The debaters must to remember to focus on their impacts, as well as their framework/value criteria as it relates to their impacts. That is where they tell me "where the goal is" and "who reaches it" for the debate. Having the biggest impact doesn't mean anything if it doesn't fulfill the right framework.

If framework is not debated by the neg, I will default to 1AC's Framework.

Email: marinaalan02@gmail.com

Bellaavalos100@gmail.com

Isabella Avalos

I have been debating Policy for Southwestern College for a year.

I have been debating policy for a year but I'm not familiar with the K debates but I do know the basics.

I'm okay with spreading as long as you're clear.

Have fun :)

I am a third year Parli debater at Peninsula and am up to date on debate lingo.

aff: I don't lean towards K Affs but make sure to explain it well and don't be rude about it. I mostly prefer regular affs.

neg: Be solid on the neg block and make sure to hit hard since most rounds are skewed towards aff anyways.

I like impact calc and it can really turn the debate around- make sure to tell me exactly why I should write a ballot for you.

Disclosure theory is fake and I don't like condo.

Anything goes but overall just don't be rude and don't heckle.

Email chain: eric.boxuan.gao@gmail.com

Stanford '25

Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 4 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.

I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.

K affs should be at least related to the topic.

You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.

CP/DA

Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.

Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.

A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.

T/Theory

Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.

I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well. I personally kicked the aff to go for theory a bit more times than I should have.

Kritiks

K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)

When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.

Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".

PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.

I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.

I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.

UC BERKELEY '24 | Junshik Ham (just call me Jun).

Email me @junh124@berkeley.edu if you have any concerns or questions that are not on this paradigm.

Background:

I debated primarily parli and public forum in high school, and I do have some understanding of policy and LD as well. In parli, I debated in both traditional and tech style, depending on whether it was local or circuit. Currently, I am a psychology and political science double major at UC Berkeley, and I am part of the ASUC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I did not join the Berkeley debate team; however, I do look forward to joining once the pandemic curves.

Philosophy:

Debate, to me, is an outlet to express intelligence, hard work, and creativity for students. By doing so, you are partaking in education, entrepreneurship, sportsmanship, and advocacy work. This means that you must highlight why you should win my vote, above anything else. Your case, obviously, deserves the highest priority and value; however, your performance also entails speaking ability, manners, and other aspects.

I will try my best to stay as tabula rasa as possible. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to be 100% "clean state", but I do judge solely based on what has been spoken in the round.

You will, most likely, know the result of the round before you walk out the door. I believe that disclosing results is a fair way to increase the educational value of the round and it also gives me an opportunity to give you some feedback, along with answering your questions, if there is any.

Judging Preference:

These are simply my preference, so it is not mandatory. It may help you to follow these preferences though (in terms of speaker points and even potentially to win the ballot).

Signpost. Tell me where you are on the flow, to make sure that I have everything under the right position, in case I am confused. Even if you do not signpost, I will write down your arguments, counter-arguments, etc. It just makes my job easier and clearer if the round is messy.

Voter Issues. This applies to the last speeches specifically. Tell me why you won the debate and deserve my vote overall. You can go line by line, however, it is more effective for me, and also easier, if you just tell me verbatim, why you won the round.

Presumption. Depending on the burdens of the resolution (either explicit or implicit), I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on.

Performance. Performance "debate" will result in a loss probably. It is disrespectful to the opponent who legitimately prepared the case, and it is called a debate competition for a reason.

Timing. I will time, but also not strictly. It is up to the debaters to self-time and to monitor the opposition's time.

General Debate Things:

Speed. Generally fine with speed, including spreading to a degree. Since the debate is an educational opportunity, however, if the opponent asks you to slow down, you have to slow down. Not complying may result in loss of speaker points and even loss, depending on the severity. Also, I am not going to say "clear" or tell you that you are not being clear. If I am not typing/writing anything down, there is a good chance that you are not being clear enough though. If there are speech docs, I do not look at them during rounds for fair competition.

Tech > Truth. I will take into account anything you say or argue in the round, as long as they do not clearly violate the ethics/manners of the debate.

Ks. Kritiks are an important card in your pocket to utilize when necessary. I used to run them, so I am familiar with them, and I am also fine with you running them. That being said, I would advise you against simply throwing a K to win the round. Make sure you highlight and explicitly state why the K is educationally beneficial as you run it. It does not need to be lengthy and detailed, and I also don't care where you say it. Just briefly mention it. If you simply tell me that I am "morally obligated" to vote on a K without any content or context, the K is useless. I am not going to buy Speed K (or any speed theory in that manner).

Theory. I will take theories, even though I am not a huge fan of them. Conditionality, paradox, etc are all "theories" in this case.

Card Cutting. Card cutting will immediately result in a loss.

Dropped Arguments. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true." Basically, give me the reason why the dropped arguments actually matter rather than just saying it was dropped. It will do you little to no good if you simply state that it was dropped.

Presumption. Although rare, if it falls to a presumption neg win, I will grant NEG a presumption.

Criteria. If you do not specify the criteria, I will default to net benefits.

Ethics/Manner:

It is rather sad that I have to include this. If you are blatantly disrespecting, insulting, or causing any deliberate verbal/physical attacks to the opponents (or even me), there will be consequences. The consequence may vary from loss of speaker points, loss of round, or even pausing the debate to talk to the tab if necessary.

For mainly parli, if you would like to point out a clear evidence distortion by the opponents, bring it up during your speech and give me a rationale. I will take it seriously, but there is no guarantee that I would necessarily take any action. If it is deemed necessary, I will follow the rules of the debate outlined by the tournament first, and talk to the tab if needed.

I am a high school student with 3 years of high school speech and debate experience, mostly in Parli.

- I don't have a preference whether you run theory arguments or not, but I will vote on them if they're valid and well executed.

- Don't spread, speak clearly. I care about the content of your speech and eloquence more than I care about how much you say.

- The funnier you make the debate and the more memes you reference, the higher speaker points I will give you.

- Signpost, have a clear framework, and in general, just be as organized as possible.

- I try to be tabula rasa, so it is on you to thoroughly explain your arguments and why they matter, even if it seems obvious. Weighing impacts is important.

- Don't heckle. Be nice.

I have 4 years of speech and 1 year of parliamentary debate experience.

Do. Not. Spread.

BE ORGANIZED. If you are jumping around from point to point it will be very difficult for me to bring all of that mess together when weighing your argument versus the other teams.

I prefer that you take POIs not immediately as they are being raised or at the end of your speech. Do not abruptly stop what you are saying just because your opponent is standing up to ask a POI. Take them at the end of the point you are making, or the end of the sentence you are speaking.

Do not let the fact that I have more speech than debate experience fool you, the content of your argument is what I will vote on and not your speaking skills. Keep in mind that it will be easier for me to digest your arguments if you are better at speaking.

Please have fun. If you are not having fun then I probably will not be either.

Lay Judge:
Kind of Sketchy on Jargon so make sure you explain what you're saying. 

Also don't spread.

I don't like theory and i'm probably ok substance Kritiks but don't run reps/rhetoric Ks on me. 

Thanks. 

This is my 10th year coaching, and I have judged debate every year of my career thus far. I am a flow judge and prefer if you do not spread. If you do, please at least enunciate on your taglines and share your case with us. I am a firm believer that debate is still a communication event, so if every person in the room cannot understand your every word, you're not really debating. I've spent most of my coaching world in Speech, so if you use heavy jargon, please explain it occasionally. i.e. I know what Theory is, but if you get into "Wag the Dog" or "ROTB" I will be totally lost without a little bit of explanation.

I'm fine with K's and Topicality, as long as they are well linked. I understand the allure of treating debate as a game, but I am a classicist in that I believe it should be about competing evidence, exchanging ideas, and above all, clash. You cannot win my ballot unless you clash.

That being said, this is your debate! Clearly tell me why you win in your voters and frameworks, and I will follow your lead. Enjoy yourself and I'm sure you'll do fine! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round.

I am a lay judge, this is my fourth year of judging league and invitational speech and debate. If you have any questions, please ask.

Email for chain: debate.wm@gmail.com

Because this is being done online, please slow down a bit. I would hate to miss anything due to latency or other technical issues. If you need to spread I won't stop you, but your opponent might miss something, and I might miss something.

I am open to just about anything, but explain it like I am new to the argument. I am most likely not familiar with the sources you are using to cut your cards.

Please have fun.

Hi, I’m Anish. I debated for Peninsula for four years and qualified to the TOC twice.

My email is anish.ramireddy@gmail.com.

I was pretty bad at flowing, so please slow down and pause between your arguments.

I primarily read policy arguments, but I’d be more than happy to vote on philosophical and critical arguments as long as you explain them well and do comparative impact calc. I dislike most tricks and theory arguments because they’re underdeveloped and often lack warrants.

Other things:

It’s the debater’s responsibility to flow — asking what was read must be done in prep or cross-x

Smart analytics can beat carded evidence

A lot of counterplan theory arguments are best settled as competition issues, not voting issues.

You can insert rehighlighting

Default judgekick

I’m a parliamentary debater, theory is good, spreading needs to be clear, I judge on flow.

A. I hate spreading.

A Case against Spreading in LD

B. I appreciate good turns.

What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

C. I judge you on 5 things.

5 Keys to Success

A debater has high points in me if he/she possess the following:

1. - Focus and steadiness of arguments with solid support. A good debater never deviates from the topic. He knows the topic thoroughly and has the ability to clearly place points and express everything. It is extremely crucial to stick on the topic to keep the listener’s interest alive.

True debate depends on the presence of four characteristics of argument:

1. Development, through which arguments are advanced and supported;

2. Clash, through which arguments are properly disputed;

3. Extension, through which arguments are defended against refutation; and

4. Perspective, through which individual arguments are related to the larger question at hand.

2. - Open-mindedness - ready to use any new information that arises during debate;

3. - A good communicator and gives strong rhetorical reasons for the probative force of his or her arguments;

4. Arguments based on logic and argues through excellent evidence, making as always the argument as the focus and not as evidence.

5. - Shows relevance of the issue;

6. - Able to summarize - to extract and communicate a precis of the key points of a complex argument in terms that will make sense;

7. - Ability to think up good concrete example scenarios to explore the practicality / viability of an idea put forward by someone else.

8. - Able put ego / personal vanity aside in order to focus on the subject rather than getting involved in point scoring games.

9. - Patience

MINI (shortened) PARADIGM

I am not a lay judge, I will keep a flow

self-timing is encouraged

signpost clearly, please!

terminalize your impacts

try to take cross-examination

spreading is fine, but if your opponent or I say "clear", or ask you to slow down, I expect and suggest you fix your spreading or it will negatively affect your round.

*be respectful*

____________________________________________________________________________________________

FULL PARADIGM

Debate is an educational opportunity for growth, to practice, and gain life skills in public speaking, impact analysis, and persuasion. Being diplomatic, respectful, and have good sportsmanship is important to fostering a more welcoming community in such an inherently competitive and cutthroat activity. Good clash, signposting, and evidence make for great debate rounds, so be sure to employ these to your fullest extent in the round. Do not be abusive or disrespectful to your opponents, partner, or me.

Be concise and clear, emphasize your evidence and explain to me why you should win the round. While diplomacy and speaking ability are important factors in results, I will judge first and foremost on the actual debate and flow itself.

Background in debate:

In high school, I did two years of parliamentary debate so that is the style I am most familiar with, however, I have judged LD rounds before and understand the basic principles of policy.

My judging:

Although I am not a lay judge, I will remain tabla rasa while judging, so it is best to pretend I have zero knowledge of the subject matter. I judge rounds focused solely on the information brought up during the debate will not be applying my own personal knowledge or bias as a factor of any sort when judging. Therefore, it would be unwise of you to assume I know something and breeze over the statistics, analysis, or evidence, as I will not judge on what is not explicitly cited or stated within the round. If your opponents tell me that apples are purple and you fail to contest this point, I will vote as if apples are in fact purple.

Random Preferences:

Conditionality- Unless you have legitimate grounds for running this, I tend to find it abusive.

Courtesy- be respectful of your opponents. Do not heckle, tag team, or be cruel.

Cross-Examination- answer to the best of your ability all of the questions asked. Weak responses to get out of questions such as "that is not relevant", with no further explanation will hurt your speaker points.

Impacts- terminalize them, and explain them... impact weighing can shift a whole debate if done correctly, so keep this in mind!!

K- Generally, I am not super familiar with kritiks and do not enjoy kritiks unless you believe it is absolutely necessary to the round. Avoid running them unless you have very clear evidence and explanation as to why the K is necessary and proper and be sure you have strong links to the Aff.

Protected time- keep questions short, clear, and be respectful of protected time. If your opponent asks a question, please accept and respond to the question within reason. Respect and honor your opponent’s speaking time and do not ask an excessive number of questions.

Signpost- please clearly signpost. It allows me to better track and flow your arguments meaning I can better judge your round.

Speaking- please try to fill all of your speaking time.

Speed- While I do prefer slower debate rounds, you may spread. I can keep up with quick-paced rounds but prioritize the quality of speech over quantity, so do note that your spreading must be clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying then I cannot flow it. If I or your opponent says clear, I expect and suggest you fix your spreading or it will negatively affect your round.

Topicality- go for it but offer a counter interp.

Value- clearly express and define your value for me.

Voting issues- use them to your advantage in your last speech to remind me why you believe you have won the round.

-off-time roadmaps are encouraged

-Avoid dropping arguments, as drops mean truth.

-Feel free to use comparative advantage but only if you have responded to all DAs.

-Go ahead and self-time!

-Speaking ability is something that I am acutely aware of.

-Being disrespectful will also reflect negatively on your speaker points.

-A failure on your behalf to prepare does not constitute an emergency on my behalf. Please come to the round with everything you need to debate.

Do not like speeding or spreading unless debater is clear and concise with enunciating their words and there is evidence to support all point. I expect the value to support the case and carry throughout as this is a values debate. I do appreciate off time road maps and sign posting though they of course do not weigh in any decision and only stand to assist in helping keep up with the case.

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.