Tabroom.com

Parli TOC

2017 — CA/US

Parliamentary Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Basil Abushama Evergreen Valley

Last changed on Sat November 18, 2017 at 1:35 PM PDT

Background & Experience:

4 years of hs parli (circuit and lay, 2x toc champ), some HS policy (circuit), some college NPDA

General Philosophy:

I am okay with listening to any argument any you should choose to run, provided that you lay out the argument clearly and tells me why it wins you the ballot.

I view high school debate as both a competitive activity for the sake of competition and an arena for students to enrich their education by becoming better thinkers and learning more about the world. As such, I will remove myself from the round as much as humanly possible, and base my decision on my best objective evaluation of the arguments made. I flow very carefully. I will not get in your way, so do what you want argumentatively and you can expect me to evaluate it.

My debate style is pretty diverse — I have a good footing in running and hitting normative topical positions, kritiks, theory, and anything in between. My default layering of the round is that theory comes before the kritik and the kritik comes before case, but, in round, tell me what arguments you want to come first (regardless of if it is the same as my default) as I will not do that work for you.

Weighing is very important to me, so do a good amount of work analyzing the impacts throughout the round, and especially at the end, in the rebuttals. Tell me what impacts matter the most, why they matter the most, and why they win you the round, regardless of the position you’re banking your strategy on.

Spreading:

I'm chill with spreading. I will get down your arguments on my flow and will reward higher speaker points to spreading that is exceptionally clear, easy to follow, and/or engaging to listen to. Pointers:

(1) Slow down for taglines, texts, when you switch to a different sheet of paper or argument, and other important parts of your position as you deem fit.

(2) Try not to slur or be repetitive. Spreading is only strategic if you can do it efficiently and clearly.

(3) Be considerate to your opponents. If they are not familiar with spreading, then try to be inclusive of them. Give them texts, answer their POIs, and try to be accommodating of their requests if they have any. It really sucks to get spread out of a round -- doesn't mean you should not spread, just means you should try to be a good sport about it.

Kritiks:

Go for it. I dig it. I ran kritiks quite a bit, and enjoy watching a good kritikal round. I am familiar with most of the authors that debaters commonly cite, like Marx, Nietzsche, Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Wilderson, and the rest of the gang. I’m also chill with performances. If you can surprise me with a kritik that isn’t so common, I’ll be happy and give you props, but explain it well. Regardless of whether or not I know the literature, I will not do work for you filling in arguments, explanations or warrants. Pointers:

(1) Links. Please, run links that interact very specifically with the affirmative position. A few safe generic links are okay, but don’t bank entirely on them. If you can’t come up with any specific links, that means one of two things: one, you aren’t familiar enough with your kritik, or, two, the kritik doesn’t apply well. Both are not good positions to be in.

(2) Alt & Alt-Solvency. Explain what your alternative does and how it solves for the impacts you outlined in the rest of your K.

(3) I think framing on the K is pretty important, so don’t skate over that part and assume I’ll just give you reasons why the K comes first. Tell me through what lens I should evaluate the round and why. Again, I will not do work for you on the K.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES:

I ran K-Affs a few times and have hit them plenty of times. I’m okay with them. Just make sure justify them well, as you should with any kritikal position.

Theory:

I also dig theory. I ran theory quite a bit, from your standard shells to some more out-there shells. Although I view theory as a way to check against real abuse, I’ll listen to and vote for any shell if you win the flow. Pointers:

(1) I default to competing interpretations.

(2) Be very clear and specific with your interpretations. I will take interpretations literally, meaning, if the other team manages to find a lawyer-esque way to meet your interpretation and its logically valid, I will not give much credence to a backtrack along the lines of “well, you know what we meant.”

(3) Ground is the most important standard to me, as it is kind of an umbrella for all fairness-related standards. However, you should still weigh your standards if you want to win the theory debate.

(4) I will not do work for you on the evaluation of the theory. If you want theory to come first, tell me that and tell me why.

(5) I have a lower threshold to voting on RVI's than most judges, but still have a pretty high threshold. You'd have to do a lot of pretty compelling work on the RVI to use it to get the ballot.

Straight Up Case Debate:

I very much enjoy a well-informed and thought out, normative, topical debate. Well constructed, intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, impact framing from the get-go, and smart strategies increase your chances of getting my ballot. Brink scenarios are almost always more compelling than linear advantages/disadvantages, and try to get your arguments to go in the right direction from uniqueness to links to impacts.

I’m okay with CPs that change implementation methods, conditionality, dispositionality, and PICs.

Presentation:

Even flow debate, at its core, is a persuasive activity. Treat it as such. Don’t completely brush off presentation — a confident portrayal of an argument makes it much more appealing to a judge.

I am okay with tag-teaming, just don’t go overboard about it.

Other Key Points:

(1) I like gutsy strategic moves. However, don’t just make a gutsy move for the sake of making a gutsy move, because while I will be amused and pleased, I will not vote for you if it doesn’t win you the round.

(2) Add some personality, and be yourself. You’re real people speaking to real people — rounds that feel like that are more engaging to watch and partake in, in my opinion.

(3) If you kick something, kick it properly by extending defense. I won’t shadow kick for you if the other team calls you out on the shadow kick.

(4) Be good people. It'd be nice to see the debate community try to spread some love.

Fatima Al Amir Campolindo HS

Last changed on Wed November 11, 2015 at 10:14 AM +13

I debated parli for 2.5 years at Irvine Valley and had intermittent experience in BP and IPDA during that time.

As of this semester I coach Campolindo HS's parli team and am a member of UC Berkeley's parli team, although my schedule rarely allows me to compete for Cal.

I have judged policy, parli, ld, public forum, congress, BP, and a plethora of IE's, and privately tutored speech students.

Overall:

I will not protect against new arguments in the rebuttals unless it is clear--after a few pts of order--that the speaker is trying to be sneaky. I expect that if your opponent asks for a text of the plan/cp/alt/perm(s), it will be provided. I can flow speed to a reasonable extent, but will dock speaks/not be able to evaluate your arguments if you are so fast that you're unclear. Please answer at least one question per speech if asked. Tag-teaming is fine.

Case debate:

AFF--Please make warranted and impacted arguments. I don't like voting on any remotely slippery scenarios and very much enjoy interrogative link debate. I am not keen on intrinsic permutations, otherwise perms are fine as tests of competition. I am also fine with unconventional affs so long as I am given a clear way to evaluate your performance and the other team is given a clear way to engage the aff/compete for the ballot. I will not vote on an RVI.

NEG--I believe theory precedes all other arguments in the round and will vote on it with a proven violation. I do not need articualated abuse to vote on theory. I am fine with DAs and CPs (including PICs). I do not like politics DAs because the links are usually awful.

Trichot:

Please always debate policy.

I am fine with k affs and neg k's. I am not a k debater myself but will vote on one. However, I have a very high threshold for buying the efficacy of the alternative, and I view k debates as a comparison between the alternative and the plan. Please try to include specific links

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round! Best of luck!

Sheelah Bearfoot Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:25 AM PDT

Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Notre Dame HS

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:04 AM EDT

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)

General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.

Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

David Chamberlain Claremont

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:28 AM PDT

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Kaitlin Coltin Prospect High School None

Mariel Cruz Notre Dame HS

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 9:07 AM PDT

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Marty De Cupertino HS

Michael Dittmer Evergreen Valley

Armand Domalewski The Nueva School

Last changed on Fri September 15, 2017 at 10:29 AM PDT

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations.

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2. Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:

1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations.

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

Keith Eddins Oak Hill School

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 5:17 AM PDT

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Rosemary Endick Los Altos High School

Last changed on Sat February 2, 2019 at 12:54 AM PDT

Quick Summary - Run whatever you want, be clear. It's your round, take advantage of it! Flow judge, give me articulated arguments. Kritiks are appreciated, warrants are awesome and taglines are not enough. The squo is more scarier now than ever - tell me whatever I can do to make debate a welcome space for you.

Background -

NPDA Debate - 3 years - Enough tournaments and practice to be very familiar with pretty much anything you can throw at me in the debate space.

Judging for 3 1/2 years - judged parli, policy and LD a lot (and I.E.s but whateverrr)

Approach to Judging -

-I am pretty tabula rasa, within reason. I default to reasonability inmost debates unless there is framework that asks me to change my perspective.

-I like high-probability, systemic impacts first and foremost. Give me real warrants and evidence and ANALYSIS I can weigh and you'll find my ballot favorable. I will vote on any framing though.

-I am a flow judge. I always walk the path of least intervention and won't extend or make arguments for you. Give me voters to refer to and it'll make my life easier. I'm really serious about this.

-I love anything kritikal, but it isn't necessary. I like topical and non-topical affs, but be careful with ID tix and other super generic non-topical advocacies. I like straight-up policy cases with advantages and DA's and the like. I like contentions with good framework articulated. Essentially, you can do anything if you do it well and make it easy for me to follow.

-I need articulated impacts, and arguments in general. Taglines are not enough. Explain to me the directionality and extent of your impacts.

-I don't like arguments dropped in member speeches to be suddenly voters in rebuttals AKA shadow extensions but people need to point of order it for me to not evaluate it.

-Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you. If you have any needs or preferences, I'm happy to help.

Argument Prefs -

Framework - I will evaluate the round as you want me to as long as you win framework. I do default to net benes/util, but am totally open to other ways of viewing the round.

Spec -I think spec arguments are rough to win, but I'm open to them. Give me solid standards and proven ground loss and I might pick you up on it.

Topicality - I don't like time-suck T's, and I think that a lot of T arguments don't actually really impact the debate except to inhibit clash. I have a medium threshold for T. You need articulated ground loss usually. However, if you drop it, or any a-priori arguments, you're going to lose the debate. Just be careful.

CPs - Always a great idea. I think CP's are super underused and really effective. I like PIC debates and if you run a CP, you just need to be careful about mutual exclusivity. I don't have a problem with condo CPs.

RVI's - I will vote on them, but only for a good reason i.e. rhetoric in the procedural/DA/whatever, timesuck arguments that are fully fleshed out, etc. Just like all other arguments, if it's blippy I probably won't vote on it and your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

Perms - Always go for the perm. I think the Opp has to really win the perm doesn't function to have a good shot in the round because it is often one of the easiest places to vote.

Kritiks - I like K's! I don't have a ton of background knowledge on some kritiks but have run a lot of Nietzsche, some D&G, Baud, Wilderson, but not enough of any lit other than Nietzsche that I feel confident with, so you need to explain it to me thoroughly. Any form, whether it's performance, rhetoric or otherwise, I am totally cool with. Be careful of overly-generic links.

Performance Prefs -

-I personally can handle speed as long as it's clear, but if your opponents clear or slow you, I expect you accommodate them. Additionally, attempting to spread opponents out of the round will destroy your speaks.

-I couldn't care less if you sit or stand - it's your space, make yourself comfortable

-Partner communication is fine, verbally or through notes, as long as you aren't puppeting. I will only flow what the designated speaker says.

-I don't have an issue with sass or playfulness, but don't be mean to your opponents or partner. There's a fine-line between the two and if you have trouble walking it, I'd be nice to be safe.

-Use your time as you wish, but try not to be too repetitive.

-I don't think you need to yell or be overly angry to try to project confidence. At the same time, you do you.

-If you are being sexist, racist or generally a jerk, your speaks will absolutely reflect that. You don't need to tread on eggshells, but don't be a misogynist, racist person.

Alex Frogner Hire

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2019 at 3:42 AM PDT

***PLEASE NOTE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN FOR PARLI***

First, you don't need to use your time to thank me, and you really don't need to shake my hand. Both of these concepts feel gross, personally.

I debated parli in high school, but not since, and heavy use of theory will likely get lost on me, just because I was never that sophisticated. I am open to some artful experimental/off-topic stuff, but actual trolling is a pathetic waste of everyone's time.

I am not a "blank slate" judge and will struggle to accept what I know to be blatant falsehoods.

I can have trouble understanding very rapid speech, especially if quiet, partially due to an auditory processing disorder. If you start to spread and you've lost me, I will throw my pen down in anger and glare at you dead in the eye and/or yell CLEAR at the very top of my lungs. Further, the sound of constant gasping for breath makes me want to shove my pen through both eardrums just for a moment of respite. This is debate, not auctioneering. In other words, don't spread. Just don't do it.

Humor and wit and personal style are great ways to earn speaker points! Invective toward the other side, etc. is the fastest way to bleed them. Ditto *any* sort of hostility to marginalized/oppressed groups in your case (racial minorities, women, LGBTQ folks, so on and so forth). That is a quick path to me giving you the lowest score possible and reporting you.

Final pet peeves: if you're going to talk extensively about funding, know how appropriation works. If you're going to cite the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, get it right. I don't expect anyone to grasp the nuances of foreign policy or anything like that, but you should have a very good functional understanding of the US government structure, laws, and especially the legislative process.

Ultimately, please have fun and DO NOT TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY, because I'm having fun when y'all are. And if you have any questions or clarifications to bring up before the round, please feel free to do so.

Bhrigu Gollabinnie Evergreen Valley

Last changed on Fri April 7, 2017 at 9:47 AM +07

Background:

- 3rd year Economics Major and Computer Science Minor at UC Berkeley.

- Did debate all four years in high school, having done Parliamentary for the last three.

How I judge:

- I will flow the round in its entirety and to the best of my ability. My flow is only as good as your presentation, so pay attention to ordering and weighting of arguments

- Big fan of a topical, strategic, mutually exclusive counter-plan.

- I will ultimately vote on offense with net benefits as the default value criterion. I appreciate a good defensive argument, but the offense matter more.

- If an argument is made that is shaky, faulty, or plain wrong, it WILL FLOW THROUGH unless contested by the opposition. I do not like when this happens.

- Each argument should be made at the first presented opportunity to do so, solely out of fairness.

- Aff should have a specific plan text/thesis for the round to have solid base to start on. Any topicality arguments that oppose these are welcome.

- Careful with interpretation arguments. I vote based on reason and rationality, so competing interpretations are less important than straightforwardness.

- Don't spend too much time on theory or calling abuse and make sure to still touch case. I appreciate a good theory argument, but if it is overdone/ no real abuse is done, I am more likely to buy reverse voting issues or anything arguing against the theory shell.

- If you are clearly using a kritik or theory shell as a means to "play dirty" I will be able to tell and will make my decision to drop you at that moment. However, a well formulated and applicable kritik is more than welcome, as long as you make the philosophy behind it extremely clear.

- I like debates that are debated based on the logic and reasoning of arguments, with emphasis on weighing the impacts of your arguments to net benefits.

- Final speech should have clear impact analysis and clear reasoning as to why you have won. Any lines or connections I have to draw for myself across the flow shows me that you haven't kept track of your own arguments. I still will flow through winning arguments, but will keep in mind that I did it myself.

Other notes:

- Please no crazy spreading speed. Remember, my flow is only as good as your presentation, so anything I can't understand doesn't get voted on.

- If you do speak too fast, I will simply make a "halting gesture" or give a verbal cue. If I have to do it multiple times, speaker points will be deducted.

- Please be respectful and cordial of your opponents. Don't talk too loud on the side when they are presenting, don't laugh or make faces at things you don't like.

- When asking POI's don't vault out of your seat. If you are not being called on for an uncomfortable period of time, sit down. You should not waste precious flowing time.

- When answering POI's no need to take it right away, or at all. A simple "No, not at this time, sorry," will suffice.

- No need for all the "blanket of thanks" pre speech formalities. Let's get down to business.

***Feel free to ask me any questions regarding specifics about my paradigm or anything not covered on this page.

James Gooler-Rogers Los Altos High School

Trevor Greenan Campolindo HS

Last changed on Wed October 20, 2021 at 9:32 AM PDT

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.
The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.
I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.
Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.
I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.
I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.
I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?
This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.
As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.
I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.
I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.
I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.
I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.
I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.
I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.
I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.
Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.
I default to fiat being durable.

Please give me specific texts.
Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.
I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.
I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.
Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.
I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.
I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.
Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).
What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.
All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Julie Herman Los Altos High School

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 7:35 AM PDT

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Roy Herman Los Altos High School

Last changed on Tue July 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM EDT

From the origin of my debate career, I have been a parent judge. Therefore, I really like it when you stand up straight, look me in the eye, and pay attention to the other speakers and your partner. If you think those things don't matter, you may be surprised in the future. I absolutely believe that debate, and especially Parliamentary Debate, is a fantastic endeavor. I will honor that and I will expect you to as well.

My experience spans about 13 years as I squired my two youths to as many tournaments as we all could attend and judged many rounds. Those two are coaches now and I have remained active because I believe in what the community is doing. So show me what you, and they, have gotten from this activity, such as:

· Critical thinking about the arguments you propose from great use of prep time

· The ability to cogently rebut your opponents case

· Eloquent communication of those arguments

· Tactical elements of argumentation

Speed: It’s fine if you can continue to enunciate appropriately so your opponents and I can hear your arguments. If a case is made but we don't hear it, then it doesn’t exist. If this judge doesn’t hear it it's a sure bet the case does not exist.

Pet peeve: Most plans cost money. It will be beneficial if you have a relatively good idea of how much is needed and where you intend to get it.

Tactics: K’s, Perms and Theory arguments are clever when done well and lose when done badly. Plan Inclusive Counterplans almost always work against you. If an opponent makes an argument that is unfair, you still have to call them out for it. Otherwise, like unchallenged contentions, it will flow through.

There has been quite a bit of change in the debate community and improvement in tournament activity. You should be proud of your participation. Everyone is in the room because they respect the activity of debate. We can demonstrate that and show our respect for each other. I will listen intently and try to deliver a lucid decision. Sometimes RFD’s delivered quickly can sound abrupt. Please don’t be offended. You are great competitors and often significant academic achievers. Getting better requires understanding why votes go against you, not how wonderful you are. I want to walk away better for hearing your arguments. Good luck and thanks for the opportunity.

Steven Herman Los Altos High School

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:37 PM PDT

Background

I debated parli for four years in high school for both Livermore High School and Mountain View/Los Altos. For two of these years I was active on the NorCal high school circuit. I am continuing debate with Santa Clara University. I am a Computer Science and Engineering student so please don't lie about tech.

Approach to judging

I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I am not going to do work for you or throw out arguments I do not like. Simply I am more likely to buy certain arguments and less likely to buy others.

I come to debate seeing some of the split in the community as a competitor. I believe that debate is both a game and an educational activity. Debate does not occur in a vacuum, and as public speakers or future policy makers, debaters have a responsibility to not use rhetoric upholding racist, sexist, etc ideologies. I will average speaker points based on the tournament average, but will save 30s for exceptional speeches.

Argument preferences

Counterplans: Counterplans are great, but the neg should explain how it competes coming out of the 1NC. Permutations are legitimate, but they are a test of the advocacy, if the aff advocates for the perm, I view that as severance. Kicking CPs is fine as are multiple CPs or advocacies, although I am open to the theory arguments against them as well.

Evaluation order/methods: Framework and arguments may change my evaluation order, but this is the default.. In a tie, I vote neg unless the neg has a CP or other advocacy flowed through at the end of the round, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, and default to net benefits for both..

Impacts: Have impacts and terminalize them. Don’t worry about getting to nuke war unless you have a good linkstory. Dehumanization is important, and discussion of systemic impacts is encouraged. I also like the environment and technology, so impacts based around that may earn you higher speaker points.

Kritiks: I am happy to listen to most kritiks, aff or neg. Kritiks requiring spreading your opponents out of the round are difficult for me to accept and I am more likely to vote on speed theory than many judges in the circuit. If your opponents call slow or clear, slow and/or clear, DO NOT just ignore it. If you are going run a K, make sure you clearly explain how it functions and the literature. I am not conversant at a high level in most literature, and even if I am, it will make the round clearer and more educational for everyone involved. Signpost your K and keep it clear and organized. Also be prepared to give your opponents a copy of the alt text if they ask. I tend to evaluate prefiat arguments first on framework, but I am willing to weigh discursive implications of the postfiat arguments/case against them. I do expect that those facing a K will put in good effort to engage with the K, even if they are looking for me to vote other places on the flow, so argue more than just framework or theory (unless you’re being spread out, in which case that is more acceptable). I am also more willing to weigh generic arguments against the K, but make sure to explain how they interact with this K in particular.

Also stealing something from Julie Herman in how I deal with K alts to encourage more variety and better Ks:

I am trying something new here. I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does.

Theory/Topicality: If you want me to vote for theory, you need to make sure to give it impacts/voters. If you want it to do something else in the round, explain how it should function in the round. I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but please don’t use theory just to beat a less technically skilled debater. Theory has a place both as a strategy and to maintain fairness, but don’t overuse it. I err towards voting to maintain fairness and education, and default to competing interpretations on theory. I will vote on RVIs but not commonly, so make sure you have good reasons for it (ie critical turns or clear times skew).

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I can follow any formatting, but I prefer advantage/disadvantage for policy rounds. I can follow best if you signpost and have a clear structure. Impact calculus and an overview in the final round make my job the easiest.

Tag-teaming: I am fine with tag-teaming, though I will only flow what the current speaker says. If it takes over, it may impact speaker points.

Questions: Points of information are good. Use them strategically to either get the opponents onto another topic or clarify the case or debate. Points of Order stop time, with the side calling the point of order gettting to make their case, then the side defending getting to respond. There shouldn’t be back and forth in this time. I will make a ruling and then time will start again.

Respectfulness: Be respectful! Rhetoric is important and I am very open to voting on issues about speech in round if one side is hostile/offensive towards an oppressed group. I will buy rhetoric turns and rhetoric can undermine your case. I will penalize speaker points for hostile or offensive speech acts regardless of your opponent's’ responses.

Speed: I can follow moderate speeds, but may penalize speaker points if your speed interferes with comprehension. Be respectful of your opponent. If they have a high level of difficulty following your speed and make an impacted argument about it in round, I am open to voting on it. You can decrease the chance of me doing this by slowing/clearing if they yell SLOW or CLEAR. If you repeatedly ignore these requests, I will punish your speaker points. I will call slow or clear if I cannot understand you, but will do this a maximum of 3 times, after that I will just put my pen down and stop flowing if you’re going too fast.

Other: I expect you to provide a written copy of a plan/CP/K thesis/K alt/Interpretation to the opponent if asked, you may want to write it out ahead of time. Any team should be able to call “text” during your speech and you should get them a copy by their speech, but preferably asap. Please read these parts or your speech twice and slow down a little if you are going at any sort of speed.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.

Jay Jung Ashland HS

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2019 at 6:26 PM PDT

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Tom Kadie Hire

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 5:05 PM EDT

I did two years of circuit LD at Miramonte High School and graduated in 2015. I graduated from UC Berkeley in 2019 after doing four years of NPDA parliamentary debate.

I have no desire to impose my own views upon the debate round. In deciding the round, I will strive to be as objective as possible. Some people have noted that objectivity can be difficult, but this has never seemed like a reason that judges shouldn't strive to be objective. I, overwhelmingly, prefer that you debate in the style that you are most comfortable with and believe that you are best at. I would prefer a good K or util debate to a bad theory or framework debate anyday. That's the short version--here are some specifics if you're interested.

May 28th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

1. Cards v. Spin: I tend to err that spin and analysis trump evidence quality in the abstract. Intuitively, a card is only as good as its extension. However, I will listen to framing arguments that indicate judges should prioritize debate's value as a research activity and prefer cards to spin.

GGI 2019 Parli-Specific Update:

While I will generally vote for any strategy, I would like to discuss my thoughts on some common debates. These thoughts constitute views about argument interaction that should not make a difference in most debates.

K affs versus T: Assuming the best arguments are made, I err affirmative 60-40 in these debates (The best arguments are rarely made.) However, I tend to believe that impact turns constitute a suboptimal route to beating topicality. I differ from some judges because I believe that neg impact framing on T (procedural fairness first, debate as a question of process, not product) tends to beat aff impact framing. However, I err aff on the legitimacy of K affs because I'm skeptical of the neg's link to that framing. Does T uniquely ensure procedural fairness? Thus, to win my ballot, teams reading K affs must take care to respond to the neg's specific impact framing. They cannot merely read parallel arguments.
Conditionality: I lean strongly that the negative gets 1 conditional advocacy. 2 is up for debate and three is pushing it. Objections to conditionality should be framed around the type of negative advocacies and the amount of aff flex. For example, perhaps 2 conditional advantage counterplans is permissible, but not 2 conditional PICs.

Past Paradigm:

Also:

Absent weighing on any particular layer, I default to weighing based on strength of link.
I probably won't cover everything so feel free to ask me questions.
Taken from Ben Koh because this makes sense: "If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave."

Delivery and speaks:

Fine with speed.
I'm not the greatest at flowing, so try to be clear about where an argument was made.
High speaks for good strategic choices and innovative arguments. I will say clear as much as necessary and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

Frameworks:

I default to being epistemically conservative, but will accept arguments for epistemic modesty if they are advanced and won.
I am willing to support any framework given that it is won on the flow.
I'm willing to vote for permissibility or presumption triggers. However, there must be some implicit or explicit defense of a truth-testing paradigm. The argument must also be clear the first time that it is read. If the argument is advanced for the first time in the 1AR and I think that it is new, I will allow new 2NR responses.
Many framework debates are difficult to adjudicate because debaters fail to weigh between different metastandards on the framework debate. For example, if util meets actor-specificity better, but Kantianism is derived from a superior metaethic, is the actor-specificity argument or the metaethic more important?

Theory and T:

I default to no RVI, drop the argument on most theory and drop the debater on T, competing interpretations, and fairness and education not being voters. Most of these defaults rarely matter because debaters make arguments.
I don't think that competing interps means anything besides a risk of offense model for the adjudication of theory. That means, for example, that debaters need to justify why their opponent must have an explicit counter-interpretation in the first speech.
I, paradigmatically, won't vote on 2AR theory.
I'm willing to vote on metatheory. I probably err slightly in favor of the metatheory bad arguments such as infinite regress.
I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
Fine with frivolous theory.

Utilz:

I default to believing in durable fiat.
Debaters should work on pointing out missing internal links in most extinction scenarios.
I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
I probably err aff on issues of counter-plan competition.
Err towards the view that uniqueness controls the direction of the link. However, I'm willing to accept arguments about why the link is more important.
I will evaluate 1ar add-ons and 2nr counter-plans against these add-ons. This is irrelevant in most debates.

K's:

There are many different kinds of kritikal argumentation so feel free to ask questions in round.
I'm unsure whether I should default to role of the ballot arguments coming before ethical frameworks. I personally believe that ethical arguments engage important assumptions made by many ROB arguments. However, community consensus is that ROB's come first so I will usually stick with that assumption if no argument is made either way.
I default to fairness impacts coming before theory, but I'm willing to evaluate arguments to the contrary.
I don't have strong objections to non-topical positions. However, I believe debaters should probably engage in practices like disclosure that improve the theoretical legitimacy of their practices.
Willing to vote on Kritikal RVI's/impact turns to theory.
I'm willing to listen to arguments that there shouldn't be perms in method debates. However, I find these arguments not very persuasive.

Note for HS Parli:

Everything above applies. Except for the stuff about prep time. The only parli specific issue is that I will listen to theory arguments that it is permissible to split the block. Feel free to ask me any questions

Rugved Karhade Washington None

Rugved Karhade Cupertino HS None

Jing Liao Notre Dame HS None

Thomas Liao Campolindo HS None

Mark Mabie The Nueva School

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT

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

Sierra Maciorowski Los Altos High School

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 9:59 AM PDT

The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.
In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.
Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.
Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.
I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".
Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.
Content warnings are good (link).
Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.
Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.
(UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!
Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.
Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.
Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.
I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.
Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.
I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.
I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!
Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!
Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.
No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.
(UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.
The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.
Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.
Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.
Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.
On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies
Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud
I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.
I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.
Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.
On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

Jesse MacKinnon Bishop O'Dowd High School

Last changed on Thu February 11, 2016 at 12:03 AM PDT

From the newest Superman/Batman trailer: "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race. If we believe there's even a 1% chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty."

Huh, I didn't know that Batman was a Policy debater.

My experience:

Coaching Public Forum primarily for four years. Extensive experience with Parli. Limited experience with Policy and LD.

What I value in the debate round, in order:

1) Topicality. The team that can get me to vote on case will most often win my ballot.

2) Clash. The team that most directly addresses and refutes their opponents arguments will win my ballot.

3) Links. The team that can provide critical analysis of their evidence and cogently explain why it supports their case will win my ballot.

4) Flow. The team that can refute their opponents and effectively defend their case will win my ballot.

What about impacts?

Unless the resolution literally deals with NATO-Russian relations, I am entirely unconcerned with nuclear war. Some far-flung impact calculus is so intellectually lazy that it's insulting. Batman is a bad debater, and he should feel bad. Go Superman.

What about theory?

It does have a place in debate. However, I prefer that it be used sparingly.

K - In four years of judging, I have only voted on a Kritik a handful of times. I have no philosophical objection to them, but ultimately this is a difficult route to obtaining my ballot. If you run a K, particularly an Aff K, they absolutely must be Topical. For example, the last K I voted on was a Cap K, and the resolution dealt with the economy.

T - If Neg decides to run Topicality, it must be so simple and obvious that even a parent judge could understand. In short, if you have decided to run a T before another debater has had the chance to open their mouth, you might as well concede the round now. That is abject dishonesty, and I will relish taking off and nuking your speaker points from orbit.

Other judging preferences:

I value the strength of reasoning and the clarity of argumentation in debate. If it hasn't been made abundantly clear at this point, I don't want to have a lengthy discussion about the nature of Debate unless that is what the resolution pertains to. I have discussions about the nature of Debate in the bar with the other coaches after the tournament is over.

Unfortunately over the course of the years, I have encountered teams which deliberately falsify important evidence in order to gain an unfair strategic advantage. I reserve the right to use the Internet to fact-check a round while it is in progress.

I am fine with speed, so long as the Debater is actually enunciating their words. Please do not use speed as a weapon in the round.

Please feel free to employ witty humor, biting sarcasm, and above all creativity in your round.

Mat Marr Ashland HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:10 AM PDT

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

Cortney Norris The Dalton School

Dallas Phillips Washington

Artem Raskin Evergreen Valley

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 5:20 PM PDT

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

High school teacher - economics, government, history.

Pronouns - he

Approach to judging

- I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round; defense almost never wins rounds.

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

- If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

- I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, and in these cases, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

- I prefer teams to take at least two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, if the tournament doesn't allow POCs, you should take clarification POIs after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Tag teaming should be kept to a minimum. Pass notes.

- Don't go over time in your speech. I stop flowing when the timer beeps. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

Rylan Schaeffer Hire

Last changed on Sun April 9, 2017 at 4:13 AM PDT

I'm unsure of what information is generally helpful to competitors, so I tried to infer the answer by reading other judges' paradigms. If there's anything I've overlooked, please feel free to ask before the round begins.

Background:

I competed in debate for four years in high school, but I haven't judged since 2011 (my goodness, I'm old). I haven't followed every issue in detail since then (hint: it might behoove you to include relevant background information, especially early in the round).

My old judging paradigm:

I competed for four years for Mountain View High School.

While judging on the circuit, I try to be as tab as possible. However, I do have minimal requirements if you want my ballot:

I will only vote for actual arguments. That means a claim, a warrant and an impact. If you can't explain in-round why your claim is true or why your claim matters, I will not bring the argument into my decision calculus.

I will only vote for offensive arguments. I believe the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true and the negative has the burden to prove the resolution false, and to do so requires offense. If neither debater extends offense, I will decide the round by flipping a coin.

I will only vote for arguments that are extended in a form intellectually consistent with their original formation. I'm fine with new cross applications, but I strongly frown on twisting arguments to draw new implications, especially in later speeches.

To minimize judging interference, it behooves you to provide a standard for me to decide the round. I would also recommend clearly structuring your cases, DAs, Ks, etc. The clearer you can make your argument, your authors and your evidence, the easier it will be for me to understand the argument. In general, I enjoy non-standard arguments (Ks, narratives, performance, discursive, a prioris, etc

Updates:

I haven't thought about debate in the past half decade, so I don't know how true any of the above is anymore.

I default to competing interpretations because that's what I remember, but if you argue in favor of some alternative methodology, I'll happily evaluate that like any other argument.

I find that high school circuit debaters generally have very low word economy. If you want high speaks, talk efficiently. I'm fine with speed.

Lukas Schwab Campolindo HS

Last changed on Fri November 13, 2020 at 11:37 AM PDT

Background

I did policy debate in high school, coached HS parli for Campolindo when I was in college, and now I haven't done any debate in a while.

The rest of this paradigm is from several years ago, when I was more active. I don't think much has changed in the way I'll assess a round, but I'm probably less familiar with trendy arguments than I used to be.

***

Paradigm

I would consider myself a fairly standard flow judge.
I can handle speed. I will tell you in-round to clear/slow down as needed.
I will listen to most every argument and most every impact.
Walk me through my decisionmaking process. Linearly, how do I get to where I vote?
Be competitive, but be friendly.

Ramblings

Here are a lot of opinions/things I default to. All of these will be overridden by arguments made in round. That should make this list fairly useless.

Rituals, disclosure

Don’t thank anyone, dress up, or stand up on my behalf. Debate however you will debate best.
Off-time roadmaps are coolio.
Please don’t shake my hand.
Be friendly. Win your rounds, be strategically aggressive, posture… but at the end of the day, debate is a good place for mutual enthusiasm, support, and respect. If you make someone feel unwelcome, it’ll be reflected on my ballot.
I have yet to encounter a scenario in which I do not vote one way or the other.
If a tournament schedule allows it, I’m comfortable giving feedback after the round. I will probably not disclose my decision unless it’s specifically encouraged by the tournament organizers.

Aff disclosure

I think disclosure is pretty cool. I’m willing to vote neg on disclosure theory if the argument is made well (see: Theory).

General strategy

I never heard of “trichot” in Policy, but I want a debate with a concrete advocacy (political or kritikal) whenever possible.
No matter what, please read specific links.
I’m fine voting for a non-topical aff if you win the theoretical debate.
Use POIs strategically to throw off a speaker. If you’re a speaker, taking POIs is typically a good strategic call.
Very specific arguments are almost always good!
For speaker points, I prefer debaters who debate well to those who win. These two are not necessarily linked, but debating well is important for debate as a whole and I hope we all try to do it.

Theory

Go ahead, read the theory everyone tells you is annoying! I’m down with multiple topicality, spec shells, etc. Just do it well, please.
Potential offense on theory is not nearly as valuable as specifically articulated misuse of the debate. e.g. if neg reads conditional positions but doesn’t kick anything, why do I care that the arguments were conditional?
Conditionality

I tend to think conditionality is good.

- Use conditionality to highlight the most important negative arguments; don’t use it to waste time.
- Before kicking a conditional position, resolve offense and extend defense to mitigate it as much as possible.
Dispositionality: I don’t think this differs substantially from conditionality. I don’t think dispositionality’s disclosure answers “condo bad” arguments, so calling your arg dispo isn’t a get-out-of-theory-free card.

Counterplans

Absent an articulated framework, I default to evaluate the counterplan like a mutual exclusivity disadvantage.
Counterplans should be textually or functionally competitive. Net benefits are typically uncompelling.
If you compete via net benefits, those net benefits should be rock solid versus the perm.
Here are some counterplans I like:
- Short delay
- Word PICs
Here are some counterplans I don’t like:
- Long delay
- Consult
Permutations
- Give me a perm text––”do the plan and all non-competitive parts” doesn’t count.
- I’m friendly to theory that says multiple blippy permutations are bad.
- Permutations are never, ever advocacies. Giving a rebuttal advocating the perm world as anything but a response to the CP is a bad habit and a good way to get dropped on theory.

Kritiks

Read specific links. My threshold is pretty high for generic state/cap links.
Avoid identity args that aren’t specific to your identity.
I hesitate to vote on performative contradiction. Exception: representations kritiks, discourse links, kritiks with pre-fiat implications.
I’m plenty open to “cap good,” “heg good,” “realism is real,” etc.
Framework
- I want to feel comfortable with my vote, and a good discussion on framework achieves that. I will gladly ignore parts of the debate if there’s a sound theoretical reason to do so.
- Reading a K? Read framework! Feel free to try to moot the aff by whatever method you like.
- Answering a K? Read framework! Feel free to try to moot the K by whatever method you like.
Lit I love
- Poststructuralism: biopower and its derivatives, Foucauldian sex/gender theory, Foucauldian ableism, Derrida…
- Representations: security, terror talk, ableism…
- Orientalism.
- In general, epistemology kritiks are up my alley.
Lit I kind of know
- Baudrillard
- Afropessimism
- Lacanian psychoanalysis
Lit I’m not super familiar with
- Identity args
- Nietsche
- Schizoanalysis
- Obscure/technical ontology args
- Very happy to listen to/vote on all of the above, just give me a good explanation of terms of art as they come up so I don’t accidentally vote wrong. It’s on whoever reads the kritik to make sure I understand.

Violet Sinnarkar Evergreen Valley

Last changed on Fri September 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM PDT

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.

Adrian Tang Hire

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2018 at 8:44 AM PDT

Case.

I tend to intervene as infrequently as possible on the flow. This means that I will only vote on implicit/double turns and contradictions only if directly and clearly addressed as such. If you want me to vote on a dropped point, make sure it is explained/extended - don't blip out an argument in 2 seconds in the 1NC and turn case without proper extensions later. It also means that I will want to hear well explained uniqueness, warrants and link stories in every Ad/Disad that you run.

Don't make assumptions about the world and international actors without evidence - 'China Evil' is not a self-evident warrant. If you go for large impacts like 'Econ Collapse' be sure your internal links support the scale.

Conditionality is not an issue for me unless the opposition specifically wins a theory shell. The same goes for counter-plans - I will vote on nonfunctional, plan-inclusive or noncompetitive counter-plans until I hear arguments otherwise.

I'm open to most plans and philosophies unless they are obviously very morally wrong - I try not to bring personal sentiments into the debate. Case debate is very much appreciated, particularly if the scenarios are well developed. I will always factor in impact defense and probability into Ads/Disads. Please explain evidence in-round and not on cards.

Theory.

I'm open to theory. Interpretations should be communicated clearly to myself and the other team. Competing interpretations and reasonability are both valid perspectives with me. Don't blip out standards and voters taglines without explanation and contextualization. I will not intervene in cases of extra-topicality, although a good theory shell will be well received. I will not automatically drop debaters for running poor theory, but I will definitely disregard theory if the violation-standards-voters story is not developed properly.

Critiques.

I am fine with critiques on both the aff and neg if the harms of the resolution are stated. Please explain terminology very clearly and make no assumptions about theories that I or the other team should know. Long words should not be name-dropped without specific definition and contextualization to the case. Have warrants for your critiques and take care to explain your framework/alt solvency clearly for me to vote on those.

Overall.

I will be able to keep up with fast speeds but the imperative whilst doing so is that you remain clear - I will call 'clear' if I cannot understand what you are saying. Finally, please try to be respectful to the other team in both your personal conduct and the critiques/arguments you run.

Jonathan Taylor Hire

Last changed on Thu November 10, 2016 at 3:28 PM PDT

LD/Parli: Check the wiki

PF Paradigm:

TL;DR–Do whatever, but if you’re going to do it, do it right. Full citations and impeccable evidence ethics are mandatory. If it ain’t in summary, then it shouldn’t be in final focus. Speed is fine as long as you’re clear and not monotonous. I’ll always disclose unless the tournament has rules against it, in which case I will make it clear that the creators of such rules are jackasses.

Public Forum is very simple compared to LD, which is my event. I debated at some local PF tournaments my freshman year and am happy to say that I have not done so since. If I’m judging you in PF, I’ll adjudicate any argument (including non-PF ones, such as T, theory, conditional advocacies, off-cases, plans, counterplans, kritiks, etc…), though I suggest, as always, that you stick to what you’re comfortable with. I don’t want to see a PFer try to run theory if they have no clue as to how the argument functions. Just because it’s PF doesn’t give you free license to hijack and pervert policy/LD arguments. If you’re going to do it, do it right.

Other than that, I have no real paradigmatic issues for PF. Though I’m known as “slow-ish” in LD, I’ve never seen a PF round that I cannot follow, so speed shouldn’t be a problem for me. BUT SLOW THE HELL DOWN FOR AUTHOR NAMES! YOU PFers DUMP TEN CARDS IN ONE SPEECH AND NEVER ONCE ENNUNCIATE OR DISTINGUISH A NAME FROM THE REST OF THE SENTENCE. STOP. DOING. THAT. As always, full MLA/APA citations are necessary for a card to warrant the ballot. (Update: I hold varsity debaters to this standard, but in Novice/JV, I can probably entertain a degree of flexibility). You don’t have to include them in the speech doc as is done in LD and policy, but if I call for a card, I want to see the citation as well. In the speech, last name and date is fine, but that’s the bare minimum. I will not evaluate any cards that are not read initially with a last name and a date, nor will I evaluate any cards that are given to me without an actual citation. I don’t care how well you debated, and I don’t care if it’s just an honest mistake. No citation means no evidence. You can paraphrase all you want (but don’t invoke any “creative licenses” or other such liberties) but you still need to have actual evidence, prefix your paraphrasing with the author name and date, and provide the actual card and citations when asked. I’m aware that PF evidence ethics are terrible, so I’ll always call for cards that have come into question, and might even call for some cards on my own accord. If you screw up the evidence (i.e., don’t read the word “not,” fabricate it, try and pass some study of two counties off as a “national metastudy,” or otherwise majorly misconstrue it), you lose and the guy who read it gets zero speaker points, while his partner gets 20. Academic dishonesty is a cancer that must be irradiated, quashed, and disposed of.

You don’t have to extend your case through your rebuttal, but if you want to win off of something, it needs to be in final focus, and if you want to say something in final focus, you need to have mentioned it in summary. I’d like it if your second speaker at least pays lip service to his team’s constructive, but I understand that rebuttals are supposed to be straight-ref speeches, so no biggie if you don’t get around to it. Bonus points (literally) if you get around to extending your case and taking out turns and defense. I guess that only really applies to the round’s fourth speaker, though. Oh well.

I’m aware that PF crossfires are complete and utter jokes, especially grand crossfire, so you’re welcome to use that as prep. I really don’t care. In LD, we have something called “flex prep,” and I don’t know if that concept exists in PF. But I’m willing to pretend that it does because I believe that the flexibility it entails allows for better debates, especially against dense, tricky, or odd arguments.

I give low speaker points. 27.5 is about average, and I am more than happy to throw out 26s 25s, and even single-digits if a) the quality of your argumentation, b) the integrity of your evidence, or c) your speaking style and verbal fluency are adequately low. That said, you don’t get below 25 without doing something that really pisses me off. 30s don’t really happen, unless you do something really crafty or cool, or if you bring me a Monster Ultra Zero (yellow, please, but I’ll drink any color except black) before the round.

Though I’m apt to criticize and berate PF for being overly simplistic, the fact of the matter is that a small part of me recognizes that high-level PF rounds include mind-boggling amounts of empirical data and technical comparisons, even more so than in LD. Thus, I’d very much appreciate it if you’d be so gracious as to slow down for twenty seconds at the beginning of summary and final focus and give me a specific yet satisfyingly broad and general overview. “We win because they drop the Johnston card” is not an overview. However, “We win because they drop the Johnston card from our rebuttal, which 1: de-links their turn on our second contention, 2: is terminal defense on their first contention, and 3: means that their defense on our third contention is meaningless. The warrant for the Johnston card is _______. Extend and cross-apply the weighing arguments from our summary speech; the third contention outweighs their case on magnitude and reversibility. Game over.” That’s the kind of overview I’m looking for. I can’t guarantee the accuracy of my decisions sans overviews, so your ballot will thank you for giving them.

One last thing: I strongly believe in disclosing the ballot and speaker points. It makes for better debate if the winners of a round know how they won and what to repeat, and if the losers know what they should’ve, would’ve, and could’ve done. If I can’t disclose, then I’ll just have to “accidentally” show you the ballot or use some clandestine hand gestures. Hehehe.

Jon Thorpe The Nueva School None

William Windsor Irvington HS

Last changed on Sun November 11, 2018 at 6:21 AM PDT

I debated Policy Debate for two years at Maine Township High School South in the metropolitan Chicago area. In my senior year, my partner and I won Third Place in the state of Illinois, in the NFL Policy Debate State Championship Tournament that year. I work in the electronics industry, and I assist in debate coaching at Irvington High School in Fremont, CA. This is my fifth year judging Policy, Parliamentary, and Lincoln-Douglas debates.

I am a flow judge; I definitely prioritize depth of analysis over spread.

I prioritize four key debate criteria:

(1) Clarity.
Clarity of presentation, clarity of logic applied to the debate. Clear articulation and enunciation are paramount for intelligibility and comprehensibility.

(2) Depth of Analysis.
Analyze the logical foundation of the arguments: strengthen the foundations of your team's arguments, challenge the foundations and assumptions of your opponents' arguments. In Policy debate: argue harm, significance, inherency, and advantages/disadvantages.

(3) Show Impact.
Show why your arguments are the most important for the debate resolution, and why your arguments are more important than your opponents' arguments. Show why your evidence and references are more logically substantiated and thorough than your opponents'. Prioritize your arguments, and rank your arguments in order of importance. In rebuttals, rank the most important arguments in the debate as a whole; show why your arguments are more important and impactful.

(4) Clash.
Directly address the opposing team's arguments. Show why your arguments are superior to your opponents' arguments.

Additional Notes -- other debate strategies and methodologies are fine: frameworks, counterplans, topicality, etc. Make sure that these arguments are important and impactful to the resolution, with strong analytical reasoning, and with evidential support where applicable. I think frameworks are good and map to real-world professional decision-making.

Kritiks that directly relate to the resolution are fine: for example, philosophy of law applied to the resolution, philosophy of reason applied to the resolution. But please note: I am highly suspect of Case Ks, having judged some Case Ks where it seemed the students were just yelling about stuff.

robert xu Hire

Brian Yang Hire

Last changed on Fri October 29, 2021 at 1:38 AM GMT

FOR GGI 2021

I haven't heard or flowed speed in a while, and also haven't been super involved in debate lately, so I will probably have trouble flowing top-speed. Content preferences are generally unchanged, with the exception that I now know even less about both current events and critical literature. My general inclination as a judge is to take whatever is said in-round at face value (e.g. I won't fact check warrants or scrutinize textually flawed interps unless told to do so).

Most of the below paradigm was written when I was still a competitor. Looking back, I've found that the actual process I use when judging rounds is frankly very intuition-based and not always the most technical, especially when it comes to warrants and POIs. At the end of the day, I think debate is just competitive storytelling. And personally, I prefer Ancient Aliens to C-SPAN.

OLD PARADIGM (mostly still applies)

TL;DR: Go nuts (but please don't be rude/horrible to your opponents).

The round is yours. I prefer a well-executed strategy more than anything else. For some background, I competed in NPDA at Berkeley for three years (graduated in 2020). As a competitor, the arguments I most commonly collapsed to were Theory, Buddhism, Anthro, Politics, and Dedev.

Here are some general thoughts/preferences:

Case/Disads: I love to see good case debate. I'm not particularly well versed in what's going on in the world, so if the case debate is getting messy then some top-level overviews and explanation are probably helpful. I don't care if you read generics. I like good politics debates.

Counterplans: I have no preferences on issues like conditionality, PICs, delay, consult, negative fiat, etc.. I'll vote for it if I think you're winning it, and I'll vote for them if I think they're winning a theoretical objection. By default, I assume negative advocacies are conditional.

Kritiks: If you're reading something complicated, overviews/explanation are super appreciated. Words like ontology, epistemology, etc. don't mean that much to me in a vacuum, so it's good to read implications to arguments when extending them. K affs are fine, I don't have much attachment to the topic (although I'm happy to vote on framework-T too if won).

Theory: I think it can be a strategic tool in addition to a check on abuse. I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Will evaluate an RVI if you read a justification. Proven abuse is unnecessary, but you can make arguments why it should be necessary and I'll listen to them. If reasonability doesn't have a brightline or some explanation of what it means to be reasonable, then I'll just disregard it.

Presumption/tricks: I believe in terminal defense. By default, I think presumption goes neg. In general, I don't mind voting on tricksy arguments as long as they're sufficiently explained when gone for.

Point of orders: Feel free to call them. I'll try and protect, but I think they're still good to call just in case I'm missing something. I will also try to protect from shadow-extensions.

Out-of-round stuff: I'm pretty sympathetic towards arguments calling for content/trigger warnings before the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

Abel Zambrano Hire

Last changed on Fri November 12, 2021 at 2:54 PM PDT

email chain —-> amedinazambrano@gmail.com

** Head speech and debate coach at Torrey Pines HS, I am currently competing in CEDA for Southwestern and I have 3 years of parli/LD experience prior. If you have specific questions about literature bases I’ve read or are familiar with; just send me an email and I’ll get back to you. If not, ask before the round or just read it and explain it to me. Read my entire paradigm if you can, otherwise scan for the bold text for the “Reading My Paradigm during Prep Time,” version.

1. I'll vote on anything (so long as it's not morally abhorrent). I am not going to create an exhaustive list of every morally abhorrent position but trust me, if your arg falls under this category you will be able to tell via my facial expressions in round.

2. I have a lower than average threshold on Theory. I’m biased towards potential abuse being enough but a case can definitely be made for a proven abuse burden. With a few exceptions I typically defer to a framework of competing interpretations unless told otherwise so tell me otherwise. If you’re deliberately spreading someone out of a round, I am likely to pick up their speed procedural regardless of who is winning the standards debate. Inclusivity and access are important. If it’s egregious, I’ll drop you on sight.

3. K debates are cool coming from either side. FW is a valid strat v Kaffs.

4. I don't have strong feelings for or against any specific type of counterplan. Just shoot your shot and be ready for the theory debate.

5. I think turns are very underused, while also being very under-explained, "straight" turns probably need to be paired with an argument on the uniqueness level otherwise they are functionally defence but with that being said, the opposing team needs to do that work in round.

6. There’s a really good chance I may have to intervene if you don’t tell me what I’m voting for in rebuttals (you probably dont want this) so git gud and do the explaining. Your rebuttal should write my RFD. Tell me about what impact scenario beats the other team’s. Give me framing and calculus. PLEASE. Whether it be the theory level or the link level or thesis level or alt solvency, whatever. Why are you winning this round? If you’re right, you’ll know it.

7. Pls remember that your framework can determine how (if at all) your arguments are received and interpreted.

8. Collapse.

9. I’m super down to have a faster than normal debate. You probably won't be able to lose me from speed alone but pls be as Clear as you can. If I am judging you in an ev. based format I care much less but I’m gonna ask that you slow for tags or send me a copy of the speech doc. (amedinazambrano@gmail.com)

10. Pls don’t make me judgekick a plan or theory shell. Tell me what to do with it, Bc you’ll be mad when I vote on the perm or rvi that was left unresolved. If you make shadow extensions from something said earlier that’s chill.

11. Abusing Power Dynamics will not win you this round. I like a sassy debate, I love seeing two close friends hash out a tough round but both opponents must be on the same page. If you’re a guy shouting down a girl in cross ex Bc you think it’s “dominating” or any other form of “machismo,” to put someone else down, I will tank your speaks and have a hard time voting for you and I will probably drop you. Ask for pronouns, names, etc. Also time yourself. I should be able to trust y'all.

12. Partner to Partner comm is fine but make sure your partner wants the help. Pls don’t control your partners speech time, I will not flow what the partner says, you gotta say it.

13. Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions about things I should be comfortable with in your round, Bc remember, it’s your round. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥

PS: Shouts to Khamani Griffin from whom I stole the format for this paradigm.

Kenny Zhang Evergreen Valley

Login to Tabroom

Parli TOC

2017 — CA/US

Parliamentary Paradigm List

Judges