Background

6 years of Debating in India- Formats include Model UN, Speech, Parliamentary Debates (A different format than you might be accustomed too), Intended Economics and CS at Berkeley --> Focus on politics, international relations, economics, sociology and philosophy.

Approach to judging:

1.  I judge by the flow but I am not a tabula rasa judge. I will intervene against false arguments or facts.

2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured and the motion should be looked at from all perspectives for e.g., economic, social, political, moral.

3. I will vote on argument that has strong links. I need the debaters to have sound and valid arguments and back up every one of their premises which should lead to a logical conclusion.

4. No spreading. If you are going faster than I can comprehend, I will put down my pen and raise my hands.

5. I am most comfortable evaluating case debate.

6. I believe the role of the negative is to negate the resolution and I will not vote on counter-plans of any kind.

7. I will not vote on critiques/ theory.

Happy Debating! 

No spreading or fast talking. 

Be respectful to your partner and opponents

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

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

Updated 11/6/2017

St. Vincent de Paul HS '17

Santa Rosa Junior College 

3 Years Policy debate experience in High School, First year debating Parli on the college level.

Preface

If you only take away one thing from my judging philosophy, it should be that I will attempt to be as Tabula Rosa as humanly possible. I will come into the round with the belief that any argument can be legitimate if it has warrants behind it, and equally that it is the burden of the other team to prove abuse in the round. 

I will flow your round, and will vote on the flow in my RFD. I am also happy to give you my flows at the end of the round if you ask for them. 

Jokes and sass, if done well, will earn you higher speaks. 

How I Will Evaluate Your Round 

*Modeled after Adam Martin's evaluation philosophy 

I will try to stick to the most objective judging rubric I can, and this section should help to clear up any controversies or questions about my evaluations. I will admit that some of this is pretty obvious, but it's nice to have a rubric so we can all be on the same page.

1. I will evaluate framework at the top of the debate. If it's a policy vs policy round, I will skip this step. Otherwise, the winning framework of the debate will determine what types of advocacy I will evaluate. This could manifest as me determining if the aff gets to weigh the advantages of the K vs case or vice versa, but could also extend to questions like "Are floating PIKS legitimate?".

2. I then determine what voting aff/neg means in regards to that framework. In general, voting for a particular team is an endorsement of their advocacy - judged on policy, kritikal, and/or rhetorical impacts. 

3. I will then compile a list of all the impacts in the round 

4. I then will attempt to figure out what impacts each team solves - constituted through aff advantages, case turns, link and internal link turns, straight turns, etc.

5. This usually produces a winning team, but after I have a preliminary vote in mind, I will refer back to the flow to determine if the "losing team" had any arguments that complicate my original decision. 

6. I then submit my ballot and give my RFD. 

Misc Points About My Evaluation

I will flow your entire round, and if something is not on my flow, I wont feel comfortable voting on it. 

Until an argument is made to the contrary, I will think of voting for an advocacy signifies that I believe that advocacy is a good thing, not necessarily that the advocacy actually happens post-RFD. 

Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the MG says reasonability on one topicality violation and the neg goes for another one, the PMR can cross apply it legitimately. However, there should still be a warrant behind all of the claims you are trying to make. 

Framework

I really like good framework debate, I think it should be an integral part in almost every round. Warrants, impacts, and clash are a must when there are competing interpretations of framework. I will not have an inherent bias towards either side of the framework debate, and would happily vote for both "K is a prior question to the aff" or just as easily for "all kritiks are cheating".

Fairness is not an inherent good, impact it out.

Topicality/Procedural

Generally speaking, I have the highest threshold for voting on topicality or other procedural arguments. If you want me to throw away the rest of my flows because topicality is an Apriori issue, you should be collapsing to your procedural and have clearly articulated to me the abuse in the round, coupled with the impact to that abuse and why it should be a Apriori. If this isn't clear to me, I will have trouble holding topicality as an inherently bigger impact than anything else. 

If there is not clearly articulated abuse - I will probably err on the side of Reasonability 

Kritiks

I personally have been reading kritiks on the both the aff and the neg for all 4 years of my debate career. This does not mean, however, that I will give any more legitimacy to a kritik than any other argument. If you are going to read a kritik with me in the back of the room, you should be well versed in the literature that youre reading and also should understand how to properly execute that kritik in the round. I am familiar with most of the kritik literature that's being read on the circuit right now, but you shouldn't assume that I will have heard your specific thesis or how you're choosing to interpret Foucault this round. For links, if you are going to go for "They used the state so they're capitalists", you should also have supplemental case-specific links. For both teams, don't forget the framework debate. Clash is super important. Don't forget to impact out the parts of framework you're winning. If you're neg, and the aff doesn't have strong reasons why fiat is good - you should tell me why they don't get to weigh their advantages. If you're aff, don't forget that you have an affirmative and think it's a good idea - kritik debates often try to shift away from the case entirely, and they often forget to answer the case sufficiently. 

I'm cool with K affs just do it well.

Disads

I don't really have much to say here. Read them, win on them. I like case specific disads that turn the case on a deeper level.

Counterplans

I have no predispositions to any counterplans. I will vote on the shiftiest counterplan you can think of or a very legit advantage CP. Don't just perm the CP with "do both" unless there you have good warrants about why there's no mutual exclusivity, most often you should be explaining the net benefits to the perm with articulated warrants. 

Case

Every good negative strategy spends a good amount of time engaging with the case. This is true no matter what style of round it is. I like seeing case-specific clash from both sides. For the negative, strong case turns and good solvency deficits or internal link takeouts will help earn you an easy ballot. For the affirmative, don't forget to extend your case and capitalize on everything you're winning. 

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Please speak slowly and clearly, no spreading!

Make sure you signpost your contentions and have clear structure. 

Please, NO kritik's or complicated theory. 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

I am a newer parliamentary debate judge (and have gone through the parent training and 6 rounds).  

Constraint: Los Altos High School

Preference: Please speak clearly and slowly.

I plan to do flowing.   It will help me if you go slowly and bullet your construction and rebuttals.  If you are speaking to fast I will not be able to flow. 

Quality is more important than quantity.

Be respectful and observe the tournament rules.  I will protect if you are a member of the opposition or government and introduce a new argument during the rebuttal (the prime minister should acknowledge during their rebuttal that a new argument was introduced by the MO).

Raise your hand on POIs and POOs, and wait for the speaker to acknowledge. 

Remember to have fun!

My background is mostly college speech. I have experience judging both college and high school debate, but I'm not an expert. So don't spread, and please signpost everything clearly. In addition to the benefits around clarity, I consider good signposting a key part of actual, persuasive argumentation, so it's even more to your benefit. I know some debate terminology, but it would probably be best if you assume you need to briefly define anything more complex than MOG.

I'm fairly tabula rasa; you need to explain to me why your argument/impact/etc beats the other teams, for both experience reasons and structural reasons. That said, I am going to vote down blatant and/or offensive misinformation, such as, to use a real example, "there are no nuclear scientists in Africa." Similarly, you run an arg that's racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/Islamophobic/etc., expect it to count against you.

I am familiar with Ks, though, and am good with them so long as you justify the rejection of the resolution and outline your args well.

I prefer policy rounds and clash. When voting, I generally prefer argumentation and clarity to the formal debate hierarchy of what you're supposed to vote on. So it definitely matters if your opponent drops something, and you should point that out for the sake of your argument, but "winning on debate technicalities" is probably going to be a less successful strategy.

Note: I'm trans and my pronouns are they/them.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round!

I´m an experienced former parliamentary debater from the Oregon high school circuit. I will vote based on the weighing mechanism best introduced at the beginning of the round. If no WM is introduced, I will vote on impact analysis.

I´m fine with topicality, theory, counter plans, Ks et cetera, but only when they are well-presented and add something to the debate. If you choose to run a more lay-style or values-based debate, that´s fine too.

Speak and act kindly to one another. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge though I have judged Parli numerous times at other tournaments in Oregon and at NPDI last year.

Please speak slowly and clearly and only run technical arguments (like theory) when absolutely necessary and explain them when you're using them since I'm not very familiar with them.

I will do my best to judge you on the merits of your arguments rather than your speaking style. I will vote for the team that is most convincing.

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

You are free to use whatever terminology/theory you want, just try to make it clear what you are saying (and also try not to speak too fast)

Be nice to the other team. They are your opponents, not your enemies.

Enjoy debate, and have fun :)

READ THIS --- if I catch you stealing prep during a debate, you have two options. Either (a) You have your speaker points capped at a 27 or (b) I start shaving your prep down in 30 second intervals, depending on the severity of the violation. I don't care if you're a novice or on track to win the freakin' NDT.

things that count as prep: compiling speech docs, writing arguments, talking to your partner, asking the other team what cards they read

things that don't count: emailing/flashing (as long as it's short), drinking water, walking to the stand

if you're reading this before a debate, don't. Go prep. You've got a better chance of winning the K in front me than you do completely switching up your strategy.

If you're deciding whether or not to pref me, here are some common questions that you might want answered.

who? Former Cal debater, current applied math and physics double major at Berkeley. I work in a dark matter search lab.

topic knowledge? Not a ton. Stanford will be the first tournament I've judged on this topic, so your acronyms will be foreign to me.

kritiks? Admittedly an uphill battle. I think of them like a disad with a counterplan that rarely does anything. That being said, I'd be pretty excited to hear something innovative that questions assumptions the aff has made and contextually explains why those assumptions mean the aff loses from a substance perspective (a la Cal NR). This seems unlikely for some reason though.

counterplans? The neg probably gets infinite condo. You can probably kick planks. 2NC counterplans and counterplan amendments are probably fine. It's probably not an opporutnity cost if no actor could do both.

politics DA?. yes but it's probably dumb. You should probably also go for a counterplan.

speed? Oftentimes the slower team makes the smarter arguments by understanding where to prioritize their time. If I can't hear you I'll tell you.

t? Yes. If T is the 2NR, then T is the 2NR.

2019-20 is my 3rd year as a parent judge. Please speak clearly and not too fast.

I debated policy in high school. I was state semi-finalist freshman year and debated in multiple national circuit tournaments before quitting debate to focus on my high school's FIRST robotics club and embedded systems development. I now work in Silicon Valley as a software engineer in Biotechnology, previously having worked at Uber HQ at as a software engineer (don't worry, I'll still vote for the neoliberalism K even though I link to it :) ).

I try to judge purely off of the flow, and let the debaters set the paradigm in framework. If you don't run framework I'll probably default to a policy maker, so run an impact calc if you don't run framework so I don't have to employ judge intervention. If you do run framework, anything goes (provided you win the framework debate), so go wild. 

In terms of biases, I don't like stupid things like PICs so if the AF runs proper theory against it you should probably kick it ASAP.

I am a parent judge with some judging experience.  I will be flowing so please don’t misinterpret my not looking at you as lack of attention.  I put aside any personal opinions on resolutions and will be persuaded by your cogent, articulate arguments. 

I will entertain Kritiks but will place a strong weight on their effective rebuttal. I place value on the educational merit of the issue in the resolution.

Please speak clearly and no spreading.  If I can’t capture your arguments in the flow, then I can’t weigh it for judging purposes.

I am attorney by training and have worked in government and business for over two decades. My approach to judging debate performance from these many years of on the job work. I tend to divide the performance into two major areas 1) quality of content and 2) the effect of the delivery. The quality of content not only measures the amount of preparation by the team in their effort to understand the issue but also to be able to use the proper words to explain their position and to think on their feet to respond to new issues. The effect of delivery measures the allocation of their time, the use of their voices for emphasis, their style and delivery. The ultimate goal of an advocate is to convince the listener of the righteousness of their position. This is usually done with the proper balance of high quality content delivered in the most effective manner.

I am a senior at UC Berkeley double majoring in Business Administration and Political Science with a focus in comparative politics. In high school, I competed in primarily Congress (State and Nationals in 2013 and 2014). While I understand debate and will mark you down for obvious infractions/abnormalities I care less about technicalities and more about content and construction of arguments. So, just put on a good debate, and you will do well!

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

I have been a parent judge at the various debate tournaments for the last couple of years. I would like the participants to be respectful and courteous to each other and any other people in the room. They should speak clearly, slowly and state any facts if possible to strengthen their arguments. There is nothing wrong or right. You only state your opinion.

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

Kritiks: Please don't run them.

Speed: Don't spread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

Please speak slowly and clearly, no spreading!

Make sure you signpost your contentions and have clear structure. 

Please, NO kritik's or complicated theory. 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

*SPEED AND CLARITY

To ensure that your arguments are flowed, please notice when I shout clear or slow. Also, it's been a while since I've debated, so I'm probably not great for spreading.

*KRITIQUES

I'm usually down for Ks. I realise, however, that I tend to be a little biased against most biopower, cap, and sometimes race Ks. If I don't like a K, the problem is usually with the alt. This said, please try to refrain from endorsing a very generic, one-size fits all alt or try to put more ink on explaining it.

*RESPECT

Debators who are rude and impatient to their partners or opponents risk a markdown for speaker points. Yet worse — when you are rude, you invite risks that I may subconsciously pay more attention to arguments you've dropped and underestimate your stronger ones. This could be unfair for you, so please be strategic — not just with arguments, but behaviour too. I suppose that, as is with any form of conversation, being amiable is usually a good idea if you wish others to agree with you.

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

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

1. I prefer affirmation team on my left hand side, negation team right hand side. 

2. I will take notes during your speech and may not be looking at you, but I'm listening. 

3. I'm looking for coherent, confident, and convincing arguments, not random compilation of evidences.  

4. I remain neutral to value and moral arguments. They don't win my vote by themselves alone. It is the results supported by proper evidences, or expected results and/or collateral damages clearly explained and articulated, not just the intentions, that count. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy of Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parli specifics:

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

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

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

Public Forum specifics:

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

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

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. Please don't speak too fast. Please stay within time limits. I don't usually disclose results immediately after rounds.

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

I am a pretty lay judge, and I am not very fond of running K's during debate, and I will generally look down on them; however, if you can make a really compelling case, I will vote for you. I understand time constraints; however, please be sure to articulate and speak at a rate that is understandable. I WILL DROP SPREADING.

Parent Judge.

I have judged at many middle school tournaments and high school tournaments including JV and Varsity but explain your contentions.

Do not spread. If you do, I will most likely stop writing on my paper and give you an auto-loss.

I like to evaluate on your method of weighing and your ability to provide reasonable arguments with support. Lots of debaters use net benefits, but if you want to use something different go ahead! Just make sure arguments actually tie to it.

Otherwise, have fun!

1. Please make sure you signpost your contentions.

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

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

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

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

Please speak slowly and clearly, no spreading!

Make sure you signpost your contentions and have clear structure. 

Please, NO kritik's or complicated theory. 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

I am an experienced lay judge, and have judged multiple tournaments. You can assume that I am fluent in English, and most likely will at least have some knowledge of the policy you will be debating. I look for cogent arguments presented in a logical manner. Recitation of statistics, if they help your argument, are good, but since I cannot verify them in real time, use them only if it strongly bolsters your case. As all judges do, I expect that you treat your opponents with respect. I have only a cursory knowledge of topicalities and kritiks, and ask that if you do use them, they be specific, relevant, and well flushed out. Please define terms such as interpretation and standards as you use them. I am okay with spreading as long as it does not detract from my ability to understand your argumentation, and if it does, I will tell you to be clearer.

This is my second year judging in parliamentary debate. Please make sure your arguments and your structure are clear and easy to understand. No kritiks or complicated theory and be respectful to your opponents. 

About me: I was a former member of Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, and ranked 3rd in the nation at NPTE. I used to be a public health major and now work in health care.

For Parli: Super down for spreading/speed, I'll clear or slow you if necessary but I seriously doubt I'll need to. I'm usually a K debater so I'm down to hear anything you want to read assuming it's not gross or prejudiced in any way. I'm cool with non-topical affirmatives, but I will evaluate FW-T in response, so be ready for that to play out. I also enjoy case debate if it's well fleshed out, and am more likely to prefer well-done or detailed affirmatives over generics. Theory is fine, I'll evaluate any theory you put forward. I default to competing interpretations unless you have specific warrants for reasonability; if you give me the warrants for reasonability, I'll absolutely evaluate that.

Tl;dr: I'm down for anything. It's your debate, not mine. I know some people say they're down for anything and really just want case debate, but bring me your crazy rounds and I'm very down to evaluate. I'm a flow judge that doesn't care about presentation unless your performance is specifically affective or you want me to evaluate your in-round rhetoric, so my speaks usually just hover around a 28.

PLEASE DON'T SHAKE MY HAND; not super down for that

Parliamentary Paradigm

Be respectful to your opponents and partners.

Acknowledge your opponents’ questions. Answer them properly; do not beat around the bush.

Do not add any new information in your summary speeches.

I am a novice judge and do my best to flow the arguments at speed. I look for a clear presentation of strategy and arguments. My decision will be impartial and based exclusively on the arguments (and counter arguments) presented. If the debaters can convince me of the relative importance or weight of specific arguments, that can help their case -- otherwise I need to decide the relative weighting myself. Clarity and courtesy contribute toward both speaker points and the final decision.

I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:

Approach to Judging:

1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.

2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.

3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.

4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.

5. Please no theory or kritiks.

6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.

7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.

8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.

Bonus speaker points if you say something in Telugu to end the last speeches.

Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!

Hello, I do not have many preferences. However, I appreciate professionalism and respect within the round. You as debaters should be as prepared, focused, and practiced as possible. I understand there are certain time constraints, but please try to be as informed on your topic as possible. I also like to see good eye contact and composure. That's about it. Good luck!

Please speak slowly and clearly, no spreading!

Make sure you signpost your contentions and have clear structure. 

Please, NO kritik's or complicated theory. 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

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

TLDR; Will flow anything, but must EXPLAIN everything well. Also, I wrote this paradigm when I remembered more debate jargon.

Case Debate:

- My favorite type of debate is fast case debate.

- I like to see unique cases with lots of analysis (and evidence).

- Weird, semi-abusive case positions are awesome, but be prepared for T.

- Counter-plans are the best. Also, CP's can be competitive through opp. cost or net benefits in my eyes, because real policy does work like that. Run creative CP's, also weird ones, but know T could come your way

- Internal links are pretty important for me, because a lot of the time debaters don't know how links lead to the impacts. lack of internal links can also lead to political statements becoming norms. Don't assume I'll just vote for blanket impact statements like "inequality is bad" because that's not necessarily true -- "poverty is bad" is a statement we can all agree is true.

Theory:

- Unfortunately, theory comes first. I hate to see really creative cases brought down by weak theory arguments, so make sure and respond.

- It always bothered me that the debate community has an overly rigid set of requirements for theory and responses to it. Yes, please run interp, violation, standards, voters for flow's sake, but you can still win T without that if you have a clear explanation of the abuse and why it's bad.

- Same for responses to T. I'm not going to expect you to respond to every minutiae. You don't need to go for both reasonability and competition interpretation. Just one works.

- Feel free to run frivolous theory/multiple shells or whatever the hell you want to run, granted that the other team is equipped to handle that. That just means don't be abusive towards opponents who aren't trained to handle those types of situations. A truly good team can beat a worse team with normal, accessible arguments.

Kritiks:

- I ran plenty in high school, but it has been a while. K's are cool, but you cannot assume that I will fill in logical gaps in your case for you. Your K has to be a complete and thorough explanation of the philosophy you endorse.

- Feel free to read anything else, granted that you will EXPLAIN wtf you are talking about, and will CONTEXTUALIZE to the round. Give me round specific links please.

- Alternatives can be anything, but I'm a big fan of perms. You can assume endorsed a lot of these kritiks before, so give me a reason why I should again. How do I as the judge actually solve for your impacts? Is being in a debate round the actual best use of time for you as someone trying to spread a certain philosophy? If I endorse the alt, what are the short term impacts of rejecting the plan (and can they be reverse solved)?

- K Aff's are cool. So are critical disads, etc. I'm trying to have fun when judging.

Other:

- Don't presume any political/social biases on my part. If you do, it could hurt speaker points.

- Humor helps speaker points!

- About speaker points, will average a 27.5/28, 29 means definitely expecting you to break, 30 means you will do really well at tournament.

- Don't spread when you don't need to. That's bad for your physical and mental health. When you spread, be clear to me and your opponents, I will shout "clear!" and "slow!" when needed. Ignoring me repeatedly will hurt speaks and cause me to not flow arguments.

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.

Background: currently a sophomore with the Parli team at UC Berkeley, did 4 years of policy at PAHS (VA). 

General: I don't particularly believe in judge intervention, and I like debaters to do the weighing for me in round. Set the criteria and talk explicitly about how you're winning them and how your opponents aren't. Anything can be a voter/not a voter as long as it is argued well. I want to see logical, coherent, crystallized arguments. Overviews, roadmaps and signposting are much appreciated.

Kritiks: definitely! I personally have a very kritikal style of debate, and I have a pretty high tolerance for kritikal stuff. However, don't assume that I'm familiar with your argument and all the literature. If you're going to run a kritik, do it justice and run it properly - especially on the link level and the alt.

Speed: I am generally good with speed, but I do need pen time and I'm probably out of practice on flowing. Make sure you slow down for important bits. I will clear you if I can't understand you.

If you ever want to contact me about a round, I can be reached at angelatangtan@berkeley.edu

Bellarmine College Prep Class of 2015

UC Berkeley Class of 2019

Judging LD at the Cal Invitational 2016

Background:

I competed in IE and Public Forum (a little bit on the circuit, mostly local tournaments and CHSSA State) for 4 years in the CFL. However, I’ll be judging LD at this tournament, so, for all intents and purposes, consider me a lay judge. I have no experience debating or judging LD, and I don’t have knowledge on the topic.

Judging:

Stay away from speed and jargon - if I don’t understand what you’re talking about, I can’t pick you up. I will flow, but debate is really about persuasion - you’ll get my vote with logical arguments that are well-developed, not blippy arguments that you throw all over the flow. Clarity is your friend. I’m open to voting on most arguments, as long as they’re reasonable (try to avoid huge/unrealistic impacts). I don’t recommend you make theory or the K a huge part of the debate. That being said, if you go for theory, please keep it as simple as possible: I’m not going to be able to follow a muddled theory debate. Basically: keep it slow, keep it simple, tell me how to evaluate and weigh your arguments, and present good evidence to back up your claims.

Respect your opponent! There’s a difference between being assertive and being rude - being aware of that distinction makes for a better debate. If you’re polite, go slow, and speak fluently, you’ll get high speaks from me. 

That’s pretty much all for me. If you have any more questions, feel free to hit me up on Facebook or ask me before the round. Good luck to everyone competing.

Experience: College NPDA (4 years) and NFA-LD (1 year)

TL;DR: I prefer case, theory, and K's that are sociological in nature, but I also value strategic decisions and seeing debaters use their relative strengths to win the round. I also significantly prefer flow-based debate.

General: I view debate as a game to be played and won. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise. In my career, I mostly debated Buddhism, set col, cap, heg, spec, and case (not much of a specialty).

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round. I really enjoy a good heg debate. I know literally nothing about science so explain if necessary.

Theory: I am good with anything. Potential vs proven abuse should be debated out in-round. I probably have a lower threshold than most on theory. I enjoy theory that many would consider "frivolous" but I also won't actively try to hack for T. I am probably biased towards condo being good but will still vote on condo bad if you win the flow.

Kritik: Fine with not upholding the res, also down for voting on framework. I think that your kritik should also win the line-by-line, unless you make arguments otherwise (I have a very high threshold for rejecting the flow). Very familiar with cap/Marx but down for cap good. Don't know much about pomo so if that's your thing then explain thoroughly.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. I award speaker points based on the quality and strategic utility of arguments made rather than on persuasiveness.

Experience: College NPDA (4 years) and NFA-LD (1 year)

TL;DR: I prefer case, theory, and K's that are sociological in nature, but I also value strategic decisions and seeing debaters use their relative strengths to win the round. I also significantly prefer flow-based debate.

General: I view debate as a game to be played and won. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise. In my career, I mostly debated Buddhism, set col, cap, heg, spec, and case (not much of a specialty).

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round. I really enjoy a good heg debate. I know literally nothing about science so explain if necessary.

Theory: I am good with anything. Potential vs proven abuse should be debated out in-round. I probably have a lower threshold than most on theory. I enjoy theory that many would consider "frivolous" but I also won't actively try to hack for T. I am probably biased towards condo being good but will still vote on condo bad if you win the flow.

Kritik: Fine with not upholding the res, also down for voting on framework. I think that your kritik should also win the line-by-line, unless you make arguments otherwise (I have a very high threshold for rejecting the flow). Very familiar with cap/Marx but down for cap good. Don't know much about pomo so if that's your thing then explain thoroughly.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. I award speaker points based on the quality and strategic utility of arguments made rather than on persuasiveness.

Hi, my name is Meena Visht. Never debated personally. Dont spread, make good intiuitive arguments and make sure to be topic specific. DO NOT be rude (I will drop you). I like well articulated case debate with relevant warrants and terminalized impacts and weighing, so as long as you run that, you'll be fine. 

Hi guys!

I'm a debater at Parli at Berkeley. This is my first year doing Parli debate so I am more or else a newcomer. However, I have gone through a lot of training and practice, and also flowed several different tournaments at the national level so I am comfortable with judging and evaluating debates. The following are a couple of the things I'm looking for and comfortable with. Please feel free to ask me questions at any point in the debate and also clarify any critique I may have. 

1. Speed: I'm fine with speed as long as debaters enunciate well and have good clarity when speaking. I won't judge you based off of how fast you are, so even if you go incredibly slow but make strong arguments that is as preferable as going fast and making several arguments.

2. Flow: I really like it when debaters list out precisely what order of flow they will follow before starting their speech. e.g. A is the uniqueness, B is the links, C is the impacts. This makes it easy for me to flow esp. since I'm new and for the other side to give rebuttals much easier

3. Case: For any case debate, I'm looking for strong empirical evidence or historical context as warrants. I go into every debate with an open-mindset and unbiased towards either side. You need to convince me that your argument is supported by numbers/facts, or has occurred in the past before to demonstrate likelihood that it will occur in the present as well. Impacts also need to be feasible and direct. You need to convince me that things like a natural disaster, or a massive nuclear war will indeed occur because of your uniqueness. Lastly, good links are definitely key to winning a case debate for me.

3. Theory: I am ok with judging theory. I usually default to need for competing interpretations, but I will also vote for abusive arguments as theory or lack of time to prepare. The Theory needs to convince me that there is an inherent flaw in the debate community that is caused by the opposing side's arguments or the resolution.

4. K: If you run a K, needs to be something the other side could prepare for and is not abusive. Or else I am likely to vote for Theory argument on abuse and no time to prepare for the other side. I also give bonus points to K's that can tie to the resolution in some way. To me it shows the debater knows how to back up the resolution with his K. 

And that's about it. Once again, feel free to speak about any concerns or questions you have through the debate. I am new to the community and open to any critiques or suggestions you may have to improving my judgement. The benefit though of me being new is that I am open to any interpretation as long as you convince me.

Grant

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.

Debate is a discourse, in which both sides offer arguments that are both solidified, and base on belief. It isn't a school paper you're doing for points, therefore, please have heart in what you say. It is a discourse, please treat it like one. I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I will be non-bias from the perspective of a moderate

Stronger arguments > Many Arguments

I will not accept theory arguments not related to rules. If the other team put you at a disadvantage, argue on their probability.

Please also do argue from your heart, emotionality overrules reading from a piece of paper. If you do focus too much from reading off the paper, depending on the strength of the argument, you might have lower speaker points

Finally, please debate slowly, I will deduct points for spreading.

Preamble:

Recent name change: all my paperwork still says America. My name is Junpei (pronounced JOON-pay)

Are you an LGBTQ+ debater or speaker? If you struggling in this activity, in school, or anywhere, I work for the San Mateo County Pride Center. Email me and I'm happy to support. (junpei@acs-teens.org)

Also, I don't have any flow paper, or flow pens. Yeah. I'm that judge now. Providing me with proper flow paper (legal sized thx) won't win my ballot, but it will win my heart.

~actual paradigm~

1. Do not use slurs in front of me. I will tank your speaks and quite likely find a reason to vote you down, particularly if your opponent critically turns your language. Run bigoted arguments and take the L. :) I'm not going to reward racism, ableism, sexism, queer-antagonism, etc.

2. Other than that, I am a flow judge. I like line by line argumentation. Clear signposting is always a benefit. I don't claim tabula rasa, because that probably isn't real because bias and intervention is likely inevitable in human communication. I'll do my best not to do work for either team, and am open to talking it out with teams post round to help keep me honest for future rounds.

3. I dislike but am not opposed to speed. I am open to speed theory.

4. If you are going to run a K, make sure you understand your own framework and your own lit base. K affs are NOT cheating.

5. Speaker points are awarded not on how "pretty" you talk, but rather on the technical accuracy of your debate. I do not care if you sit or stand, how you are dressed, etc. and it will not impact the debate in any way. Just don't be a jerk.

6. Impact calculus is key! Tell me why your impacts matter more, tell me why I should care about timeframe over magnitude. Tell me why probability does or does not factor in. Why do proximal impacts matter more?

7. IN PARLI, DO NOT TRUST ME TO PROTECT IN REBUTTALS. I'll do my best to catch it, especially in evidence based debate wherein I have access to cards. But in parli, call those points of order if necessary.

8. I will only use my own outside world knowledge if asked to evaluate two competing facts in the round. If everyone in the debate agrees that Japan is a country in Africa, I'll go with it. But if one team says Japan is a Pacific island nation near Asia, I'll be inclined to go with that knowledge.

9. I am fine with partner communication. You don't need to secretively whisper what you're feeding your partner. I will only flow the speaker, and not partner comments.

10. Since I keep getting asked; I do not default to competing interps or reasonability. Literally everything requires some amount of judge intervention. Tell me WHY I should prefer one over the other.

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.

As a parent judge, I prefer for debaters to have structure in speeches (ie. roadmaps/order, signposting, etc.) so that I can clearly flow down contentions. It is preferred that debaters time themselves and not rely on the judge to time speeches or give time signal. 

I am a parent judge. For parli debate, if I am not familiar with the resolution or the topic area, I do my best to research during prep. However, when you debate, please explain clearly what the topic and definitions mean if the res is hard to understand. Please speak clearly and slowly so that it’s easy for me to comprehend. In the last speech, make sure to tell me exactly why you win, what you are winning on, and sum up the debate on why your world is better than your opponents’ world. Be nice to each other!

Debate experience: 3 years of high school Public Forum debate and 1 semester of college Parliamentary debate

Debate preference: Parliamentary debate