments.

PARLI PARADIGM FOR NPDI 2016:

I have judged high school parli before but sparingly. I do not understand how the event is conventionally judged or interpreted. I compete for Berkeley's APDA team and I did Public Forum debate in high school. I am competent at flowing although I cannot flow policy speed or the speed of the fastest circuit LD; if you ask me to do so I will say "clear" if you go too quickly, but without prompting I will remain silent.

I am open to all kinds of arguments; to me, an argument is a claim and a warrant (i.e. a reason why the claim is true). I default to an offense-defense paradigm, so if you want me to evaluate the round in a way other than that tell me to do so and warrant why I should do so. If the round is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm it is of paramount importance that you weigh your arguments and warrant why they are more significant than your opponents' impacts, otherwise I will be deciding without a good justification for either side. I am unfamiliar with Ks in parli but I am open to them (if you explain them well) and I am predisposed to enjoy arguments that deploy an unconventional strategy.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

TLDR: I am a flow judge who will try to give helpful feedback.

How I Make My Decision

I will vote largely based on the final two speeches. I prefer to only vote on arguments whose warrant and impact are in both the summary and the final focus. However, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from the rebuttal to the final focus, however, I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and I am more likely to feel that they are new if they are extended from second rebuttal to second final focus. Second, the first final focus can make some new responses to new arguments made in the second summary but be reasonable about it.

Weigh as much as possible. I flow weighing arguments, and you can and should reference them as cleanly extended weighing analysis if your opponents do not respond to weighing in rebuttal or summary. Try to beyond using weighing buzz words such as magnitude/probability/timeframe and instead really tell me why the resolution is still true or false even if your opponents win all of their arguments.

Argumentation

I try and fail to come into each round as a blank slate, meaning that I try to disregard my biases.

I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

I am probably comfortable with most speeds that will be reached in a Public Forum round, but if you are going too fast I will try to let you know. However, if you go slower I am on balance more likely to vote for you. Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what kind of argument are making, but please try to sound like a human rather than a jargon machine. If it stops being helpful my expression will let you know.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

Evidence

Evidence ethics in Public Forum are awful. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me, and they will lose because of it.

During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you gives me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Although this is thorough it does not mean that I often call for evidence; on the contrary, I set strict guidelines so that I do not call for evidence when it is unreasonable to do so, reducing the probability that I intervene. 

Speaker Points

I will reward debaters for clarity, kindness, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, persuasion, topic knowledge, and genius. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance long after the round, you should teach other students how to do debate right. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- There is a lot of room for improvement. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.  

My Background

I competed in Public Forum for Evanston Township High School, mainly on the national circuit, and I graduated in 2015.

If you have any additional questions feel free to ask. If you have an issue with my decision also please feel free to communicate with me about that after the round.

I am a former high school competitor who will be competing at the college level later this year. I have three years of experience with public forum debate, however, this was while I was in middle school and I have not had any debate experience in the last 4 years. During my time debating in public forum I did make it to Nationals with capital debate. I am currently affiliated with UC Berkeley. In debate rounds I would prefer if debaters would avoid spreading, however, I am not against spreading and will not take away points for it especially if main points are spoken clearly. I am also okay with morally objectionable arguments being run. I prefer arguments that are backed by statistics and other credible sources and would also prefer it if you don’t tell me what to note down. I am ok with running a counter argument however, it must be competitive and I will weigh debates heavily on impact analysis.

I am a parent judge, and although I don't have much experience in debate, I will do my best to flow your arguments.

Please refrain from reading Ks or other abstract arguments, and don't run frivolous theory. If there is actual abuse in the round, make it clear to me what the other team did and why I should vote them down as a result.

The Aff has the burden to clearly state the topic, define the terms of the debate, and any other background information that will be relevant. This is because I will not bring in any preexisting knowledge, or I may not (probably won't) know anything about the topic. I need to understand the topic and the context for your arguments in order to weigh their impacts.

Provide good evidence to back up your claims, and reliable warrants for your evidence. Use clear and reasonable logic to help support your claims. Use terminalized impacts to show me why your points matter and why they outweigh the opposing points.

Signpost your speech very clearly, otherwise I will not be able to follow your speech. When refuting opposing points, go in order and tell me which refutations are for each point. Tagline your advantages/disadvantages so that I can flow them properly.

You're welcome to use parli jargon, but make sure you explain what each term means (just a quick sentence so I know what you're doing).

Speak at a reasonable speed (no spreading), otherwise I won't be able to write everything down. Try your best to fill up the entire time you have. Time yourselves and don't go more than 15 seconds over the limit.

Some other notes:

- Respect everyone in the round and take the debate seriously

- Write the motion and your names (on a whiteboard/blackboard) before the debate begins

- Aff should sit to my left

I like clear and concise arguments. I am a very VERY lay judge. I strictly abide by case debate and look down upon theory and kritiks. If you absolutely must run theory for fairness issues, please don't use the jargon. Try to phrase it under something the average person can understand. I will note vote for friv T. If you run a kritik, I will not be able to understand anything and will vote for the other team. Please speak slowly with fluidity so that I can understand. I have a basic understanding of CPs and perms, but please generalize the argument and again, no jargon please. In addition, do not spread or speak fast or else I will not understand and will doc speaker points.

Please call POO's, but do not overdo it. After 3, just tell me to protect the flow. I will try my best to protect the flow even if you don't call a POO in the case of a new argument, but I might make mistakes, so it's still better for you to call the POO.

If you are experiencing internet issues, that is completely understandable. I will allow for time to be paused momentarily until you can regain a stable connection.

Most importantly, please be respectful within the debate space. I cannot stress this enough. A good debate cannot happen without proper mannerisms. And please, have fun!

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I am a parent who has been judging for several years. Please speak at an ordinary, conversational rate, track your own time, and be sure to tell me your name the first time you speak. I usually don't give feedback in person, but I try to provide detailed written comments.

Summary

I'm a coach that prefers case debate. I'm generally suspicious of all of your claims, so focus on a few arguments where the logic and empirical support all line up.

My Experience

A few years of high school LD and pofo. Five years coaching pofo and parli in the bay area. I’ve judged most styles of debate off and on for over ten years, occasionally at bigger tournaments. I have never been a college debater.

Judging Philosophy

I'm not a blank slate. I speak English and understand many of the shared concepts you need to navigate being an engaged citizen. I read the news and have a decent grip on history. Treat me as an educated adult. Also treat me as someone who has seen enough debate rounds to know that many debaters lie or twist the facts constantly. I will be skeptical of your links and your impacts every step of the way. Make the case for their likelihood. No blippy, jargony taglines where you expect me to fill in what it means. Usually a round comes down to two or three points with me, so quality over quantity should be your mantra. I'm also not an interventionist. I'm here to reward the best debater and won't make arguments on your opponents' behalf. But I have no problem saying that I don't buy an argument, so even when your opponent drops the argument you have to make the case for its likelihood and importance. I am perfectly fine (in fact I encourage) you to dismiss baseless assertions as just that and not spend too much time on them.

Parli-specific Preferences

Please respect the style. Try to make the exchange of ideas work. Parli is not set up for a good spread round; it’s too messy when it’s done. Running arguments in a way that makes it difficult to understand so you can win because your opponents are unable to respond is elitist and antithetical to an activity that should improve communication skills. And prep time is limited, which means a more narrow view of topicality than policy debate (the style) to keep it fair. In practically all cases I'd prefer you just debate the darn topic. No squirrelly definitions that leave no room for the other side.

POIs are meant to be taken in the middle of your speech (I think about 1-2 POIs per constructive is a good norm) and not “saved for the end if you have time.” Also, POO when necessary, but I also see it as my job as judge to keep track of which arguments are new and not vote on them.

Partner Assist

I don’t mind when partners add a quick point either verbally or with paper, but keep it to a minimum. Do not have your partner just repeat what you say for more than a sentence or two.

Counterplans/Perms

I like them both. Tell me if your perm is an advocacy or test. I'm probably more open-minded than most about what counts as a mutually exclusive CP.

Decorum

I like passion, humor, and a no-nonsense style. Thank me once at the end; not every speech. We don’t need to touch hands. Also, read the room: don’t aggressively crush your opponent into oblivion unless they’re willing to do so too. This should be a space for people not trying to verbally body slam each other (and a place where two willing parties can too). Overall, just be polite. This is supposed to be fun.

Kritiks

Philosophy is my lifeblood. I’ve studied it plenty and would rather you not ruin it with your Ks. I can imagine good Ks being run for the right topics, but I’ve definitely never seen them at the high school level. I find them exclusionary and unacademic. However, it’s your debate and if both sides are down to pretend they understand Nietzsche or Foucault or Marx, then fine. But you need to actually explain the theory in your own words and not just with a quick card. However, if talking philosophy actually connects to the topic (instead of avoiding it) then I’m all for it! Again, you need to be able to explain the concept in your own words. I'm also going to be very skeptical of any claim that voting one way or the other will have real world impacts.

Theory

I usually don't vote on theory when the case debate has a clear winner. Sometimes I'll let theory win the round if the case debate is very close. The exception to this is when there's an egregious ground skew, when how they're debating has made things really one-sided. But you need to explain to me the actual arguments or facts that your side should be able to make but can't now because of how they're debating. I think theory arguments can be a reverse voting issue if I hear explanation as to how they are their own kind of abuse.

Overused Words

I'm not sure I know what "dehumanization" or "educationality" really mean anymore. You had better explain it to me.

I have been debating for around 6 years through high-school at various national and international competitions, mostly in the WSDC format, and was a member of the UAE National team for the 2018 World School's Debating Championship in Croatia. Consequently, I have judged my fair share of debates, although this will be my first time judging American Parliamentary style debate. I am now affiliated with UC Berkeley through the Berkeley Debate Society.

I look primarily for clarity of argumentation and favour coherent structure and prudent strategy over stylistic prowess in support of argumentation. I have no preferred speaking styles per se. Any cadence that lends clarity to exposition will be appropriate- please try not to spread (while this is not a hard and fast rule, it will be significantly easier for me to weigh the merits of your argumentation if presented at a modest pace). Likewise, I believe that a few well explicated arguments are superior to a fusillade of incisive but superficially analysed theses.

Your assigned position on the motion will NOT hinder your chances of winning whatsoever. I will vote in favour of the team on the 'morally objectionable' side of the motion if they present a stronger case. In fact, I will favour strategies that take well justified hardline stances on an issue, over those that attempt to tread carefully and compromise on key principles for the sake of political correctness or appealing to the status quo.

I am a ley judge, I do not like theory or kritiks. Please talk slowly and clearly. Have a fun and respectful debate. :-)

TL; DR

I’m open to most arguments as long as they’re not sexist, racist, ableist, etc. Don’t berate your opponents, debate cleanly. Open to T and Ks apart from Give Back the Land and other identity arguments concerning identities you don’t share (you should know why the large percentage of you should not be running this). I’m tabula rasa to an extent; I won’t buy that the sky is green but if you say something like “x country has y policy” and there’s no response on the flow, that’ll fly.

Ask me any other questions you may have before the round! :-)

Long Version:

Background- I’ve done Varsity High School Parli Debate at Evergreen Valley High School, qualified to the TOC as a senior, and was active in almost every Bay Area-based tournament over the 2015-2018 seasons. I’ve also done a bit of LD. I currently attend UC Berkeley as a junior Political Science and Data Science double major. Pronouns she/her/hers.

Etiquette- Please do not shake my hand; it’s a pointless formality. I don’t factor what you wear or anything like that into your speaker points. I hate speaker points and try to be as objective as possible, but for errors in terms of frivolous theory, rudeness, etc, I will drop you .5 speaks each instance. Don’t be rude to your opponents. Loud whispering isn’t respectful while the other team is speaking; try to keep your volume down or write notes to one another instead. I also don’t really care if you stand or sit, or if you dress up; make yourself comfortable so you can debate the best that you can. Don’t flip pens. Try to use all the time given. Be clear.

I will, however, tank your speaks and drop you if you use abusive (sexist, racist, ableist, Islamophobic, etc.) rhetoric and try to spread your opponents out of the round- I am generally fine with speed but your opponents may not be, and especially if they say slow or clear and you fail to adjust, I will have more reason to drop speaker points.

Arguments-

Case: Case debate should be pretty straightforward. I’m tabula rasa to a rational extent. Try to link your arguments clearly and signpost so I know where to look on the flow. I won’t make extensions for you, so make sure you articulate what it is you're extending, why it flows through, and where I’m making the extension. Do not restate your previously made points as a response without explanation of why the response reapplies/don't just reiterate your offense as defense. Use evidence where you can, I'm not looking things up but it definitely helps to be/appear accurate and factual. If I don't understand what you're saying (as in it's a structurally deficient or blipped argument) I won't flow it. Please terminalize your impacts, don't just say "lives" or "economy". Please do some kind of weighing or aff world vs. neg world analysis in your voters as well.

Theory: I enjoy theory debate, when it is done well. While I find frivolous theory annoying, if the other team doesn’t respond adequately and you prove to me why you win and run it structurally well I’ll have reason to vote on it. Again, make sure you signpost and make clear responses. I shouldn’t be doing any of the work for you.

Kritiks: I liked debating Kritiks and watching rounds where they are run well. I’m cool with Aff and Neg Ks. I can easily tell when you are running a K to skew your opponents out of a round, so please avoid doing that as at the end of the day, we all want an equitable debate where people can learn; otherwise the activity becomes useless. Try to avoid running the K if you don’t really understand it because then the ideology will become very convoluted and there will be a lot of holes in your argumentation, and it will be hard for me and the other team to understand. Don’t expect me to vote on something I cannot understand. Arguments I’m very familiar with include Orientalism, Capitalism/Marxist Kritiks, Transhumanism and Feminism. Don’t run Give Back the Land or identity arguments where you don’t actually share that identity, because then it becomes apparent you’re exploiting that identity for your personal gain. Sign post well. Speak clearly and always tell me which link or impact you are responding to if responding to a K. Make sure your links are contextualized in a manner that makes it clear how the other team's epistemology/rhetoric/etc. is connected to whatever impacts you discuss. Terminalize your impacts please! And make ROTB clear.

default to K, T, case. Competing interps over reasonability.

Bottom line is, try to have fun, be inclusive, and learn something.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

1. Please make sure you signpost your contentions.

2. I like to follow logical and clearly structured arguments.

3. I expect to see good engagement and effective rebuttal of your opponent’s arguments.

4. I’m open to Kritik- take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. But, as I mentioned earlier, my decisions are based exclusively on the arguments and counter arguments presented with strongly backed-up concrete facts or examples.

5. No Spreading, be respectful of your allotted time, your audience and have fun!!

Hi, I'm Michael!

I am a completely lay (but not lame) judge, but I have a basic understanding of parli debate.

Preferences:

1. I weigh your arguments on how persuasive you are. Throwing in debate jargon will not win you any points with me (I won't understand it anyway).

2. You MAY run theory if your opponent is being clearly abusive in the round. Please EXPLAIN the theory shell clearly to me and describe what each aspect means along with why the team is clearly pushing you out of the debate space. DON'T waste my time on frivolous theory.

3. I am open to Kritiks and other non-traditional arguments, but you must make it clear to me that your argument is relevant to the topic

4. Please TALK SLOWLY and ENUNCIATE. I cannot think and write very quickly at the same time.

5. I will disclose if it is permissible at the tournament.

6. Use REAL warrants. I know a lot about politics and current events, so you have been warned.

7. I appreciate respectful and polite opponents. Please DO NOT be condescending.

8. If you raise P.O.I. make sure it is clarifying the argument, not just being a smart a*s.

9. DON'T STRESS! Debate is a fun activity and I enjoy judging a lively round with a lot of clash. It's about LEARNING not winning!

I debated in BP and APDA at UC Berkeley. I believe that the best debaters are not those who can recite the most facts to me, but the those who can use facts in logical argumentation throughout the debate. Effective and systematic clash with an opponent's arguments are important. Throughout the debate, teams must treat each other with respect and ad hominem arguments should not be made. If one team makes a round unfair, the other team must prove to me why this is so.

I have no major political biases and am not a fan of spreading, but I understand if you have to do it.

I don't want to hear debates about personal identities, experiences, etc., generally prefer to not have to vote on non-falsifiable claims.

Condo is bad.

I enjoy seeing good case debates and topically grounded kritiks with strong specific links. High threshold on most theory.

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).

I enjoy debate. Please let me continue to enjoy it. I am a tabula rasa judge.

Please avoid running Ts or theory and do not run Kritiks.

Please do not spread and make sure to signpost.

Be respectful and courteous to your opponents. Winning is good but keep core values of the debate intact.

Have fun, enjoy and learn.

I am second year judging parliamentary type debates. I judge the debate outcome purely based on what is presented to me. I value debating with solid arguments and impact analysis instead of just buzzwords and technicality/process. The most important for me is that debaters bring their passion, persuasiveness and confidence to the table. To get my full attention and to help me judge the debate with clarity, please layout your plan, clearly articulate your points and speak with reasonable speed. For me a great speech has great organization and clarity of thoughts.

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

This is my fourth year as a parent judge. I am inspired by spirited, intelligent conversation.

I look for well constructed, persuasive arguments based on supporting facts (state your sources) that address the resolution. Outline your points upfront and signpost them as you go. I am rarely persuaded by public benefit arguments that end in a dooms-day scenario.

I prefer substantive argument over tactics. No spreading – speak clearly and in a reasonable cadence.

Point of order objections must be timely and the objector must raise a legitimate (good faith) objection, or I may consider the objection a failed tactical move and score accordingly.

If you run a critique (“K”), it should be a coherent and relevant argument challenging the premise of the resolution, or I may assume you are just trying to avoid substantive argument on the resolution.

Be courteous to the opposing team. Racist, misogynist, or otherwise offensive comments or personal insults will earn the speaker low points.

Humor is appreciated, creativity and wit will be rewarded. Have fun.

For parliamentary debate, I prefer clear, organized argumentation and reasoning over speed and jargon. I can follow a spread (my background was in policy debate) but parliamentary debate is a whole different event.

I flow, and use the flow in my decision, but not all arguments are created equal. You can win 4 points, your opponent only one, but they can still win the round if they convince me that their one point outweighs all others. Tie your arguments to the resolution, and show how they tie into your judging criteria. Speaking style matters in my decision too - a smooth, organized, persuasive speaker will have the edge over disorganized and choppy presentation.

On the subject of organization, I appreciate the 5 seconds spent to tell me whether you are starting with their case, or your own contentions.

No strong opinion on POIs. Nice to take one, but if you really are short on time I won't be offended if you don't take any.

I leave my opinions and knowledge at the door of the round. I am willing to follow most arguments if you can make them stick.

However, I am really REALLY sick of overly clever debate tactics in lieu of actual debating. I am particularly tired of kritiks. They are a technique used by lazy debaters to avoid having to actually listen, reason, and create counterarguments. Rather than pay attention and use their brains, they pull out a precanned K and spend their time on that, instead of actually debating. I expect to hear reasoning, analysis, and argumentation on the actual resolution - not endless whining about how abusive the other team is. Basically I want to see a debate.

I also hate tag-teaming. I believe that each speaker should do their own speech, answer any POIs, and generally do their part. I don't mind if you pass your partner a note while they are speaking, but that’s about it. I will only write down arguments advanced by the actual speaker.

In the end, the most important thing is to have a respectful debate with plenty of clash. Listen to each other, analyze what the other speaker said, and respond appropriately. And remember that this is supposed to be fun.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Kritiques:

I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.

I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.

Alternatives:

Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.

Impacts:

I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.

Framework:

I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.

Evidence:

Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.

Theory:

I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.

Kritiques:

There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.

Speed:

Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

summary:

ok with most arguments, including ks and theory, but i'm not the best with ks that i'm not familar with. dont be racist, ableist, sexist and be discriminatory in any way and ill be a ok. also not the biggest fan of spreading, but i can handle it to an extent. make sure to have fun, that's the most important thing.

long:

background: did 4 years of parli in hs, qualed to TOC

case debate: Case debate should be pretty straightforward. I’m tabula rasa to a rational extent. Try to link your arguments clearly and signpost so I know where to look on the flow. I won’t make extensions for you, so make sure you articulate what it is you're extending, why it flows through, and where I’m making the extension. Use evidence where you can. If I don't understand what you're saying (as in it's a structurally deficient or blipped argument) I won't flow it.

theory: i like theory, theory is cool. but only when it's structured and ran correctly. if you run theory but don't run it in a t-shell i'll ignore it

ks: kritiks are interesting. i'm cool with both aff and neg ks. only run ks if you actually understand what you're doing and the ideology behind. i will probably drop you if you don't know what you're talking about. make sure you make it so the other team and i understand what your k is about. if i don't understand wtf you're saying i won't vote you up. don't run identity arguments if you don't identify with it. make sure you signpost clearly during the k and when responding to it. link stories should be clear and you better tell be how the k links to the round.

ks i'm familar with: orientalism, cap, anthro, fem, transhum

default to k, t, case. competing interps over reasonability

make rotb and weighing mechanisms clear or i default to whoever best creates human extinction :)

have fun, be nice, and learn

I'm a lay judge - don't run Theory or Kritiks. Speak clearly (please don't spread), be considerate, and have fun!

TL;DR: I think I'm slowly becoming a flay judge :(

Taken directly from @Gabe Rusk for Emory 2022 (there are only two modifications, listed at the very bottom):

Drug Debate

FYI Emory's rules on prep and evidence exchange: 4 minutes of prep (RR is still 3) and"When requested, teams have one minute to produce evidence. If requests for multiple pieces of evidence are made, the exchange should occur in a comparable time frame. At the end of the minute, if the team cannot produce the evidence, preparation time for that team will then be used to locate that evidence. The team may choose to have the evidence dropped from the round if they choose."

First, the detailed implementation of the resolution isn't obvious. Whilst we can't offer plans in PF we can speculate on what is the most likely form of implementation. Legalization can take many forms and can be based on existing proposals in congress, based on state models, or even models abroad. If your argument is contingent upon a facet of legalization that is not reasonably inherent to the process please provide evidence and warranting to why this would be a likely feature. I.E. lobbying watering down regulations, substance abuse programs being mandated as a portion of tax revenue, therapeutic legalization for certain drugs only. These are all features that require additional support in my opinion and are not inherent to a generic legalization process. Just provide the evidence or warranting to why they would be likely. Also on the reverse please don't quip that legalization wouldn't look like that. Why? You need competing evidence or warranting to why that feature wouldn't be included.

Second, for the classic debate about price, use, and abuse. Both sides are trying to access increasing or decreasing trends as a result of the resolution. Do not. I repeat do not just throw back and forth case studies of prices going up or down. Use going up or down. Abuse going up or down. Compare them! Is one case study better than another? Do you have a meta study? Do you have a study that is most recent or longitudinal? I am especially not sympathetic to the lazy argument that "your evidence is just from a state or country that decriminalized so it's irrelevant to this debate. Legalization and decriminalization is different." Of course it is but legalization is the erasure of all penalties including criminal and civil within the regulations the governments set up. Explain to me why the distinction matters in this evidence debate and do not just say they are different. What if the evidence debate is close? What warranting makes more sense? This also gets to net or gross weighing of impacts. Y'all.... it can be simultaneously true that abuse, use, and prices go up and down but at different times or have total net differences. Please be clear on when these trends happen, why that matters in the short and long term, and more importantly what the net effects are.

Third, uncarded or unwarranted claims. Due to the rhetoric around this topic in the real world I have found judging rounds to be plagued with more asserted claims than with other topics. You can't just say LSD is bad. You can't just say weed is good. Provide evidence and warranting for claims just like you would other topics. There are a bunch of built in biases we have on topics but I think you are assuming based on decades of bad media and policy exposure there are claims that need no support on this topic. Maybe but it's rare. "We turned their LSD good argument because it's bad!" Ok this debate can be fruitful. Compare the studies? Are there meaningful differences in who was studied? When? Is there decent evidence on both sides? Engage the warranting. For example, you could explain to me biochemically what is going on in a brain that does heroin and why that creates a neurological and biochemical dependency cycle etc. Give me something to compare.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

Little Things

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
• DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round.
• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
• My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence because" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."

ONLY MODIFICATIONS

• I'm NOT familiar with kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Really wish I was though.
• I'd prefer if you don't spread, but if you do be prepared for the chance that I may not process all of it. Even with clearing or speech docs I'm not that fast anymore. And yes, speech docs will probably be necessary for accessibility and accommodation.

I care more about the quality of the presentation and the organization and logic of the argument than for the rapid-fire spouting of facts. I prefer speakers who use a more conversational style, with a normal pace, and I am turned off by the use of debate jargon — the USFG, permutation, aff/neg, etc. I’m a professional writer and editor who believes strongly in using clear language and speaking in complete sentences with appropriate pauses, rather than a breathless speech that sounds like one long run-on sentence. Use everyday idioms, metaphors and gestures.

Parli Paradigm

Experience

I debated British Parliamentary and Canadian Parliamentary for 4 years in high school. Currently, I'm a member of the Debate Society of Berkeley, and compete both nationally and internationally in BP.

I've judged at a number of Parliamentary debate tournaments--both within Canada and the United States.

Overall

- Please be comparative, provide warrants and mechanisms, and provide a clear weighing framework when possible

- Be brief if you're providing an off-time road map (eg. "on case then off")

- Please be polite. Avoid usind ad hominem attacks, making generaizations about groups, and using slurs or other discriminatory language. You will be heavily penalized for all of the above.

- I have a slight preference against tag-teaming. But feel free to do it if you deem it necessary.

- If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before th start of the round!

Argumentation

- I will try my best to come into the round as a blank slate. However, I won't credit you for using evidence that I know is false

- I judge primarily based on the flow--and want to see a good clean round

- Be realistic about your impacts. Not every policy needs to lead to world peace or nuclear war. If you do want to provide a large impact, make sure to have a clear link chain that gets you there.

- Remember that examples or data do not consititute arguments. It is not enough to tell me a statistic. I want you to also tell me how I should interprete and how it fits with your overall argument.

Presentation

- Speak at whatever pace you're comfortable speaking at. I've perfectly fine with flowing you if you speak at 300 wpm. However, recognize that sometimes your speed will hinder your ability to clearly present content

Though I am a parent judge, I try to write down all arguments. No spreading and speak clearly.

I want a balance of evidence and reasoning. I also want to hear impact analysis, and how I should weigh the debate.

I do not like Ks, and will only accept theory if it is blatantly unfair for one side. However, you will have to tell me all the terms you may use during the debate round.

Respect everyone in the round and make sure you take the debate seriously.