2018 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Daniel Foltz Paradigm
Former high school debater, primarily competing in parli, impromptu, and extemp. Competed in top tier of California league and invitational parli, coached at SNFI, and judged at a variety of invitational and league tournaments, primarily in parli, but also in PF and IE's. Go whatever speed and make whatever arguments you want - I'll listen to most anything at any level of theory, but if you make an argument that seems especially weak, I'll be more likely to accept refutations to it with less effort. I'm expressive as a judge - use that. Just want to watch some good rounds, learn some new things, and hopefully laugh a bit.
Haley Hansen Paradigm
Dinnett Hermosillo Paradigm
El Camino College
I tend to keep my judging absolutely neutral meaning that I will look at your debate as objectively as possible. Through the debate I will be seeing what arguments are brought up and if they are effectively carried over. The use of proper warrants is of great importance to me. During impact Calculus do not just focus on our own argument but rather really bring out how it compares to your opponents. Also, during rebuttals really emphasize what effects this has on the real world.
I am okay with speed but it will usually depend on whether you speak clearly or not. Do not go so fast that you cannot be understood or you will lose speaker points.
If the circumstance presents itself in which you must run topicality do so CORRECTLY. It is not enough that you mention that an argument is non-topical or unfair you must have Interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. If you run a proper topicality that appeals to my sense of justice you might win the round on that.
All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.
Meera Keskar Paradigm
I will create a Zoom meeting and send the link. I will share my flow with any of the debaters post-round.
Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17); Coach at New Roads School. Flow and Lay Parli (circuit). BP at USC (current).
I will vote for anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are -- don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, come talk to me in person. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me.
I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.
I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case. K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The authors/lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, and tuck&yang.
Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. Good case debate is better than bad K or theory debate, so don’t be cheaty just because you have a back file. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text.
Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and default to theory comes first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad.
I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Ben Shahar is a much better judge for such args.
Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. This is huge. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.
Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory
25 - Learn to think before you speak (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)
28~28.4 - Eh you had strategic errors but you did more good than harm
28.5~28.9 - Pretty darn average
29~29.3 - I probably nodded because you poked at your opponent's case and it slowly crumbled (should break)
29.4~29.9 - Damn you know what you are doing strategically (should be in finals)
30 - GOOD GOD PLEASE WIN THE TOURNAMENT
New Roads, Prospect, Mitty PU, Ashland RS, O'Dowd HO, O'Dowd RS, O'Dowd SJ, Crystal Spring MM, Crystal Spring MQ, Los Altos KaLi, Quartz Canyon BD, Nueva CS, Nueva BZ
I don’t shake hands. Germs are gross.
Off-time road maps PLEASE.
Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be the plebe who tag teams the whole time. I will nuke your speaks.
Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.
Shadow extensions are awful.
I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.
**Feel free to email with any questions - firstname.lastname@example.org
or FB message me
Linda Kittell Paradigm
I like a well organized speaker, those that come into the room late, change their shoes, fix their hair....not so much.
I appreciate the speaker that makes unusual assessments or provides unique remedies.
Respecting the opponent while arguing their contention is better than insulting their person. Debate doesn't mean personal attacks free-for-all.
The burden of proof is what is relevant, I evalute all the situations - if you noticed a missed arguement of your opponent don't assume I caught it, point it out.
Spreading? As long as you speak slowly, feel free...ha ha ha
Saaj Kulshreshtha Paradigm
Hi! Gonna keep this short -
Feel free to do whatever you want in terms of argument style.
I don't care about presentation. For the love of God, don't spend time introducing yourself and thanking everyone for being there. It's annoying. I just want you to make smart arguments.
I hate voting on blippy arguments so if you think something is important and should determine the round, spend time on it in the rebuttals. The 1ar/1nr should write my ballot for me.
It's always a good idea to collapse in the 2nc/1nr. I hate how repetitive the 1nr is becoming so I will be lenient on new args but don't make a billion LBL args.
Reasonably sized overviews are nice, impact framing is critical, and good argument interaction makes you seem smart.
Hate theory debates and I default to reasonability unless really persuaded otherwise. If you're blatantly abusive i think going all-in on theory is okay.
Be organized, tell me how many sheets I need for each speech. Speed is good but make sure you accommodate your opponents first and me second. If I'm not flowing you're probably doing something wrong.
You'll get high speaks if you try to clash instead of shy away to some strategic margin - 1nc's that are just case turns make me happy.
Please don’t make boring arguments. Make me laugh. I’m a game theorist so almost anything you say will be flowed and taken seriously as long as it’s not like racism good.
Run kritiks if you know what you're talking about. I think they're really fun and important debates to be held.
I love you but don't shake my hand. :)
Iain Lampert Paradigm
I realized my old paradigm had a bunch of outdated stuff. This is an update. As of January 2020, I've squirreled in 15-20% of outrounds.
Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand. Debate as a whole may be never able to reconcile issues of access and elitism, but you as an individual debater can try not to actively perpetuate it.
I've watched just about every national debate final round in the NSDA's vault and a fair number of TOC outrounds in CX, LD, and PF. I understand PF pretty well.
Cross-examination should be used to clarify your narrative of the round and clean up any misconceptions about each other's arguments. A hyper-confrontational cross-ex is a waste of time and I'll tune it out.
If you're going to spread anything, I need to be on the email chain. I will assume that the sounds coming from your mouth symbolize the words in that document.
If you're talking fast but not spread-level, slow down for the stuff you really want me to flow. Emphasize it. Sometimes you're reading some card details and all that matters is a sentence or so. If you're leaving out some details, it's up to your opponent to make it clear and show why it matters.
If given the choice between something fast and something slow, I like something slow, but only if it's structured and still follows the basic tenets of debate (references to framework, uniqueness-link-impact, etc.). Some folks have confused 'slow' for 'speak pretty instead of having warrants.'
Make things really obvious. I don't know the material as well as you. You're really likely to lose my ballot when you thought you were winning if you assume that I know as much about the source material as you.
Be careful of powertagging. I called for a couple of crucial cards every round at TOC. Just about every card I called for was powertagged. When I didn't give that misrepresented evidence the weight the debaters hoped for, it often was determinative of my final decision.
When it comes to case debate, I'm biased towards voting for marginal net benefits and against high-magnitude, low-probability arguments. If explaining the link story to my non-debate colleagues would likely raise some eyebrows--if it doesn't pass the 'smell test'--you might not want to run it in front of me. That doesn't mean kick ALL nuke war impacts...just make a rock-solid link story so I'm at least convinced of its MODERATE probability.
I'm somewhat familiar with Kritiks that deal with antiblackness, feminism, capitalism, queer theory, biopower, and securitization. If a Kritik doesn't persuade me of its solvency, I have a very hard time voting for it.
I'm not a completely blank-slate judge. If something is glaringly incorrect, it's not like I'll ignore the argument entirely, but I'll probably do some subconscious work to diminish its weight in the round. I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. I wouldn't call myself tech over truth. At the same time, I don't know if a capital-T 'truth' is out there and I don't expect that my internal understanding of what's 'true' is the same as yours, so I can't confidently say I'm 'truth over tech.' Both matter.
Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I mess up. I like subpoints but I've found that a lot of mid-level debaters will start out referencing subpoints and then just start...like, saying words...in the back half of the round.
Don't tell me to cross-reference different points without doing your own work and telling me how the arguments interact.
Defense is normally sticky. Offense normally needs to be extended. I am unlikely to vote on an argument if it wasn't in the last set of speeches in the round, but never say never. If things are confusing enough, who knows what I'll do? I'm a loose cannon with an axe to grind and nothing to lose.
I believe in the "affirmative burden of proof" in LD and Parli. The AFF gets the privilege of having the last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If debaters argue to a draw, then I tend to "default NEG." This is not true in PF.
For a while, my speaker points were just based on rhetorical presence and fluency. Now, I find it difficult to disregard your strategic choices when calculating speaker points. I think that I'm still more sensitive to rudeness and disproportionate indignation than some other judges on the circuit.
Rachel Lobo Paradigm
I compete in college circuit parliamentary debate and LD debate for 3 years, and also coached Parli at South Torrance High School.
TLDR// It's your round, do what you want with it.
As far as arguments in-round, there is rarely one I will not vote on. I am flow-centric, and will try my best to keep any outside knowledge away from the debate (although I am not sure that anyone is actually capable of this, so don't make things up, etc.). Also don't be indignant to the other team. I love sass and sarcasm but there is a line that you should do your best not to cross.Now the specifics:
Spreading is fine with me as long as you do not use it as a weapon to exclude your opponent. If you go too fast or become incomprehensible, I will clear you and your speaker points will not be affected.
I will gladly vote on any theory position, if the abuse is potential or articulated. That being said, I will be annoyed if you kick a cool CP for NIBS. I also default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
Unless told how to evaluate the round, I will default to net-benefits, so make sure you read impacts. That being said, if you do read a framework, you need to extend it throughout the debate or at the very least tell me how it functions. I find myself leaning towards probability calculus but you can always convince me that my bias is wrong and that the green new deal will certainly cause nuke war.
K debate is cool, although I prefer topic specific links. I do not believe that links of omission are compelling, there are just too many reasons that they are not persuasive so don't do that. K affs are totally cool with me as long as you justify your rejection of the topic. Framework debates, specifically good framework debates, can also be very compelling and I think that sometimes a one-off framework theory shell from the neg is a great strategy. In my time as a debater, I focused on biopower, orientalism, antiblackness, and security K's though I've debated several others and am familiar with some lit.
If you have any questions that I haven't already answered, always feel free to reach out and ask before the round!
Scott Marcus Paradigm
Adele McGraw Paradigm
Bob Moore Paradigm
I take a holistic approach to judging debates - the winner will be the person/team that has the most convincing overall presentation. The quality of the reasoning and the evidence used to support contentions carries more weight than the number of contentions. I do flow and will consider the failure to refute or address a significant point to be a basis for giving the win to the other team. A minor point that flows through will rarely be a determinant of the outcome.
You will likely lose if you make unsupported assertions; make up or misrepresent facts; or abuse your opponent or the process. The likelihood of winning are greatly enhanced if you are able to clearly rebut your opponent's voters and emphatically point out why your contentions should prevail.
Ennis Ogawa Paradigm
I am new to the game. Impress me.
Mika Okabe Paradigm
Anne Parizeau Paradigm
I have been judging for the past four years and I have judged parlimentary debate along with individual events and other types of debate.
I am fine with spreading, but if you do, please make sure I can understand you. Do not spread and then sit down with time left on the clock. Only spread when necessary for your case. I do take notes on everything you say, so please do not feel the need to repeat yourself. I do not want to hear a 3 minute speech lengthened to fit the 7 minute time. If you have said everything you need to, please just sit down. Get rid of the fillers and get straight to the point. The length of your speech does not equate to the quality of it. Please be polite and professional. You are in a professional setting, so act that way toward your opponents. Speak with confidence, but do not speak in a condescending tone. I am an adult, not an uninformed child, so treat me as so.
Weighing your arguments
I am a lay judge from southern California so I am not familiar with Ks and Theory arguments. What I do believe is that Parlimentary requires evidence. I do not buy the argument that evidence is not needed because parli is "common knowledge". You should be able to provide evidence as support for your "common knowledge". You are given topic areas in advance. Even though you do not have access to the internet, you do have access to any saved articles or published information, so take advantage of that resource and plan ahead accordingly. I am also a logical judge. If you can convince me of an argument in a logical fashion, please do. This being said, I will judge your arguments in a logic-based way, so if they do not make sense and you have not convinced me there is correlation or causation, I will not vote for that argument.
Megan Reichmann Paradigm
I competed as a part of El Camino College's debate team this last fall. My background is primarily in Parliamentary debate, but I also was involved in IPDA. So with that in mind, I definitely know the rules of debate and can follow you down most rabbit-hole of technical arguments you want to go for. I'll list my views on certain aspects of debate:
Structure: please be hyper-organized. I tend to favor teams who sign-post and keep things line-by-line (unless you're in IX calc)
ON/OFF Case: remember to have responses to you're opponent's cases, because in reality that is literally what debate is. I love engagement through things like case turns.
Topicality: I like it if it's done correctly. It's a tool for the neg, so if you're abusing it and it's an obvious time suck I won't be happy. Aff, remember to respond to everything.
Counterplan: I also like CPs. I'm fine with PICs and topical CPs, but just remember to explain NB.
Kritiks: Don't go for it unless the round truly calls for it. I don't like Ks. I recognize it when it's used correctly, but I value true debate.
Speed: I can follow if both teams are willing, but I was in IPDA so persuasion in rebuttals are important.
Overall, just remember to IMPACT OUT and EXPLAIN in the context of the value. Lay things out for me. Make it easy for me to want to vote for you.
Mark Windham Paradigm
I debated policy at nationals in high school and on the NDT circuit for UC Berkeley in the 1970's, breaking at the major tournaments. After 24 years as a lawyer, specializing death penalty defense, I became a Superior Court Judge in 2008. As a parent I have returned to the activity, founding a program at New Roads School and coaching for six years. I am indeed a parent judge, but one who understands why you have a perm spike in your K thesis.
Though I evaluate professional advocates every day in my courtroom, I am judging you within a high school debate paradigm. I adhere to debate norms and respect generally accepted debate theory.
I'm a ‘policy maker’ in that I weigh impacts and a ‘Tabula Rasa’ judge in that I am an open-minded skeptic. You have the burden of persuasion on claims you assert, requiring sufficient warrant; dropping is concession, but not equivalent to proof. Sophistry has no weight. Nihilistic K’s annoy me but it is the opponent’s job to refute them. Highly unlikely impact scenarios are not persuasive; prove real links. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.
Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Obviously, right? Sometimes this seems lost, however, at the highest levels, when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation or rejoinder does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal. While I vote on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge. For me that would tend to be reasonable weighing of human impacts, or in a meta-debate, something which inexorably results in the most desirable policy fact or value conclusion.
I’m open to authentic value debate, even in policy rounds, and vice versa; ‘net benefits’ will not always be the best framework for evaluation of a resolution. In the real world, cost/benefit analysis is bounded by value limits. While I enjoy policy topics the most, fact resolutions happen! Deal with them. They are the basis for real world argument in science and in law, for example. Impact calculus is misplaced here; preponderance of the evidence, as measured by its persuasive force, is a legitimate standard, as is hypothesis testing.
Novel advocacies such as kritiks, kritikal PMC’s, unconventional counterplans, severance permutations, conditionality, theory and narratives are fine, but artifice may diminish your effectiveness. I prefer substance to procedure. It is most important to address the social issue at hand; clever arguments shouldn't be made for their own sake, but only to advance the substance of your position. I would consider argument that clearly abusive theory is a reverse voting issue. I appreciate case debate.
Speed is not a problem, per se, if you speak very clearly. Repeating your tags would be helpful. If I don't understand you, you can't win the argument. I will not say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ so pay attention to the judge. While I enjoy and prefer the breadth of argumentation you may present using an accelerated pace, if you double breathe I can't flow you. But fast is fine if it is audible, clear and persuasive. Line by line argumentation is very helpful, but persuading me that a single contention is determinative of the round, when it was presented as part of a spread may be difficult. But if so, of course you must.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to evaluate your debate. I hope that I may contribute to your education as an advocate, with the aspiration that you will use this experience to make this world a better place. I hope to learn from you as well so that I may do the same.