I competed in policy debate and parliamentary debate (NPDA and APDA) in college. I currently teach and used to coach debate to middle school students at Brentwood school. While I can flow if you spread, for parliamentary debate I prefer a round that is clear and the analysis of arguments is stressed over just trying to go fast.
I am going to borrow from my old debate coach:
Ken Sherwood: “I am an argument critic. Do not expect me to vote for any claim that is not developed into an argument. You must develop a complete argument including warrants, not just assertions.”
If you choose to run theory, please make sure you clearly explain how your argument functions in the round. I prefer rounds that combine the technical aspects of the flow with a clear presentation, and I will always look to the flow first when determining speaker points.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate. Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am presently one of the head coaches for the USA Debate Team through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated March 2023]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Background: Debated in the LA urban debate league (LAMDL) for 3 years then at USC for 4 years and qualified for the NDT my senior year. I’m currently a program manager for LAMDL.

I care little about what you debate, but care a lot about how well you debate it. I like debates that are composed of well-explained, complete (claim + warrant + impact), and comparative argumentation. The most difficult debates for me to evaluate are where one or more of those elements is missing from both sides, not where the substantive content of the debate is unfamiliar to me.

I flow the warrants to your ev as you read it, and almost never call for cards unless there is a dispute about what the text says.

Prep: Prep ends when you’re ready to send the email or when the usb leaves your computer.

A note about “flex prep”: you can ask substantive questions during prep, but I’ll not count it against the other team if they decline to answer.

K Affs vs T: My predisposition is that affirmatives should be about the topic – that doesn’t necessarily mean instrumental implementation of a plan by the USFG but affirmatives ought to define and defend the affirmative is germane to the action of the topic (however the terms of that action may be defined). I tend to think aff critiques of the resolution or claims that the resolution is insufficient are better as negative arguments, but can be persuaded otherwise insofar as the aff wins the framing for what debate should look like and/or why switch-side is bad. Fairness is not an impact in and of itself – explain why fairness matters and compare it to the other impacts on the flow. Topical versions of the aff are persuasive to me only if they are 1) topical, 2) solve the aff, 3) backed by literature. I find myself almost always voting aff in debates were the neg just reads generic blocks and doesn’t tailor their framework argument to engage the aff and/or the neg doesn’t answer the core 1AC claims.

Topicality: I view Topicality as a question of whether the plan “should” be topical, not “is” the plan topical – I can be persuaded a plan that most people just accept as T shouldn’t be considered T. Competing interpretations is my default unless contested.

Counterplans: The best CPs are rooted in topic literature. I especially like CPs derived from solvency advocates the aff misinterprets or takes out-of-context. Generic process and conditional multi-plank counterplans without a singular advocate are not persuasive to me. Make choices, instead of asking me to kick the CP for you in the 2NR.

Theory: On conditionality, I generally think an alternative, a counterplan and the status quo is fine. More than that, I lean aff on condo. On all other theory, I presume to reject the arg not the team. I find it difficult to justify rejection of the team even if the theory arg is totally dropped.

Kritiks: I’m not a fan of long overviews. Impact link arguments. Feasibility of the alt matters for link uniqueness. Role of the ballots that amount to voting for something you did first are arbitrary and not very persuasive.

Perms: Should have a text. The aff gets perms, always.

Some final thoughts: I enjoy case debates. A really good cross-ex produces really good speaks. I won’t vote on things that didn’t happen in the round – ie pre-round or things that happened in other rounds – those issues are near impossible for me to resolve and evaluate. Any other questions, let me know.