I was a successful policy debater in high school, many years ago. I've been judging parli rounds for the last 2.5 years. I can flow your round and assess your argumentation, but I won't be up on the latest debate jargon. You'll need to explain the arguments you make and not assume that a quick label or phrase can make an argument for you. I can flow and follow a fast spread debate, but my preference is for speaking that is not faster than normal speech.

I will judge based on the content of the round, and in principal I'm open to any argument you want to make. I enjoy creative arguments, but I'm skeptical of theory that allows either side to ignore the topic or avoid clash. I expect rebuttal speakers to focus on the critical issues, sum up the debate with intelligence, and explain why they've won and how to make a decision.

I competed in policy debate in high school, and am now a debate parent.  I've been away from debate for a couple of decades, so please avoid speed and jargon, and any theory will have to be explained simply and clearly.

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 “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

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