I try not to intervene on the flow. I won't fact check unless requested. Cool with off time roadmaps and tag teaming. Call as many PoOs as you want but don't be mean.

If you're rude, mean or disorganized you will lose speaker points. If you're oppressive (ableist, racist, homophobic, etc) you will lose the round.

I am a parent judge with multiple years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.

I am a student at UC Berkeley who competes in American Parliamentary Debate and British Parliamentary Debate. In high school I competed in Public Forum Debate. I have no specific objections to any arguments, and my only specific annoyance is competitors being distracting during rounds. Feel free to ask me any questions during the round!

I am a parent judge with no debating experience. I have had 4 years of judging experience, but generally do not vote on any theory arguments. If you are running topicality or any other debate technicality, please explain it clearly and explain its impacts on the round. I can handle mild speed, but please do not spread. I will take notes, but please explain the flow, especially while trying to drop opponents arguments. I normally vote heavily on impacts so be sure to clearly link all of your arguments to the weighing mechanism. Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round.

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.

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

I am the former Director of Parliamentary Debate at Lowell High School and am currently the Equity Director of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I ran Equity for the NPDL TOC 2022.

I follow NPDL Round Rules. I appreciate strong technical argumentation such as thorough line-by-line analysis and detailed warranting/warrant comparison.

Debate theory is acceptable and will be considered before all other arguments. I am willing to listen to kritiks; however, I hold kritiks to the same standards as general argumentation. Thoroughly explain your theory to me and your opponents.

International Bilingual School at Tainan '19

UC Berkeley '23

Hi, I'm Jeffery. I've debated throughout high school primarily in World Schools, Asian/British Parliamentary formats. (Member of WSDC Team Taiwan )

Judging Criteria:

1. Please speak at a speed and manner that an average audience can understand.

2. Everything should be explained. Please don't just name-drop examples/facts/statistics. Explain their relevance, weighing etc...

3. I have knowledge of an average person and will judge accordingly.

4. Please debate in the spirit of the motion. (don't run extremely dodgy definitions and cases)

So apparently I haven't judged in a while..

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

I'm just down to hear some good args and chill

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

Mostly everything below still applies. Main update about kritiks: I am pretty down to hear kritiks, but will get sad if the kritik misrepresents source material. Buzzwords and tags only will make me sad, but if you've actually read the source material, actually UNDERSTAND what the arguments mean, and can EXPLAIN CLEARLY the argument, I will be very happy :)) THE K IS NOT A TOOL FOR EXCLUSION. IF YOU DO(and with any other argument as well), THAT IS GROUNDS FOR ME TO INTERVENE IN THE ROUND.

K affs should be disclosed, and if you do not disclose, I am very sympathetic to disclosure arguments.

And because I cannot stress this enough..

On weighing: SUPER IMPORTANT DO IT. PMR should have access to weighing arguments, unless it's a new internal link scenario. I would generally like to see weighing arguments starting in the MO, but will allow LOR to make weighing arguments, but depending on the scope of the weighing, may give it less weight. Generally speaking, whoever does better weighing tends to win the round. Hopefully that incentivizes you to weigh.

ALSO please i love helping people with debate, so if any questions, email me at shirleych@gmail.com

(and i literally mean any, doesn't matter if i've judged you before or not, PLEASE reach out to me)

_______________________________

Background

debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years, coached MVLA for two years and in my third year of coaching Gunn parli

General

Tabula rasa

tech over truth, but keep in mind subconsciously I may be more likely to believe arguments that are the truth if the tech debate is close

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs on new arguments in case I do not catch it, if there are things that are kind of new but not really, I will give them less weight in the round

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

WEIGHING WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. WEIGHING SHOULD ALWAYS BE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL TO THE ROUND. The easiest way to my ballot is to weigh. I don't like bad weighing arguments that are generic and not comparative but if nobody else makes weighing arguments in the round, then I will appreciate your effort in at least trying.

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

Incorrect: "We win because our adv 1 has the biggest magnitude in the round since they did not refute our adv 1" (does not contextualize and compare to other arguments in the round)

Also incorrect: " " (<- the reference here is not doing weighing)

Correct: "We win because our adv 1 saves MORE lives than their DA 1 due to the fact that [x thing mentioned in Adv 1] affects more people than the potential [y problem in DA] would affect" (note how this is comparative and contextual)

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims

I hate voting on presumption and if I have to intervene a little bit to not vote on presumption, I will do that. This is not to say I just randomly like to intervene. I find that the times when I get close to voting on presumption is when BOTH teams have not made explicit offense but rather have gotten close to making an offensive argument(usually in some implicit form). In that case, if one side gets closer to making an offensive argument than the other, I will generally be okay with doing the work for them and considering that just offense. Note that this is just what I default to, not that I will never vote on presumption if the argument is made.

I generally dislike voting off of arguments that are not in the LOR, even if it's in the MO. I do not need the full explanation in the LOR if it's explained in the MO, but it should at least be highlighted as a tagline in the LOR.

How I judge rounds

to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Case

I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing specific impact scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I look at strength of link * magnitude. I rarely vote on magnitude in a vacuum.

CPs

I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics, these are just what my preferences were when I debated, but I'm open to hearing arguments that go both ways

Theory

I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will probably have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory.

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, orientalism, and some nihilism args, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.

Things I have read actual lit on: critical race theory, ableism, and Daoism. I have also read literature that references orientalism and discusses applications of orientalism, but have not read Said's original work. Reading these arguments could go in your favor but it could also not. I like seeing these arguments, but I'll know when you're misrepresenting the argument if you do, and I don't like it when people misrepresent arguments.

I am okay with K affs, but if you do not disclose, I am sympathetic to disclosure theory.

Speaker Points

I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks. I tend to find that the better and more weighing you do, the better your speaks will be. Hopefully this an incentive for you to do more weighing.

also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well

The Aga Khan School, Dhaka ‘18

UC Berkeley ‘23

Experience: I have experience in the Worlds School format and British Parliament formats, as both a judge and a debater.

Looking forward to experiencing interesting analysis and critique of modern day motions. Be confident, be creative, and always weigh your comparatives. Best of luck to all debaters and judges!

My experience is in MSPDP/HSPDP, a parliamentary-style format sponsored by Claremont McKenna College.

I am a current member of the Debate Society of Berkeley, which primarily competes in BP tournaments.

I am a big believer in not incorporating any of my own personal knowledge into a debate besides what is safely considered common knowledge. Similarly, none of my personal opinions will make it into the debate room.

As far as strategy, I encourage debaters to consider the exact wording of the topic. Ex: "X does more good than Y" and "X does more good than harm" have very different burdens.

Please respect protected time and do not be disruptive to the speaker (pass notes instead of whispering).

Other than that, I encourage a fair and fun round!

I have 4 years of British Parliamentary debate experience in college, and 4 years of PF experience in high school prior to that. I've participated in other formats such as APDA and NPDA as well.

I prefer a few fleshed out, convincing, well-warranted arguments to a great number of surface-level arguments. I don't like spreading, if you are going to spread, make sure to sign post extremely well.

I believe debate should have educational value and real world impact. Please refrain from using terminal impacts such as extinction when debating topics that are not likely to have extinction as a real world impact, as this heavily diminishes the educational value of a debate round.

When discussing issues that impact real people, please do not reduce people down to concepts/numbers. Do not make generalization about groups of people, even if you think you are making a positive generalization. Be careful when building your arguments on what you perceive to be universal beliefs/values. i.e. if you are planning to win the debate round on positive impacts brought to US citizens, you should explain to me why US citizens should be the most important group of people in consideration, especially if the resolution clearly calls for a more global impact.

Please respect other debaters. Do not speak in derogatory ways regarding your opponents. Do not instigate any personal attacks onto your opponents. Do not comment on your opponent's mannerism, attire or accent. Do not make any arguments/assumptions during your speech based on your opponent's identities. Remarks such as "Of course my opponent will argue xyz as a [insert identity group]" will absolutely receive equity violation.

I will not bring my personal political biases into judging. Arguments from across the political spectrums will be well considered.

UC Berkeley '22

I am excited to be your judge and I love to see everyone’s individual debating styles. Make sure to respond to points of information and to interact with your opponents arguments. Don't talk too fast and avoid being excessively technical, I will focus on the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity. Speak not to impress but to convince.

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.

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.

Please do not spread.

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

Debate Experience

1. Captain of WSDC Team Korea 2018-2019
2. WSDC 2019 9th Best ESL, 24th Best Worlds, 1st Best Korean Debater
3. JWSDC 2018 1st Best Speaker and Champion
4. CNSDC International Champion, 2nd Best Speaker
5. GKDC Champion, 1st Best Speaker
6. DWDC Champion, 1st Best Speaker

My criteria is as follows

1. I don't care if you speak fast or slow, as it is personal preference. Please make sure that it is understandable though. I will be balancing the content and the rhetoric of your speech.

2. Don't assert arguments. I am looking for arguments with links between arguments and evidence.

3. Be respectful! The debate is about mutual respect.

4. Be confident! Even though you may not fully understand your case, confidence is key to putting up a facade that you do.

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

My Experience:

I did speech and debate in high school. I have experience in congressional debate and world schools.

What I am looking for:

I am looking for clear, well explained arguments. Make sure you signpost your arguments, if I an unable to flow your arguments then it will be dropped from the flow. Be kind to your opponents; you will loose the round if you are obviously bullying your opponent.

Surprise me with your arguments. Be creative.

What I am not looking for:

Please do not spread. I should be able to follow your arguments an be able to flow them.

I have 2 years experience doing BP debating at the University of Edinburgh. Thus, technical arguments aren't that important to me. Please speak slowly and clearly, and come up with interesting points! Structure is everything, make sure I know what points you are going to bring up before you get into the main body of your argument. Thanks

PARLI:

THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime roadmaps/thank yous. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.

1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.

2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.

3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.

4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.

5. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-90 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters. That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-90 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." That was 12-17 years ago. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY DEBATE

I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.

I have judged various divisions of parliamentary debate for one year. I like good organization, interesting arguments, and clear impacts for cases. Refrain from running theory, and remember to signpost. It is important to speak well, but arguments will be prioritized over how well you speak.

Hello, my name is Alexander and I'm a debate coach and former competitor. I've been in the parli world for about 7 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I evaluate the round based on who did the most effective debating. Please use impact calc in your rebuttals. Please have warrants for all your claims.

Things I dislike: I very much dislike frivolous theory arguments like "neg must only defend SQ" or "neg must only defend CP" or "AFF must have a period in their plan text". I think legit theory arguments are: PICS good/bad, Condo good/bad, must defend a plan text, must take a question, spec arguments, T: substantial, and the classic Topicality arguments. Overall, the more sheets of paper you introduce in the MG and MO, the messier the round will probably be.

I also dislike AFF Ks that completely disregard the resolution. You don't need a plan necessarily, but I think the rez is the central locus of the round and if the AFF just ignores it, the neg is inherently skewed strategically. (Especially because AFF has the PMR.)

I'm a "lay judge". But you may not be out of luck because I try very hard to be objective and fair. Not all flow judges do that. I need you to do one thing to help me help you: never spread! Slow down so that I can track your flow more easily.

Yes I do track your flow. And I have a specially-purposed spreadsheet for that. I'm pretty good at analytical thinking. Impacts work only if you show me a clear link. As a matter of fact, if you try to "impact" me too hard with un-sustained contentions, I will disregard the point entirely.

I use common sense to judge. I don't have particular philosophy around tech-over-truth or truth-over-tech, because I don't believe competitive debate is a sport only debaters can understand and do. In fact, Debate is our daily life. 99% of the audience who watch presidential debates know nothing about T, K, POO or POI. But at the end of the day, it is the debater's job to use common sense to convince the "lay audience" to vote for him/her. You will be much better off with me if you think "how can I convince a stranger I meet in the coffee shop to vote for me?", instead of "how can I convince a national debate champion to vote for me?".

Now you know what principles I use when I judge a debate. Specifically:

- Point Of Order. I know what it is. You don't need to explain it to me. If you think you hear a POO, briefly explain to me why you think this is a POO. The debater who is accused of POO can briefly contest that. But don't spend too much time arguing about it. Leave the call to me.

- Dropping points. You actually can drop points without being penalized by me. Before you laugh at me, here are more details: if your opponent has a well-sustained contention and you drop it, you get penalized - pretty badly. If your opponent has a very weak contention and you pick it up and attack hard, you score. If your opponent has a weak contention and you drop it, I don't care. I actually find boring and tasteless if you go over all your points and your opponent's points just to "cover all the bases" without any depths. Again think about how presidential candidates win a debate. They don't do it by saying "hey you dropped one of my points that barely matters". They win a debate by focusing on a few contentions and sufficiently sustain them, or pick out a weak contention of the opponent and attack hard.

- Point of Information. I in general follow the rule of 2 for POIs. The speaker is expected to take 2 POIs. It's ok if you take less but it would be a slight negative sign to me, especially if you are running a weak flow that leaves quite a few holes to plug. The opposing team is expected to offer no more than 2 POIs. You can offer more if the speakers take them (they don't have to). Offer and accept POIs with proper etiquette please. It not only shows you are a professional debater, but also gives you extra time to phrase your point or response more concisely.

- About Kritik. I don't mind K's. As a matter of fact I like them. But don't expect me to have been trained on all different kinds of K's. And I don't care all the links, impacts, and alternatives. I only care about if you can explain it in a way that any reasonably intelligent person can understand, and clearly state why it matters. Again, think about common sense. If you think you can run an anthropocentrism K successfully in front of a group of audience who know nothing about debate (yes you can if you do it right!), you have a good chance to run it with me.

Finally - I know you will feel (who doesn't!) that I'm a great judge if you win and I'm a lame one if you lose. And I do make mistakes. However please be assured that I'm trying very hard to be fair and objective, because I know all of you are trying very hard to be good at debate too! Debate is fun. So just try to have fun and don't give up. All of us will get better as long as we try hard and we don't give up.

short version: down for almost anyt, b inclusive. if ur racist/sexist/ableist/ all the bad ists ill automatically drop u n tank ur speaks. pls dont treat me like a lay judge it makes it very hard for me to want to vote for u.

Long:

Speed:

im okay with it just slow down and be clear when me/ur opponents ask. -0.5 whenever to speaks when i yell clear and if i cant hear it i wont flow it. im open to arguments against spreading, but they must be clearly structured.

Case:

flow case is my fav kind of debate. i havent been reading the news lately so treat my topic knowledge on the res as non-existent. u can impact every argument to nuc war if u like and ill flow it and treat it as legitimate until the other team responds. please terminalize impacts, if u dont terminalize i wont do it for you unless im forced to do so.

if u straightup lie abt a warrant(make up a study, historical event, statistic) i won't drop u but -0.5 on speaks and ill drop the argument. if u tell me to fact check smt i will.

K:

down on both aff and neg. just explain what ur running bc even if im familiar w smt if u dont explain it i wont do the work for u. also if i dont understand smt i prolly wont vote on it.

if u mo backfill ill b v open to pmr responses

id like debate to b inclusive so just take a lot of q's n stuff so ur opponents get some education even if they dont know what a k is. if u don’t that’s okay but ill prolly b somewhat biased against u subconsciously

k's/lit im familiar with if u care abt that stuff: orientalism, cap, empire, certain forms of dng, puar, nietzsche, colonialism, gbtl, anti-blackness, whiteness, biopower

Theory:

prolly my least fav type of debate. im okay if u run friv theory but ill default to reasonability so make the competing interps argument in voters. if i think ur being friv -0.5 to speaks but ull still pick up if u win the shell. im also not the best at evaluating theory rds so be clear in ur rebuttals to make it easier for me.

Misc:

speaks go like this:

30=winning the tournament

29-29.5 going far in this tournament

28-29 going to break

27-28 avg

26-27 need some work

If u dont call a POO ill count the argument even if its new

my hands r sweaty so just fist bump if u wanna shake

don't make death good/ colonialism good/ racism good / morally reprehensible thing good arguments

Default to K>Theory>Case

Default ROTB is to vote for the team that best deconstructs capitalism so if u don't like that give me another weighing mechanism

if u tag team ill only flow what the speaker is saying and -0.5 every time u do it to speaks

im lazy af and wont do work for u

ill weigh what the voters tell me to weigh. if u don't make ur voter speeches clear then ill be forced to intervene.

I competed in International Extemp in High School, and was a state finalist for the state of Ohio. I have competed in British Parliamentary Debate for the Debate Society of Berkeley for the past four years.

I prefer that debaters engage in the resolution and avoid theoretical or kritical arguments.

- lay judge

- like to listen to clear, easy to follow arguments

- no spreading, no jargons

- speaker points: I start in the middle - go up and/or down based on your strengths and weakness in arguments

- I don't understand T and K

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary for the past 3 years. I appreciate clarity and logic above everything. Make sure that you thoroughly address your opponent's points. Don't speak too fast, I find that debaters often lose out on content and emphasis from "spreading."

I prefer case debate, but if you must run more technical arguments, make sure to explain them thoroughly. I will require more explanation and convincing for arguments that are further away from the topic.

I have a basic understanding of topicalities. Not too familiar with theory (dislike frivolous theory) or kritiks.

Have fun and good luck!

I’m a parent judge who will do my best to flow the round. With that in mind, please speak clearly. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments. Likewise, I can’t hang with spreading. Please connect the dots for me AKA signpost so I can better flow the debate.

I like good case debate. I don’t know anything about K’s and I don’t have any experience with theory (but my son talks about theory shells a LOT).

Please avoid debate lingo unless you spell it out for me.

Above all, have fun while being respectful!

I have a bit of judging experience within the Debate Society of Berkeley and I am going to be a judge at the Yale Debate Tournament in November 2019! I would recommend not speaking too fast and making your points cogent and clear.

I am a parent judge, and although I don't have much experience in debate, I will do my best to flow your arguments.

Please refrain from reading Ks or other abstract arguments, and don't run frivolous theory. If there is actual abuse in the round, make it clear to me what the other team did and why I should vote them down as a result.

The Aff has the burden to clearly state the topic, define the terms of the debate, and any other background information that will be relevant. This is because I will not bring in any preexisting knowledge, or I may not (probably won't) know anything about the topic. I need to understand the topic and the context for your arguments in order to weigh their impacts.

Provide good evidence to back up your claims, and reliable warrants for your evidence. Use clear and reasonable logic to help support your claims. Use terminalized impacts to show me why your points matter and why they outweigh the opposing points.

Signpost your speech very clearly, otherwise I will not be able to follow your speech. When refuting opposing points, go in order and tell me which refutations are for each point. Tagline your advantages/disadvantages so that I can flow them properly.

You're welcome to use parli jargon, but make sure you explain what each term means (just a quick sentence so I know what you're doing).

Speak at a reasonable speed (no spreading), otherwise I won't be able to write everything down. Try your best to fill up the entire time you have. Time yourselves and don't go more than 15 seconds over the limit.

Some other notes:

- Respect everyone in the round and take the debate seriously

- Write the motion and your names (on a whiteboard/blackboard) before the debate begins

- Aff should sit to my left

Jack Here, I've been debating WSDC/BP for more than 3 years and was a member of WSDC Team China Development Squad in 2018.

I have no particular judging preference so feel free to structure your speech however you see fit. What I'm really looking for is the content.

One thing to note, a lot of times I find teams keeping asserting their impacts without defending the underlying mechanism and links. Try not to do so in my rounds.

No talking fast. Persuade me with your excellent public speaking skills and a little bit of empirical evidence.

I am a lay judge, so I will decide based on my understanding of your arguments. If you use jargon, please explain. Explain your case clearly; your warrants should include what it means and what the impacts are. If I cannot understand you (spreading), I will be not be able give you credit for your arguments. Please be respectful, speak clearly, number your arguments, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

I. Background

I've been a college BP debater for 5 years and have judged junior and intermediate level PF competitions for 4 years. I would stay unbiased in the process of judging the debate.

II. Judging Style

I'm a flow judge and base it only on argumentation, ok with fast speed but would prefer clearer delivery for logical reasoning parts while evidence parts could be relatively faster. I'm open to kritik and counterplans depending on the motion but they need to stay highly relevant to the topic.

III. Evaluation Criteria

Priorities goes in descending order.

1. Impact

The potential real-world impact of each side's arguments and policy proposals needs to be clear, specific, and well-supported.

2. Evidence Quality

The quality, relevancy, and credibility of the evidence presented by each side will be evaluated. Well-researched, and up-to-date evidence would make your argument more convincing.

3. Reasoning

Logical reasoning is very important. Try to be coherent and specific about each logical link.

4. Engagement

Proper response must be given to your opponent's contentions. Try not to drop any of the important ones.

Last but not least, be respectful and be a good sport. Enjoy!

I am a parent who has been judging for several years. Please speak at an ordinary, conversational rate, track your own time, and be sure to tell me your name the first time you speak. I usually don't give feedback in person, but I try to provide detailed written comments.

I have been debating for around 6 years through high-school at various national and international competitions, mostly in the WSDC format, and was a member of the UAE National team for the 2018 World School's Debating Championship in Croatia. Consequently, I have judged my fair share of debates, although this will be my first time judging American Parliamentary style debate. I am now affiliated with UC Berkeley through the Berkeley Debate Society.

I look primarily for clarity of argumentation and favour coherent structure and prudent strategy over stylistic prowess in support of argumentation. I have no preferred speaking styles per se. Any cadence that lends clarity to exposition will be appropriate- please try not to spread (while this is not a hard and fast rule, it will be significantly easier for me to weigh the merits of your argumentation if presented at a modest pace). Likewise, I believe that a few well explicated arguments are superior to a fusillade of incisive but superficially analysed theses.

Your assigned position on the motion will NOT hinder your chances of winning whatsoever. I will vote in favour of the team on the 'morally objectionable' side of the motion if they present a stronger case. In fact, I will favour strategies that take well justified hardline stances on an issue, over those that attempt to tread carefully and compromise on key principles for the sake of political correctness or appealing to the status quo.

As a parent judge, new to debate, my goal is to take copious notes, refer back to them and look for tipping points. In general, among the debates I have judged, I have found that most teams are comparable and the decision is often close. I believe the mere fact that you are at a debate tournament means both teams are already winners. So, regardless of my decision, please know that the decision is not intended to declare a loser. Instead, you all have won and one team, in my lay opinion won slightly more

Lay judge. Please speak at a moderate pace and clearly. I like POI's and discourse, while being respectful towards each other!

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 would prefer slow and clear speeches. I will also for looking for step-wise analysis links with relevant examples to help support arguments.

Previous Experience: 2 years of University-level British Parlimentary representing Edinburgh University (including Oxford IV 2019, finalist of Ediburgh Cup 2018) and judging experience (semi-finals judge at Glasgow Ancients 2019 and finals judge at Lancaster IV).

First off, sorry that this paradigm is so sparse -- I will work on improving it in the future, but if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me.

I'm a former PF debater (2018 TOC) and a current member of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I am personally okay with any amount of speed, but you should not spread unless the other team does as well -- I have no ideological issue with spreading, but it harms the quality of debate if the other team cannot understand your arguments.

I will be tabula rasa, so any arguments that aren't discriminatory are fair game, but please make sure they're warranted. The only time that I will use my own discretion in deciding a round will be if neither side weighs effectively -- in that case, my bias is toward utilitarianism.

Again, this paradigm is far from comprehensive, so please ask me any questions that you have before the round and I'll be happy to answer them.

Background: I'm a sophomore at UC Berkeley, studying Business Administration. I did Congress, Parli, Extemp, and Impromptu in high school.

Parli: I will try to be a flow judge. Talk as fast as you want as long as I can understand you. I am ok with Ks/Theory/etc. but they have to have an actually topical reason you should win the round. I value teams that weigh/summarize the arguments made in the round in rebuttal speeches.

Congress: I'd say (very roughly) I care 60% about arguments, 40% about speaking style and decorum. At the end of the day, both have to be good for you to get a high rank in the round. I highly value clash, as well as pointed questions that really challenge the speaker. It's ok if one of your speeches is early in the cycle and doesn't have clash, but if both lack it then it's a huge red flag.

PO Evaluation: I highly care about efficiency. A good PO should barely be noticeable in the round, be nearly mistake-free, and think proactively about what issues might come up/how to keep the round running smoothly. A good PO should also be confident and professional but not necessarily a show-off.

I am a freshman at UC Berkeley, and being in the Berkeley Debate Society is my first experience with debate.

If you are running any debate technicality (ie topicality), please clearly explain it and its impacts on the round. Mild speed is fine, however please do not spread, as I would like to hear everything that you have to say. I will take notes, but please explain the flow, especially while trying to drop opponents arguments. Impacts are important to me so be sure to clearly link all of your arguments to the weighing mechanism.

If you're disorganized or disrespectful you will lose speaker points. If you're ableist, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. you will lose the round. Also, make sure to issue a warrant and an implication with your claims when making an argument; I will not give points for just claims.

Please avoid jargon and do not spread.

UC Berkeley '20

Teach me something new. Keep your arguments and speaking style simple.

TL;DR:

I'm mostly flow, but I'm rusty on the very jargon-y bits of debate. I'm familiar with Ks/theory/some philosophy arguments and very open to them - I'll vote for anything as long as I can follow it and it's warranted well. I'm fine with speeds considerably faster than conversational speed, but I'll probably miss some arguments if you full-on spread. You might want to read the very last point.

Longer version:

I did debate for 3.5 years in high school (two years of LD and a year and a half of parli), but I've been out of the game for two years now.

I'll try my best to be completely tabula rasa, but I don't think it's possible to treat debate with 100% objectivity. I won't bring any of my own beliefs, opinions, or bits of knowledge into the round (I'll believe Unicornifornia is the 51st state if you tell me to), but I will use my own judgment to an extent when evaluating arguments.

These are the steps I usually follow when trying to make a decision. Walking me through these steps will make it much easier for me to vote for you:

1) Determine the framework under which I should be looking for offense. This could be net benefits in a case debate, theory standards, K framework, or LD-style philosophical arguments (which imo could be utilized pretty effectively in parli actually.) If multiple of these are operating at the same time, I'll look for offense on several different layers.

2) Determine relevant impacts under the framework. If you weigh impacts and assess link chains in your last speech, that'll make my job much much easier. Absent those kind of arguments, I'll generally employ my own judgment to compare the likelihood of various link stories and the magnitude of various impacts. In this calculus I'll consider turns and defensive arguments made throughout the round as well.

Debate Philosophy:

I think of debate as a chess-match between teams. Along those lines,

1) I'm not a huge fan of performative Ks / arguments that view debate as a platform for social justice, although I'll vote for them if they're done convincingly. I'm really, really not a fan of arguments that hinge on your own identity as part of some minority group.

2) On the other hand, I'm all for "troll"-y, somewhat abusive arguments. Abusive framework arguments, frivolous theory, and narrowly-worded plans/cps are all fine by me.

Argumentative Preferences:

These are defaults that I employ when trying to evaluate arguments. All of these can be easily overrided if you give a warrant.

1) I will generally prioritize analytical arguments over empirics if they seem "fluffy" to me. Numbers are great, but if your only defense to an argument is a randomly-sourced statistic that's not very well-warranted, I won't weigh it heavily.

2) If you and the other team disagree over a fact, I will use my own judgment / prior knowledge to determine the truth.

3) Theory:

a. I view theory on an offense-defense paradigm like all other arguments. A shell is offense. A counter-interp can be defense to that shell, or it could be offense of its own. There can be blocks/turns on shells like there are on any other argument.

b. Along those lines, I think theory is an RVI (reverse-voting issue) if you're losing offense on your own shell (i.e. the other team successfully turns your shell. RVIs on terminal defense (like we-meets) are harder to buy but I'm open to arguments for those as well.

4) Kritiks:

a. I'm familiar with common Ks, but you'll want to give pretty clear warrants if you're reading something more complicated than that.

b. I have a low threshold for poorly explained frameworks and weak alts.

5) Speed:

You can definitely go quite a bit faster than conversation pace, but I'm not great at flowing a full-on spread. This *usually* isn't a huge issue in parli rounds but I'll yell "slow" or "clear" if I have to.

6) Miscellaneous defaults:

a. K comes before theory.

b. Fairness > education

c. Probability > magnitude for impacts

d. Perms are a test of competition

e. I'll try my best to protect the flow during final speeches, but I'm not perfect at it, and you POOing could help me out there.

Speaker Points:

1) Taking POIs is generally a good idea. If you're reading something super dense and you refuse to take any questions, I'll dock your speaks significantly.

2) Make clear/well-organized arguments. Grouping things together for organization is great.

3) Strategically kicking arguments is great.

4) Being sassy is great. Being overly rude/aggressive is not.

5) I'll give you a 30 if you give all your speeches in a British accent (and you're not actually British.)

Hi, I'm Michael!

I am a completely lay (but not lame) judge, but I have a basic understanding of parli debate.

Preferences:

1. I weigh your arguments on how persuasive you are. Throwing in debate jargon will not win you any points with me (I won't understand it anyway).

2. You MAY run theory if your opponent is being clearly abusive in the round. Please EXPLAIN the theory shell clearly to me and describe what each aspect means along with why the team is clearly pushing you out of the debate space. DON'T waste my time on frivolous theory.

3. I am open to Kritiks and other non-traditional arguments, but you must make it clear to me that your argument is relevant to the topic

4. Please TALK SLOWLY and ENUNCIATE. I cannot think and write very quickly at the same time.

5. I will disclose if it is permissible at the tournament.

6. Use REAL warrants. I know a lot about politics and current events, so you have been warned.

7. I appreciate respectful and polite opponents. Please DO NOT be condescending.

8. If you raise P.O.I. make sure it is clarifying the argument, not just being a smart a*s.

9. DON'T STRESS! Debate is a fun activity and I enjoy judging a lively round with a lot of clash. It's about LEARNING not winning!

I debated in BP and APDA at UC Berkeley. I believe that the best debaters are not those who can recite the most facts to me, but the those who can use facts in logical argumentation throughout the debate. Effective and systematic clash with an opponent's arguments are important. Throughout the debate, teams must treat each other with respect and ad hominem arguments should not be made. If one team makes a round unfair, the other team must prove to me why this is so.

I have no major political biases and am not a fan of spreading, but I understand if you have to do it.

Did debate in high school.

Talking fast is fine, but I am not a fan of spreading. I am also not too comfortable with kritiks/theory but am open them. Just make sure to explain it really well if you choose to run it.

Tabula Rasa. Assume I know nothing about the topic.

Asking/Taking POIs will help your speaks. Also, please signpost your speeches and I am also cool with offtime roadmaps.

Finally, debate is an educational space, so treat each other with respect.

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).

Parent judge. Speak in a slow, clear and organized manner. I am not familiar with technical arguments, so refrain from reading these.

I have done 4 years of HS Varsity LD Debate

1. Tabula Rasa: I will attempt to remain as fair as possible and only judge based on the information brought up during the round
2. Spreading: I am okay with speed and am able to follow generally. However, I will not go out of my way to understand you if you are not articulate and will expect you to slow down for your argument taglines.
3. Theory: If there is abuse and the debate moves towards theory I will judge on it. I prefer not to have a theory debate though.
4. Weigh: make sure to weigh the debate and provides links for your impacts.

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

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

Hello!

I am a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience in parliamentary debate.

Case Debate:

Please clearly articulate your arguments so I can understand them. I love impact analysis in 3rd speeches, especially if you've extended them through all 3 speeches. Please do PMT analysis (probability, magnitude, timeframe). Call POOs if you spot them, but do not be excessive since it is disruptive to the speaker. I protect the flow. If there are any topics with necessary background information or context, please provide it for me at the beginning.

K or T:

If you are running any technical arguments, please explain them so I can understand. I do not like kritiks since they are very difficult for me to understand. I understand theory on a very basic level, so please only run it if you really must (I do not like frivolous theory), and even then, explain every aspect clearly and slowly. I appreciate strong reasoning and analysis to make it clear for me to decide who wins the round. Good luck, and I look forward to a great debate!

College Park High School — Class of 2016

University of California, Berkeley — Class of 2021

Background And Style of Judgment

While I have little debate experience, I’ve spent the last three years working in government and politics. Most of my judgment will rely on that experience, in addition to the introductory lessons of debate I’ve learned in the past few weeks.

I will be basing my decisions on the debater’s manner of speech, persuasion, cohesion, passion, and inspiration.

• Speak loudly and clearly. Avoid spreading.
• A few strong points are better than many weak ones.
• Logical arguments are better than bickering about technicalities.

I care more about the quality of the presentation and the organization and logic of the argument than for the rapid-fire spouting of facts. I prefer speakers who use a more conversational style, with a normal pace, and I am turned off by the use of debate jargon — the USFG, permutation, aff/neg, etc. I’m a professional writer and editor who believes strongly in using clear language and speaking in complete sentences with appropriate pauses, rather than a breathless speech that sounds like one long run-on sentence. Use everyday idioms, metaphors and gestures.

Over half of my life has been dedicated to debate, public speaking, and leadership. I have four years of total forensics experience competing for my junior high school and The Brooks Institute. I competed and won awards at multiple tournaments in all forms of forensics (policy, Lincoln Douglas, public forum, parliamentary, congress, and MSPDP). In the seventh grade, I was a semifinalist at my first debate tournament (Harker Speech and Debate Invitational), won 1st place at the Toastmasters Regional Speech Competition, and won 15th place at the MSPDP Middle School nationals at Claremont McKenna. In the eighth grade, I won 1st place at the James Logan Invitational for Lincoln Douglas and 3rd place at the Stanford National Speech and Debate Invitational for congressional debate. After years of forensics, I would go on to compete in Model United Nations (MUN) for five years. I would win 2nd place at the MIT International MUN Debate Competition, 2nd Place at the Yale Model Government International High School Debate Competition in Budapest, Hungary, and three consecutive first place finishes (9th, 10th, and 11th grade) in the Harvard Model Congress International Debate Competition. I competed in MUN for the League of Creative Minds Debate Academy at Stanford University. I am currently a vice-chairman of BMUN (Berkeley Model United Nations).

I am currently a debater for Berkeley. I am able to judge rounds with debaters who speak quickly or slowly, but I will emphasize that speed and quantity of arguments are not as valuable as a slow, coherent, and efficient speech.

I am a parent judge this means that I am very lay. Please speak clearly and slowly. No spreading. Be sure to signpost so I can flow the round better. I don't know too much about high school debate so please walk me through your points. When I weigh, I weigh not only on the quality of the evidence but also why it matters so be sure to show me why your evidence matters in the round.

No Theory and/or Kritiks. I do not know what they are and I will vote you down if you run them

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary Debate for three years. During the round, make sure to clarify any terminologies or debate jargon that is utilized, and I generally enjoy arguments that are well supported with reasoning and logic alongside evidence to back it up. Make sure to also address all arguments made by your opponents during the round, and don't forget to weigh in the last speech. I am also not a fan of spreading as that often causes the debate to become messy and inaccessible.

Case debates are strongly preferred, but if technical arguments must be made, please explain them clearly. Only utilize Theory if it is against a problematic or abusive argument (I will not vote for frivolous theory), and I am also unfamiliar with kritiks.

Remember to respect one another and have fun!

I have experience in public forum debate in high school. I prefer a slower debate because it allows for a more clear and understandable style of speaking and debating.

I'm a parent judge who:

a) is new to the debate world but is trying to learn.

b) will not understand theory arguments, spreading, or Kritiks.

c) prefers evidence oriented arguments based on data.