School Affiliations:

• Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Types:

• Parli

Years judging:

• 2-3 years at a variety of tournaments

• Lay judge

Speaker Points?

• Start at 28.5, and go up and down from there.

1. Things that will make you lose points

1. Unprofessional language

2. Stating false information

3. Being Disrespectful

2. Things that will make you gain points

1. Humor

2. pace(not too slow or fast)

3. Good word choice

What I vote on:

• I look at the arguments both debaters make and look at the responses. I like when debaters have a variety of different refutations to a single advantage or disadvantage.

• Do not lie! If you continuously lie about dropped arguments, I will drop you.

Notes Habits:

• I take a decent amount of notes(about a page). Notes are filled with the most important arguments from each speech.

Evidence Preferences:

• Please do not lie about evidence(Parli). I am pretty informed, and will likely know when something is false. Other than that, I’m okay with anything

RWI:

• Okay with them as long as they are explained

CX:

• I will not flow

• A good chance to display argumentative skills

• Be respectful

Lay vs Flow:

• I will always look at the quality of the arguments before I evaluate the way you deliver an argument. An outstanding speaker with bad arguments is worse than a bad speaker with good arguments

Other:

On K's:

Don't try plz.

On Speed:

TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. After that, I am going to drop you.

On Theory/Topicality:

Default to reasonability. I have a low threshold for what is considered "a-topical"

On Truth Testing:

Truth exists if I say so.[Don't Read it]

FW:

I enjoy util.

For Parli:

- PICS are a great part of debate.

- Don't read new evidence in the 1AR

- If you read new contentions in the 2NC that could have been made in the 1NC in an attempt to overload the 1AR, I won't flow them

I am a parent judge who has been judging for a few years. I like debate that focuses on substance. I'm not a fan of technicalities. I will entertain kritiks. But I will be critical of them.

I encourage you to not only respond to your opponents' arguments, but also to weigh those arguments when you make your case for why I should support your position. So I will not necessarily judge against you if you do not flow every argument the opposing team throws up. I will vote against you if you miss a key argument or respond weakly.

Since I want to understand the substance of the debate, avoid spreading and speak clearly. In that same spirit, I dislike when teammates confer while opponents speak. Instead, write each other notes if you want to share an idea; be respectful to the speaker so I can hear them.

I dislike road maps. They usually add nothing. Or, if they are substantive, they should be part of your time. I do not listen to 'off-time' roadmaps or other statements.

Hello reader, my name is Joel Brown (he/him/his)!

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at Chabot College and at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a fair amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm able to keep up with spreading for the most part, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this often impacts your argument quality and consequently your speaker points too.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards that relate to your impacts in the context of the round. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally mutually exclusive with the plan or else the perm is terminal defense that I will vote on as the easiest out in the round.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently ran kritiks as a competitor and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the lit base you're citing inside and out - my flow benefits from 1) slowing down when introducing your thesis and/or framework at the top 2) presenting a well-developed link story that indicts the specific actions of your opponents case 3) explaining how your alt solves the K per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well-versed in other literature, but I can usually track a well-explained and cohesive thesis for the most part.

Round vision is key to wining in front of me - PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/PMR OR ELSE IT BECOMES OBJECTIVELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU. It is both easier and more compelling for me to vote for the team that identifies and collapses to a few points of key offense than for the team that keeps doing line-by-line in the rebuttals without providing coherent impact calculus.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

It's important to me that you impact out, show me why your points are important.

Stay serious, don't make to many jokes, and don't be rude.

I can't stress how important it is for you to impact out.

I can usually tell when you know what you're talking about, so don't try to fool me.

Don't go too fast, I won't be able to flow properly.

No theory/education.

Firoz Gill

Background:
4 years of high school parli, 1 year of NPDA parli

Default paradigm:
- I am a flow judge.
- I default to comparative worlds and net benefits.

Flowing:
- If I don't understand an argument the first time I hear it, I won't flow it / vote for it

- Voter issues are crucial. Weighing arguments is super important to me. Otherwise, I may have to weigh things myself.

Presentation:
- Most debaters think they can spread, but very few can. Unless you are absolutely certain in your ability to remain crystal clear at high speeds, don’t go over 300 words per minute. Every time I yell “clear!” your speaker points suffer.
- Slow down A LOT on argument taglines, author names, theory interpretations, case theses, K alternatives, plantexts, and CP texts. For the latter three, you should have copies of the text ready for your opponent and the judge.
- I prefer cards to have author qualifications and year read aloud.
- Eye contact doesn't matter, but voice modulation does.
- If you said everything you needed to say, don't ramble to fill up speech time, just sit down.
- Example of a bad NC roadmap: "First, I'll read my NC in which I argue that justice doesn't exist, then an off-case which will be a topicality on "ought", and finally I'll prove why the affirmative case is wrong."
The function of a roadmap is to help me put the pages of my flow in order; any information that doesn't do that is superfluous. An off-case is anything that's not on the affirmative case. NC stands for "negative constructive," not "negative case."
Example of a good NC roadmap: "2 off, AC."
- I will typically give an oral RFD.

Argumentation preferences:
- All arguments should have warrants. I will not vote on blips.
- An empirical warrant can appeal to common knowledge, but cards trump common knowledge.
- An analytical warrant does not require a card. A quote from a philosopher may contain a warrant, but simply the fact that some philosopher agrees with you does not constitute a warrant – that’s the “appeal to authority” fallacy. I hold up analytical warrants made by carded philosophers to the same level of scrutiny as analytical warrants made by debaters.
- I like positional cases.
- Weird stuff is great if you can pull it off.
- Critical/discourse cases are fine, but slow down on confusing parts. Specific alternatives with solid solvency are a plus. I tend to buy intuitive answers to Ks.
- Theory is fine if they're actually abusive, but don't overuse it. I tend to buy "reasonable limits" answers to it. I'll vote on RVIs (high threshold). I think theory is a type of a discourse argument (Fairness K or Education K), with violation as the link, standards as the impact, interpretation as the alternative, and voters as the framework. The implication is that theory can be weighed against other discourse arguments. Also, most theory debates are boring (Prefer not to have theory debate).

- The value/criterion model is often abused to exclude relevant argumentation. I think that debate rounds which are more practical are better off with a generic standard without a criterion (as a parli debater, I am used to net benefits) and with impacts weighed out primarily on the contention level; the more philosophical debates should just have the philosophical framework as the standard. I will use net benefits unless you give me good reasons to prefer another standard.
- I won't vote any type of argument down right away, so if you feel confident you can win it, run it, and have fun.

I love good Neg. strategy and think multiple positions (T, CP, K) is a great way to strategize. Also, I love great CPs (especially PICs). I think they're pretty real world and test the Aff plan fully. I am fine with conditional stuff as well. As Aff. make sure you ask if things are conditional or not.

If possible try not to exlclude the other team by spreading. Also, if you do spread through a CP, T, or K it would be helpful for you to give the other team a copy in order for them to better follow along.

I think the Aff. Should limit the resolution in a way that’s beneficial to them. (I’m fine with some Extra T).

I am a parent judge with a few years of judge experience.

This is a debate, so feel free to run what you like as long as you can defend your arguments. Please remember that I can only assess what I understand so focus on clarity in your speech and arguments. Make clear transitions, point out flaws and tell me how to weigh impacts. Tell me how and why you are winning.

Be respectful and have fun. Happy debating!

I like clear and concise speech where debaters clearly highlight their key points and support those points effectively.

Slow down. Sometimes less is more when it comes to convincing people of your point. Develop clear messages and repeat those to cement your argument.

I am a parent judge with about a year of experience judging. Please make arguments and weighing of impacts as clear as possible to make the decision as easy as possible. Explain to me how I should evaluate each impact in comparison to the other.

Please focus on the case arguments and do not run K's or frivolous theory. The only time that theory should be run is when there is clear abuse of the resolution. If this is the circumstance, please explain in the simplest terms possible how each part of the theory works. I will only vote regarding actual, not potential abuse. The abuse should be explained as to why the topicality was 100% necessary.

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. 

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.

I am a novice parent judge and therefore want clean and easy-to-follow rounds. I very rarely like theory, unless it is clear to me why it is needed in that round and why I should care. I will award high speaker points to any debater that presents his/her arguments clearly, signposts well, and explains impact thoroughly.

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).

I'm a college student who does IPDA and NPDA debate as well as the odd speech event on the side.

I do see debate as a test of communications skills, meaning I really do not like spreading. Fast conversational pace is fine but if you start to sound like an auctioneer then it's gonna hurt my ability to flow and your ability to win.

I do not like impacts that are just "econ up" or "dehumanization down" because they are lazy and means I have to extrapolate what your impacts means in the context of the debate. Give your impacts some depth and character.

I am comfortable with most theory as long as there is proven abuse, not just potential abuse. So do not be afraid to be technical in front of me. I am very uncomfortable with K.

If there are any further questions, do not hesitate to ask before the round starts.

Above all, be respectful to all present and make the debate a fun and engaging experience for all parties.

As someone relatively new to the judging scene, my preferences are not complex and they are very easy to meet. I dislike an excessive display of debate mechanics - spreading, theory, and using obscure jargon, for example. I want to be able to understand the round! On the other hand, if you can establish arguments that are clear, concise and rooted in the real world, and you can convince me that your arguments' impacts are more important than your opponents', then you will most likely win the round. In the end, though, the best way to win my vote will be to try your best, using reasoning and logic to build up your points and attack your opponents' points.

I have been judging various lay parli tournaments for 4 years. I prefer arguments with clear links and terminalized impacts. Do impact calculus on magnitude, time frame, probability, scope, reversibility, etc. Have clear voter issues that show clearly why your side is winning. Speak at a reasonable pace, I will not be able to follow extreme speed. Perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy.

I will award speaker points as follows: below 27 is reserved for rudeness, 30 means I believe you have what it takes to win the tournament. I will start with a default 28.5 and make my way up or down.