I am a parent judge who’s judged at quite a few tournaments. Please be clear and explain your arguments thoroughly (no jargon). Please check your ego at the door! I look forward to a great round.

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

Hello debaters,

I would appreciate slow speakers as I am new to judging. Please don't use too much jargon. Please do not spread. Reminder: be a respectful debater!

I'm a varsity debater at El Cerrito High School

- If you run a K, you will probably lose, unless there is a genuine, in round reason for it (opponents spreading you out of the round, using hate speech, etc)

- Don't run friv theory. I generally prefer lay debate, though there are cases where theory is needed.

- Speed is generally fine so long as I can flow what you are saying. I can't vote on arguments I don't hear. If your opponents tell you to slow, do so.

- Jargon is fine but make sure you actually understand the meaning behind it and don't use jargon to try and confuse your competitors.

- Try to avoid PICs and abusive definitions

- Tag teaming is okay but do it as little as possible and it will hurt your speaks. I also won't flow anyone but the speaker

- offering an off time order for your speech is okay but make it brief (less than 10-15 seconds)

- I won't flow past the grace period

- be polite to your opponents. If you act in a discriminatory manner or make such arguments, I will not vote for you.

- for online tournaments, I do not care if you have your camera on or not, I won't have mine on

- time yourselves, I will also try to time but I might forget

- please give your full name as listed on tab before you start speaking

- please state clearly where you are on the flow

- I prefer rebuttal speeches in the form of voter issues rather than line-by-line.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

Pronouns:She/Her

I am an experienced parli debater. I won state championships and qualified to TOC twice. My partner and I did mostly lay debat but Im comfortable with most styles.

-Keep everything respectful and inclusive, this goes above all else. This includes respecting everyone in the round and the subject you are talking about. Respect pronouns and content warnings.

- On that note, if anything happens in the round that makes the space hostile to you don't worry about getting the format exactly right, or making a perfect theory argument, but please let me know. Debate must be safe and inclusive for everyone.

-I am someone who doesn't come from a big theory background, but I am open to it of course, just help get there.

-Please don't abuse tech debate skills, if you use a word make sure you understand it. (And that I do.)

-Jargon is okay, but not if you are using it to make things difficult for your opponent, that will count against you.

-If you can make me laugh, not only will I love it, it might just help make your point. Please only do this in a way that is reverent to what you are talking about though, I do not buy into the idea that the debate space can be divorced from reality.

-Generally I think speaker points are too easy to be biased and so as long as you are respectful and doing your best that's all I care.

-I really appreciate rebuttals that make an effort to take stock of the round and don't just go line by line. Give me lots of weighing, figure out what is most important about your case and ignore the little stuff if you don't have time.

-Remember to breathe. Literally. I know I personally could get myself all worked up in the moment and it made it harder to think and the whole experience a lot less fun. I know this activity can be stressful, I've been there. Just do your best! :)

-I am new to this world of virtual debate so if there is anything I can do to make the experience better, or anything that I'm doing that is making things worse please let me know! :) (That actually goes for just everything.)

I look forward to a wonderful round!

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

• Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.

• The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.

• This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.

• Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

• 4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).

• Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.

  • Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

• BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

• I will avoid intervening as much as possible.

  • This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.

• The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

• I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).

• I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.

• I protect the flow.

  • Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.

• I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.

• I will not actively fact check UNLESS:

  • I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND

  • Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.

  • Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

• Trichotomy

  • I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.

  • Value Debate

    • Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.

• Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

• I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.

  • This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

• My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility

  • This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).

  • Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

• I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.

  • For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.

• I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

• Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.

  • Please signpost these.

• Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

• These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.

  • Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”

• Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

• I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.

  • I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.

• I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).

  • Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

• The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

• It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.

  • Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.

  • Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.

• I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.

  • Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

K

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

• I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.

• I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.

  • Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):

    • Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.

• I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.

  • You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.

    • If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.

  • Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

• I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.

• I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.

  • Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.

• I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

• Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.

• I default to competing interpretations.

• I default to drop the argument.

• I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:

  • Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse

  • Frivolity of Theory

• Please read Theory/T in shell format.

• I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.

  • A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

• Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.

  • The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.

• I will call slow or clear if I need to.

  • If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.

• Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.

  • Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.

  • I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

• Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.

  • This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.

• I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).

• Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.

• Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

• <= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.

• 25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.

• 27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.

• 28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).

• 29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).

• 30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

• Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.

  • This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.

• Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.

• Please take points of information.

• I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

• Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).

• I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).

• I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.

  • I’ll call slow or clear as needed.

  • Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.

• LD Specific:

  • I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.

  • I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.

    • I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).

    • Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.

  • As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

I was a former debater and speech competitor in high school. I'm now a debate parent judging as a parent for my second year. I also judged novice tournaments in high school.

Please speak at a normal conversational rate of speed. I do not enjoy spreading, and find that it detracts from my comprehension of your arguments. Try to signpost your topics (show which argument you are discussing). This makes it easier to check my notes and your flow. Counterplans were always a favorite to hear because the other side usually doesn't have an effective response to them. Citing sources is great! Eye contact with the judge is good.

I am a sophomore in college and competed in a parliamentary debate in high school. I am also an experienced judge. My pronouns are she/her.

-Above everything be respectful and enjoy the debate! I know debate can be stressful sometimes so just make sure to breathe. If something in the round is making you uncomfortable, please let me know. Nobody can debate their best in a hostile environment.

-If you remember and feel comfortable in doing so, please introduce yourself with your pronouns at the beginning of your speech.

-No off-time content, you should have enough time to say it in the actual speech.

-Spreading is acceptable as long as you are clear and are not outspreading your opponents.

-Take POIs!

-Try to avoid PICs, Ks.

-Please don't abuse tech debate skills. Make sure to use words not because they seem like they sound nice but also because you understand them and they are applicable.

Looking forward to overseeing a productive and respectful round, and if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to let me know!

Current APDA and BP competitor for UC Berkeley. Previously 4 years experience in high school parliamentary for Foothill Tech high school. President of the Debate Society of Berkeley.

I don't like rules debates. If you unnecessarily contest definitions, it will be represented in my ballot. If you write an abusive case that forces a definitions debate, it will be represented in my ballot.

Generally, I will consider everything in round to be untrue until proven true. Your opponent not responding to a claim does not prove the claim true; claims are only proven true with warrants.

I'm fine with any speed of speaking, but if you're talking truly fast you will have to roadmap well if you want your arguments on my flow.

If you want me to weigh an impact, you have to explain to me why it matters. This might mean explaining to me why something that seems obviously good (i.e. privacy, free speech/choice) is actually inherently good/valuable.

Don't use the final speech to go over your flow. I have my own. Instead, focus on telling me what matters in the round, why it matters, and why your side does it uniquely/better.

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

Please speak slowly and explain all arguments. Be respectful and have fun.

Parent judge, assume I know little or nothing about the topic.

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.

Hello,

I'm a lay judge who flows on-case arguments. Please avoid running Ts or theory (if you do feel the need, explain and spend time explaining it to me); do not run Kritiks. I have a minor hearing problem (I wear a hearing aid), but please speak loudly and enunciate so I can understand your points. Sign post, and tagline as frequently as possible with case debate, but don't worry about the actual structure. Be courteous to your opponents, and please write the resolution and speakers on the whiteboard if possible.

This is my fourth year judging parliamentary debate. I'm a flay judge, and I'm tab so I'll probably vote on anything if it's explained well enough. I've been judging for a hot minute so I know my way around structure. Slow down (especially during online tournaments) and let me write the arguments down on my flow, and don't use debate jargon that a regular person wouldn't know. It's your job to explain things to me, so if I don't catch something that's on you. Please give me background about topics and explain your link chain arguments. I will evaluate t shells but I don't know the jargon/structure so please explain fairness arguments well. Do not run kritiks, I do not know what they are and I am not familiar with the philosophy, so you will probably lose if you run them. Perms are fine, I think everything's fine just explain everything. Make my job easy as a judge, don't be rude, and have a fun debate!

Relatively Tabula Rasa. Explain arguments well and don't assume things in your argumentation.

I'm a game debater and what that means for you is I'll judge any argument, any speed, run whatever, go nuts. I'll judge a round with spread debate, I'll also listen to a speed procedural.

I like structured debate. Be careful of the line between aggressive debate and being rude to your opponents because at the least it will lose you speaker points fast. When it comes to the win I'll be tab so go for whatever position you want. When it comes to speaker points I look for structure, good line by line, and people not being jerks. I'm not looking for you to be overly formal and courteous, I'm just not gonna award high speaks to people that are condescending.

Hi everyone,

My judging paradigm is pretty simple. Whoever is the most convincing, has the most logical case, and whoever provides the most historical warrants will win my favor. I do enjoy t's, but mostly just convince me you're right and you will win.

Do NOT spread!!!!!!

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

I'll admit - I do have preconceived ideas and merits/demerits of pretty much every debate topic. But I try to be tabula rasa and take on the role of judging with the utmost unbiased approach. I have judged a handful of tournament, but I come from a rich experience in public speaking and debating from graduate school and in my line of work. The one thing I treasure most, are the rules of the game. Debate hard, but be fair to your opponents. Stay on topic, don't get involved in ad hominem attacks on your opponents.

The one most important thing that I treasure about a debate is clarity of thought in your oral presentation. I realize you only have 20 minutes to prepare for sometimes esoteric debate topics. Figure out the 2-3 key aspects of the topic you want to debate on and make a cogent argument. Don't feel compelled and I repeat, don't feel compelled to use all 7-8 minutes to make your argument. If your thoughts are well organized and your debate delivery is clear and persuasive, a 6-7 minute, well delivered and a calm and collected approach is far more effective than a bullet-train like delivery of 8 minutes of information barrage. It actually turns me off when someone does that. So slow down and take a deep breadth during your debate. Sometimes, pauses are far more effective than words.

Emphasize your points but don't repeat them ad nauseam. It just signals to a judge that you have run out of topics/angles and are padding for time. Make the best persuasive argument you can.

I debated for 4 years in highschool, parli for 3. I was relatively successful, my partner and I won UOP, Polygon, Nueva, States, and qualified to TOC twice. We mostly did lay debate, but I'm familiar and comfortable with most styles.

Just keep it clean, theory and PICs only if necessary, not very receptive to Ks but run what you want. Speed is cool but not full-on spreading, most importantly though adjust your speed to not spread your opponents out of the round. If you are going to use jargon make sure you understand the words you are saying. If I or your opponents look super lost we probably are and that isn't great.

Don't let your opponents get away with with silly points just cause they sound confident, call them out, I probably agree with you.

If you run dumb stock arguments run them well at least, and make it clear that it connects to the resolution.

Don't be rude, please. My threshold of when theory is being abusive is quite low.

If you have specific things or questions ask me before the round.

Good luck y'all.

Pronouns: He/him

For parliamentary debate, I prefer clear, organized argumentation and reasoning over speed and jargon. I can follow a spread (my background was in policy debate) but parliamentary debate is a whole different event.

I flow, and use the flow in my decision, but not all arguments are created equal. You can win 4 points, your opponent only one, but they can still win the round if they convince me that their one point outweighs all others. Tie your arguments to the resolution, and show how they tie into your judging criteria. Speaking style matters in my decision too - a smooth, organized, persuasive speaker will have the edge over disorganized and choppy presentation.

On the subject of organization, I appreciate the 5 seconds spent to tell me whether you are starting with their case, or your own contentions.

No strong opinion on POIs. Nice to take one, but if you really are short on time I won't be offended if you don't take any.

I leave my opinions and knowledge at the door of the round. I am willing to follow most arguments if you can make them stick.

However, I am really REALLY sick of overly clever debate tactics in lieu of actual debating. I am particularly tired of kritiks. They are a technique used by lazy debaters to avoid having to actually listen, reason, and create counterarguments. Rather than pay attention and use their brains, they pull out a precanned K and spend their time on that, instead of actually debating. I expect to hear reasoning, analysis, and argumentation on the actual resolution - not endless whining about how abusive the other team is. Basically I want to see a debate.

I also hate tag-teaming. I believe that each speaker should do their own speech, answer any POIs, and generally do their part. I don't mind if you pass your partner a note while they are speaking, but that’s about it. I will only write down arguments advanced by the actual speaker.

In the end, the most important thing is to have a respectful debate with plenty of clash. Listen to each other, analyze what the other speaker said, and respond appropriately. And remember that this is supposed to be fun.

I'm a parent judge with about two years of experience. With a PhD in English and a career at a policy institute (PPIC), I'm very familiar with analyzing arguments, weighing evidence, and maintaining an objective outlook. I will flow the debate, and I won't insert my own views or knowledge into my decisions.

I'm not that swayed by piles of statistics, especially if you can't explain why they matter. I'll consider any well articulated argument or point of view, but do your best to be sensitive -- and please don't weaponize the suffering of others to make a point. Trigger warnings are a good habit.

Peeves: spreading, unexplained jargon, and unnecessary use of theory. Also ploys like, "Their argument is clearly absurd!" Don't tell me something is wrong -- show me.

Be clear, courteous, and have fun!

I am a parent judge with no debating experience. Have been a lay judge for the last 3 years. I may not be familiar with certain jargon that you use, so where necessary please clarify.

I take notes throughout the round and will try to flow. I like logical, reasoned and well-developed arguments and normally vote heavily on impacts. So let me know why your points matter.

Good luck!

I competed in LD for four years in high school, and frequently broke to elimination rounds at invitationals my junior and senior years. I helped coach my team as a senior.

Any argument will do, as long as it is well-substantiated. Substantiation requires an argument to be logically complete, and for premises to be supported with evidence when appropriate. Do not expect to automatically earn victory when your opponent drops or mishandles a poorly-substantiated argument.

Preference for quality over speed and quantity. I enjoy thoughtful argumentation on complex topics. If you insist on speed, I'll do my best to keep up and won't penalize you for it. On the other hand, If I miss key stages of your argument, I can't account for them when rendering my decision, which would be very fortunate for your opponent.