Nueva Parli Invitational
2020 — San Mateo, CA/US
Tamur Asar Paradigm
ily but dont shake my hand bc unfortunately i love myself more.
In practice I primarily read case supplemented with theory/cap. During practice, I experimented with a bunch of random stuff including theory, tricks, (ethical) frameworks, and (minimal) high theory.
Willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything.
Speed shouldn't be an issue, but be clear.
Contact me on messenger/fb if you have questions, Tamur Asar. Email is less preferable: email@example.com
If you want to win and get good speaks start speeches with an overview that isn't about how debate works.
Explaining dense arguments will make me more likely to vote for them. I’m also skeptical of incomplete arguments/extensions (lacking warrants etc).
Please pre-prepare and pass texts (interps, advocacies, etc) in at least semi-legible handwriting or at least slow/clear.
Please don’t call point of orders ill protect
If something you say is susp then I will Google it with a drop the debater mentality. This is to stop you from making up evidence.
Also stop saying they conceded everything even if they did.
Copied from my partner: "On the aff, I went for mostly big stick strats, usually hegemony. On the neg, I read long 1NCs and went for politics or cap a lot."
PICs and ad-cps are super strategic and underutilized. Write more cps during the 1ac and just go faster. Punish the aff for being a parli aff.
Shotgunning 10 cps that solve the aff in the 1nc is fun. Go ahead, fiat no China war. But yeah, cp theory is also a thing.
Also like ad-cp + impact turn pls do.
Top of case is strategic and under-utilized. Hide spikes in the background and solvency, no one ever answers it.
I think reading all kinds of preempts in the 1ac is strategic (e.g. no point of orders during the 1ar or no neg fiat word of the lord, amen)
Impact terminalization and weighing (at all levels) is a must, dont make me intervene, that makes me sad and you sad when I make the wrong decision.
Presumption goes to advocacy of least change.
Splitting the block is fine but probably read it in the 1nc if you are lol.
Default to judge kick if its condo.
Drop the argument
metatheory > t > 2ac theory > k
My threshold for voting on (meta)theory is probably lower than most others on circuit.
When I say I'm down for anything I literally mean anything. I've done some pretty silly (?) stuff like read theory in the 2nc or interp: debaters may not wear shoes.
Why waste time reading theory as a shell when you can read it as a paragraph?
Please layer. It's such a headache if you don't.
Put mad defense on fairness/education impacts and I guarantee people wont know how to respond. for that matter, im also probably more convinced by those args than most.
Totally down for 4 new off top of the 2ac just get ready to defend against the rvi.
Condo and pics are good unless you're the 2ac haha.
can i please hear some log con at this tournament pls.
Super strategic and just straight up wins you rounds. Like what? Just have a 1ac with a policy fw, the neg must accept the 1ac’s role of the ballot, the neg must not defend fiat, and the neg must not defend the squo in the 1nc. How can you lose?
Underviews are also totally underutilized and I have no clue why people don't use them.
I default to epistemic modesty. I think EM means total offense = risk of framing/weighing args * risk of the offense under that framing/weighing. Epistemic certainty (certain offense categorically outweighs something else) is 100% a good arg however and I can be convinced very easily either way.
Mostly read cap, schlag, security, and other topic specific stuff. Read a bit of lit for agamben, baudrillard, schopenhauer. Got forced into reading lit for a bit of set-col, ligotti, and a history of the gregorian calendar. Very mildly acquainted with ableism lit because of those I was around. Feel free to ask about my familiarity with your lit.
If you just copy a backfile and dont understand your own 1nc i will drop you without remorse.
Strategy wise I think that baudrillard (charity cannibalism) and set-col are uber strategic.
aff vs k: no link + perm = good
k vs aff: k without a link = bad
Unpopular opinion: the perm double bind is a good argument.
Link turns and smart perms are cool but impact debates are also fun I guess.
If you have a k aff, cool beans, I hope it's better than my baudrillard k aff with a dedev performance. I default to thinking my ballot decides what form of debate best facilitates the subject formation of participants.
The further you stray from our god given topic the more convinced ill be of t-fw probably
Probably not your judge for a high theory k aff project so strike me if that’s what you’re into lol.
I'll vote on these which probably makes me a worse judge than most but hey, I honestly think they are super strategic in parli.
If you can explain permissibility/skep I'll vote on it.
Evaluate [insert arg] after [insert speech]. Never lose again.
How the heck can the US take action? It's just a landmass.
I think that contrary to how debaters may choose to frame things tricks are just disads to certain args so even if you concede a trick you can (sometimes) still outweigh them.
Remember, bad args don't necessitate bad responses.
I will disclose, postround me if you dont like my decision, I won’t change my decision but discourse is probably good. You can record the rfd.
I’ve always wanted to judge a nietzche vs schopenhaur debate and will love everyone in the round forever if you coordinate that.
I debated for MVLA and my only consistent partner was Luke DiMartino, so if im unreachable, there you go.
YONSANG CHO Paradigm
Shirley Cheng Paradigm
Weigh, have warrants, do analysis, have good strategy
debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years
tech over truth
Fine with speed(~250 wpm)
Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says
will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs because otherwise I may not catch it, things that are kind of new but not really I will give less credence on
no shadow extensions
no stealing prep
An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims
How I judge rounds
First, I get rid of things that don't matter, for example: arguments that don't have impacts because I will not vote on those.
Then I look at the arguments left and evaluate how strong each individual argument is.
**to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)
Then I weigh the args. Here I take into account the amount of which the arg's offense has been mitigated, and the impact calculus done: ie magnitude, timeframe, probability
I very much enjoy any analysis as to how your impacts short-circuit theirs, and how your impacts are the internal links to theirs. high speaks will be rewarded if you can do this
I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing clever scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I default to magnitude because I think it requires the least judge intervention.
I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics though
I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory. I think condo(especially contradictory positions) is probably bad. I like pics, but would definitely be down for hearing pics bad theory.
Having specific interps is good.
I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, and ableism, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any fancy post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.
I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks.
also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well
Tracy Diop Paradigm
I am a parent judge with a few rounds of Novice and Open Parli debate experience.
I am not a fan of spreading. If there is spreading I will lift my hand as a reminder to slow down. I like to take good notes and use these notes to help with my decision on the round.
I am also a novice in understanding kritics (sp). If you are introducing these concepts in your round please be clear and concise as to why. My preference is to not run them.
Elliot Eng Paradigm
2019-20 is my 3rd year as a parent judge. Please speak clearly and not too fast.
Alan Fishman Paradigm
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. firstname.lastname@example.org.
Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.
TL:DR for LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text every round. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. My favorite event is high school circuit LD and I'm down for creative arguments. I do not allow off time thank yous but I do allow off time road maps and content warnings.
Five years of experience debating in NPDA parli, three years NFA-LD. I don't care about delivery or politeness (just don't be cruel to your opponents), and I don't want you to watch my nonverbals. I try to evaluate the debate objectively based on the flow without intervening.
CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the game of debate. I like you to have strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why the economy matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.
SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. In all forms of carded debate, I have a very high threshold for abuse on speed theory/K for arguments that were included in a speech doc that was shared with me and the other team. I do not really care about clarity if I have a speech doc I can follow along with. In general, if I am going to vote on an argument against speed, you need to prove that you asked your opponents to slow down and they did not. As hard as it is to establish a brightline for speed, it is impossible to establish a brightline for clarity. While I do prefer you not use speed to exclude the other team, I won't drop you for it unless they convince me I should. I do not intervene against you if you exclude lay/traditional judges from the round with speed - they have their own ballots and I can't speak for them. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another, and I actively HATE the argument that debate should be held to IE/speech-style standards of communication. I also believe that it doesn't matter whether debate is understandable to laypeople in the audience - your words only need to be understood by the other team.
THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation. I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against a dropped RVI. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another. I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.
Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate. In cases of rules violations, I will almost always prefer not to get anyone kicked out of the tournament - even if the rules of the event recommend that as a penalty. Also, if you threaten to report me to the tabroom for not enforcing the rules I will instantly drop you. Also, I will always allow debaters to debate a different topic than the one the tournament assigned if both sides agree, and I will keep it a secret if asked.
COUNTERPLANS: I will usually vote for cheater CP's unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. However, I do not like to "judge kick" counterplans and if the neg doesn't explicitly kick the CP/alt in their last speech I will assume they're going for it and giving up the status quo.
IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).
KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.
IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I think that these arguments are important and should be taken seriously, and while I want to let you read them and talk about the things that you are passionate about, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity, I will be more willing to vote on framework. Also, I don't think that reading framework against these positions makes you a terrible person - I am willing to listen to both sides of the T vs Identity K debate. However, please do not attack your opponents' marginalized identities to deliberately trigger them - if you do that, you are the worst kind of person and I will have a hard time justifying a decision for you.
REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in the most extreme circumstances. If your opponents make a new argument it is your responsibility to call point of order. I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.
PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it.
SPEAKER POINTS: The system of speaker points is violent towards me as a competitor with a speech disability. I almost always got lower speaks that what was relevant to my win loss performance. I am no longer willing to participate in it. I will give 30's to all debaters by default if the tournament allows it. If not, I will randomly assign speaks between 29.7, 29.8, 29.9, and 30. I will reduce speaker points if you engage in offensive rhetoric towards marginalized groups, such as racial slurs, misgendering, or person-first language about autism, or do other things I mention elsewhere in my paradigm as reasons to reduce speaker points.
Also, I believe that debaters should not wear professional clothes to tournaments because professional dress is a social construct that reinforces privilege. I won't vote you down on my own initiative for it, but I am willing to vote on arguments about why debaters should not dress professionally. This article describes how I feel about professional dress in speech and debate: https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/professionalism-and-oppression/
On a related note, I think that handshakes after the round are a part of harmful politeness norms and I choose not to participate in them, so please do NOT shake my hand after the round. Also, handshakes can spread disease and most of us have a card somewhere that says disease causes extinction.
Some of my pet peeves as a judge:
- When the AFF says they "believe" in the res or the NEG says they "don't believe" in it. You were assigned your side at random.
- When debaters start their speech with a quote
- When NEG says that Trump will roll back the plan
- When anyone calls the debate round a "day" or talks about "today's debate" - it's annoying because there are usually multiple rounds in a day
- Please do not set the criterion to net benefits for one particular country or region unless you read social contract theory as your framework (especially in parli). I have a very low threshold for letting NEG win that net benefits should include everyone. However, I am fine with other parametricized forms of net benefits, like structural violence first or extinction first, I just don't think that whether someone's life matters should be dependent on lines drawn on a map.
If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.
If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down. Anyone who asks or takes an unnecessary POI in a round with flex will lose a speaker point - I think that keeping POI's intact in a format with flex is rooted in problematic notions of politeness. I don't care about "protected time". I think it's a silly and unnecessary rule.
I think that parli structurally favors MG theory so I believe that MG theory should have a higher threshold than LOC theory, but I won't judge it any different unless the negative tells me why I should, because I dislike intervening.
I do not believe in the trichotomy. I don't think that resolutions being worded as questions of fact or value is mutually exclusive with having a plan text.
PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:
I judge PF similar to parli. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments (though you can answer them anytime before FF to have the answer on my flow). I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.
Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to debate at speeds comparable to policy, you should email your evidence to me and the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.
I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. My email is email@example.com
Vasavi Kadiyala Paradigm
Gia Karpouzis Paradigm
PF & Parli coach for Nueva
- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges
- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)
- tech over truth
- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know
- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early
- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores
- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.
- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway
- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me
- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within
- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!
- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist
- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.
- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.
- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key
- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make
- hello greetings defense is sticky
- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda
Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.
email me at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person
Shyja Kavalakatt Paradigm
No K's unless you can't help it, same with K's, happy debating
Dileep Kumar Paradigm
I believe in good old fashioned case debate, but if you don't want to do that that's okay as well, but make sure that you are clear. I like listening to link chains with lots of warrants and analysis. If you run topicality then please no more than 2 minutes on it. If you run a kritik prepare to lose because I probably won't get it. Please be nice, respectful to other participant and make sure you have fun because that's whats important. Learn from each other more than competing with each other.
Ed Lingo Paradigm
TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (experience info at bottom of paradigm). Judging parli since Fall 2018 (mostly novice last year, all varsity this year), so you can go fast but probably not full speed (300+ wpm) and may need to explain some terminology. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments. Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will extend dropped arguments and will ignore new arguments in rebuttals even if you don't call a POO. I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. Don't care about your attire. No need to shake my hand.
** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start. As many currently "off time" parts of the debate are moved into flex time, it's likely to add just a minute or two (at most) to each round. Better debates, better judge feedback, increased fairness, why not add it? ...end soapbox.
In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.
Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.
With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.
Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.
Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).
As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.
K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision.
Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.
I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision.
New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:
I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.
Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.
Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.
My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine, 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (e.g. Glenbrook, Harvard, Georgetown, etc.). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen or so tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA team rankings.
Pearlin Liu Paradigm
Debate is a game, so have fun with it. Here's the important stuff:
- Disclose, give content warnings, don't spread out your opponents, and don't read racist/xenophobic/hateful arguments. If you are being spread out or feel like you the round has become an oppressive space for you then PLEASE yell "slow" until you can understand, ask for status, and/or run theory. It's hard for me to do anything as a judge if there is no proven abuse, as I have a commitment to intervene as little as possible. If you'd like to have a conversation about my judging philosophy with regards to equity pre or post round, feel free to message me or talk to me in person (it's still a work in progress).
- Be as (reasonably) comfortable as you'd like. You don't have to ask me for permission to sit down while you speak.
- Please signpost and weigh. I shouldn't have to say this but y'all forget sometimes. I've found that I'm pretty nitpicky about case debate and I often struggle with making decisions because everyone seems to think the best way to the ballot is to win on magnitude (which is not true lol). Make my job easy and it will be an easy win.
- Call for cards if you feel like your opponent is lying or saying something blatantly false, as I will not call for them. Or maybe I will. spoopy
- I can't tell you exactly what to run but I do think that the speaker point system sucks so if you give me a compelling reason to give you 30 speaks then I'll do it. Otherwise, I default 28s. Speed is okay as long as you are clear.
- Friv theory is hit or miss for me, but if you feel like it's a strategically good decision then I can't and won't stop you.
- I like kritiks in theory (ha ha), but I will not fill in the gaps for you even if I know the lit.
- Case debate is great, especially if you can be creative and detailed. In a perfect world, 3 off would be for uniqueness, link, and impact :') However, I will give less credence to unwarranted claims (having a source does not count as a warrant) and will be more lenient with accepting responses to them. I play closest attention to the LOR and PMR.
- Cursing is okay, humor would be appreciated. Be nice to each other. Try to have fun because I know how stressful debate can be. Also, don't forget to eat and stay hydrated!
I coach lay LD and parli. Add me to the email chain (email@example.com). Please don't shake my hand - a bow would suffice. For further details, reference David's paradigm.
If you have any specific questions before/after the round please message me on Facebook!
Cheri Loustalet Paradigm
I am a parent judge with about a year of experience judging. Please make arguments and weighing of impacts as clear as possible to make the decision as easy as possible. Explain to me how I should evaluate each impact in comparison to the other.
Please focus on the case arguments and do not run K's or frivolous theory. The only time that theory should be run is when there is clear abuse of the resolution. If this is the circumstance, please explain in the simplest terms possible how each part of the theory works. I will only vote regarding actual, not potential abuse. The abuse should be explained as to why the topicality was 100% necessary.
Bob Mancini Paradigm
Katherine Ogburn Paradigm
Ava Remler Paradigm
3 years of varsity parliamentary debate. Currently a college freshman.
I dislike theory (unless like a 5 year old could understand it) and overly technical jargon. I can only promise to write down things which are signposted, and probably won’t write it down otherwise.
I dislike speed strongly but will still flow it.
I like emphasis of what you regard as important points and direct clash. Since I love clash, please don’t turn down POI’s unless absolutely necessary. Keeps it fun.
Tbh? Just keep me engaged and clear on what’s happening. I will only disclose if you ask first. Good luck!
Sushil Sharma Paradigm
I have been judging debates (mostly parliamentary debates) for over 8 years, as a lay (parent) volunteer judge.
If possible, please avoid speaking too fast (so that I can follow and track your arguments in my mind).
Also, if you are going to use any "technical" terms from the debating vocabulary, please don't assume I would be familiar with them. It would be appreciate if you explain any such terms to me.
I am familiar with the Parliamentary Debate format and its general rules. You will not need to explain those to me.
Usually I like to take a few minutes after the round has ended, to enter my feedback and the results, so please do not expect me to disclose the results or provide you judge's feedback immediately.
Richard Simon Paradigm
I have experience as a policy/CX debater in high school and I have been judging parli for just over a year. I have experience as a public speaker from many conferences, as well as corporate events and meetings.
I'll flow your arguments, but I need to be able to hear and understand them enough to write notes.
Don't expect me to know any theory that you don't explain clearly. Make sure that any theory (or any arguments at all) clearly relate to the debate you're in and the topic at hand.
Your speaking style and ability are important, but its not uncommon for me to award low-point wins. If you dont signpost well, not only can I not follow you, but you aren't delivering well.
Your summations should clearly tell me how to decide my vote.
Rinu Singhania Paradigm
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.
Zachary Taylor Paradigm
I competed with reasonable success on the LD national high school circuit from 2008-2011. I also dabbled in BP and Policy for a year as an undergrad. Through weird circumstances I have found myself judging mostly PF and Parli on the west coast.
~Deep~ debate thoughts:
1. Speed is fine as long as you're clear and not using it to overwhelm the other team with blippy arguments.
2. Plans and counterplans are good when they avoid ambiguity. Pease take advantage of POIs/CX to clarify when necessary.
3. Outside of policy, the affirmative burden is to prove the resolution true. So if the negative runs a counterplan that is affirmative ground, the affirmative can respond by adopting the CP instead of the plan. Outside of policy, counterplans should actually negate.
4. I think judges should only vote on theory arguments when they actually believe the theory argument is correct. Otherwise, debate theory just becomes another form of abusive argument and the same people who run abusive arguments specialize in theory. You shouldn't be afraid to run theory in front of me if you think your opponent is genuinely being unfair, and I would prefer a formalized theory argument (even a short one) to an informal argument about fairness. The fact that I think a judge should agree with a theory argument to vote for it does not mean my views on any particular issue are set it stone and unaffected by the arguments in the round. It is just a check against particularly frivolous theory, or theory combined with a shady tactic.
5. Arguments, even dropped and extended arguments, need warrants. Impacts often need their own warrants. Otherwise we end up with a form of debate where people read 10 different iffy links to 10 different impacts and label each impact with the magic word "extinction" hoping one of them will be dropped.
1. Both teams and the judge should be timing every speech, just for the sake of redundancy.
2. Unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise, I will put all comments on the part of the ballot that both teams can read. You were in the room too and Team A can often learn from the feedback given to Team B. I also tend to think through my own RFD by writing.
3. Please rely on the tournament, not me, for specifics about prep time, and protected time in Parli
4. If you end up with a weird number of speaker points like 28.2, it's because Tab Room doesn't allow ties and only allows the use of one decimal place.
5. Time permitting, on the ballot I may provide some feedback that is separate from the RFD. I may spend time discussing a particular argument not because it was important but because I think it is interesting, educational, intersects with my professional studies, and/or may be important in future rounds. The RFD speaks for itself and you shouldn't infer from the fact I spend a lot of time giving feedback on an argument that it was actually important to deciding the round.
I am open to questions before the round. In fact I encourage it, because when I get a better sense of what debaters are listening for when they're asking about paradigms, I can better adjust this paradigm. If something above is unclear, feel free to ask me what I mean.
Jon Telebrico Paradigm
Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/him/his) and I am a first year out at Claremont McKenna College who's done primarily Parli but also PF, Congress, and some Speech during my four years competing for Archbishop Mitty High School. Also, here's a transparency document for all the rounds I've ever squirreled thus far if you're wondering how to pref me.
Additionally, in the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org or shoot me a message on Facebook messenger!
Parli Paradigm (last updated 2/1/20):
The debate space is yours. Run as slow or fast, lay or tech of a round as you want.
I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. I do reserve the right to intervene and drop teams if I witness something morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic.
I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it probably doesn't matter that much. Just don't throw out unwarranted claims and expect that to automatically be offense for you.
Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.
Collapsing is really important. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.
Rebuttals are so important. The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending turns made in the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions. Your partner's speech wasn't for nothing.
Receptive to any and all kinds of presumption arguments. Just be nice about it (an example of not being nice about it is running Zeno’s paradox and then giving answers to it in the 1NR because the other team doesn't know how to respond to it)
I think it's strategic to specify particular net benefits that your dis/advantages fall under. My partner and I always identified specific types of benefits (economy, environment, quality of life of xyz population) that the judge should be prioritizing.
If the 1AC doesn't define stuff but the 1NC does, I find myself pretty skeptical of 2ACs that try to backfill the framework layer.
I think counterplans are super strategic and am willing to vote on most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.). I think that negative teams should be wary of just running another aff plan because I don't believe this fulfills the burden of the negative so I would probably employ some form of counterplan+disadvantage strategy instead of reading a bunch of benefits of your CP. Obviously you should read some solvency but it's a waste of time to spend your time reading a bunch of advantages to the CP.
Speaker points are awarded both on strategy and style. I'm a really pedantic person but I won't tank your speaks if you want to go fast.
Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic that typically circumvents the normative policymaking that is expected. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc.
Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.
When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.
I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments must exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly.
I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that are used to check back against abusive norms in debate.
I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this!
I think topicality is probably the easiest to evaluate but I'm also open to other forms of theory as well. I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is frivolous as my judging career progresses.
Note: When it comes to K and Theory debate, please never try to exclude your opponents out of the round. I'll even evaluate lay theory so long as your opponents get to understand what it is that they did wrong. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.
Points of Information
PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.
Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.
Ultimately, I don't want anyone to ever feel uncomfortable after a debate round so feel free to post round with me as much as you want (if time permits, although I won't change my vote after a round) because I am here to educate and help others in an activity that has given me so much!
Kollin Tierling Paradigm
I do not flow spreading.
Tom Wong Paradigm
I am a parent volunteer and have judged at a few tournaments before. I also debated three years of policy debate for Loyola High School (LA) and then a year of parliamentary at Princeton University. However, that was some time ago, and I am not as familiar with theory and K debate. So, if you run theory, please explain all lingo, and please avoid K's altogether because I may not be able to follow.
Please speak clearly and try not to go too fast so I can flow your arguments. Signpost and flush out your arguments; I won't buy a point only supported by numbers and stats, you need to explain to me why that evidence matters and why your argument is true. Towards the end of your rebuttals speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.
Misrepresenting your opposition's arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they don't call you out on it), but it sure won't win you any speaker points. Be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points. I will generally score speakers on a range between 24-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). I will consider both argumentation and presentation but generally weight the former above the latter. Points for humor if you can pull it off!
Tony Wong Paradigm
Di Wu Paradigm
I am a parent judge this means that I am very lay. Please speak clearly and slowly. No spreading. Be sure to signpost so I can flow the round better. I don't know too much about high school debate so please walk me through your points. When I weigh, I weigh not only on the quality of the evidence but also why it matters so be sure to show me why your evidence matters in the round.
No Theory and/or Kritiks. I do not know what they are and I will vote you down if you run them
America Yamaguchi Paradigm
Recent name change: all my paperwork still says America. My name is Junpei (pronounced JOON-pay)
Are you an LGBTQ+ debater or speaker? If you struggling in this activity, in school, or anywhere, I work for the San Mateo County Pride Center. Email me and I'm happy to support. (email@example.com)
Also, I don't have any flow paper, or flow pens. Yeah. I'm that judge now. Providing me with proper flow paper (legal sized thx) won't win my ballot, but it will win my heart.
1. Do not use slurs in front of me. I will tank your speaks and quite likely find a reason to vote you down, particularly if your opponent critically turns your language. Run bigoted arguments and take the L. :) I'm not going to reward racism, ableism, sexism, queer-antagonism, etc.
2. Other than that, I am a flow judge. I like line by line argumentation. Clear signposting is always a benefit. I don't claim tabula rasa, because that probably isn't real because bias and intervention is likely inevitable in human communication. I'll do my best not to do work for either team, and am open to talking it out with teams post round to help keep me honest for future rounds.
3. I dislike but am not opposed to speed. I am open to speed theory.
4. If you are going to run a K, make sure you understand your own framework and your own lit base. K affs are NOT cheating.
5. Speaker points are awarded not on how "pretty" you talk, but rather on the technical accuracy of your debate. I do not care if you sit or stand, how you are dressed, etc. and it will not impact the debate in any way. Just don't be a jerk.
6. Impact calculus is key! Tell me why your impacts matter more, tell me why I should care about timeframe over magnitude. Tell me why probability does or does not factor in. Why do proximal impacts matter more?
7. IN PARLI, DO NOT TRUST ME TO PROTECT IN REBUTTALS. I'll do my best to catch it, especially in evidence based debate wherein I have access to cards. But in parli, call those points of order if necessary.
8. I will only use my own outside world knowledge if asked to evaluate two competing facts in the round. If everyone in the debate agrees that Japan is a country in Africa, I'll go with it. But if one team says Japan is a Pacific island nation near Asia, I'll be inclined to go with that knowledge.
9. I am fine with partner communication. You don't need to secretively whisper what you're feeding your partner. I will only flow the speaker, and not partner comments.
10. Since I keep getting asked; I do not default to competing interps or reasonability. Literally everything requires some amount of judge intervention. Tell me WHY I should prefer one over the other.
John Young Paradigm
I competed in LD for four years in high school, and frequently broke to elimination rounds at invitationals my junior and senior years. I helped coach my team as a senior.
Any argument will do, as long as it is well-substantiated. Substantiation requires an argument to be logically complete, and for premises to be supported with evidence when appropriate. Do not expect to automatically earn victory when your opponent drops or mishandles a poorly-substantiated argument.
Preference for quality over speed and quantity. I enjoy thoughtful argumentation on complex topics. If you insist on speed, I'll do my best to keep up and won't penalize you for it. On the other hand, If I miss key stages of your argument, I can't account for them when rendering my decision, which would be very fortunate for your opponent.