College Park High School - Class of 2016

University of California - Class of 2021

Background:

I have no experience with judging but I personally would like to watch and judge philosophical debates focused on normative debate.

I have 4 years of experience judging and debating in high school debate (Lincoln Douglas, World School debate, and British Parliamentary Style) and college debate (British Parliamentary Debate).Racism, sexism, classism, and bigotry in general are never tolerated in round or in argumentation. For virtual, please stay in the camera frame. It is best if your hands are always in the frame as well; otherwise, gestures seem extreme when your hands suddenly enter the frame. When I judge a round, I focus mainly on whether or not you have a clear structure. Structure to me means whether or not you fully flesh out your examples to make them impactful. The biggest thing I look for is your explanation - you need to explain things in a way that makes it easy to understand without sounding condescending. Your examples and explanation should help me understand your ideas or else they do not serve a purpose in terms of persuasion. Lastly, speaker points are based on who creates the most convincing arguments not who are necessarily right or wrong in the real world .

Previous Experience: 4 years of parli, both lay and flow, for Gunn High School (Palo Alto). I graduated in May 2019.

General Etiquette: Don't shake my hand. Don't linger after the round. All feedback will be given in the ballot.

Don't whisper loudly to each other while your opponents are speaking -- generally, be as quiet as possible while someone else is speaking.

On Speaking: Goes without saying, but no bigotry. If you face a microaggression in the round, please call your opponent out on it -- I will penalize them if it continues.

I don't really care for speaker points and I think they're a bit arbitrary. Therefore, here's my arbitrary rule spelled out: You all start out at 27.5 speaker points and gain 1 point for every good pun you make. I define "good."

Do not spread your opponents out of the round, and clarify all terms and jargon you are asked to clarify. Conversely, you must ask your opponents to slow down or clarify if you feel the need.

You may tag team, but I will only flow what the speaker says.

POIs may be taken at the end of the speech, but I will ask that if you say "I will take your POI at the end," you should waive your final minute of protected time.

POOs must be called for it to be acknowledged and not flowed. Please call POOs on shadow extensions -- I will take them into account. I judge the validity of the POO based on my own flow. (Do not argue with whoever called the POO -- I promise you I do my due diligence and will check to see if it is a new argument. Just continue with your speech.)

On Argumentation: I will not warrant, impact, or weigh for you. It doesn't matter if you managed to impact out to nuclear war and your opponents only impacted out to a 0.1% loss in GDP; If your opponents weighed those impacts and you didn't, I will probably vote for your opponents.

I will always do my best to be a tabula rasa judge (though do be aware that I am human and therefore certain arguments may be a stretch to me).

It's your job to explain the science, technology, history, or concepts that relate to your argument. If you're talking about carbon capture technology in a climate change round, you better explain like I'm 5. I will only vote on facts introduced in the round and will try my best not to intervene or be biased based on my own outside knowledge.

The quality of evidence will almost never be a deciding factor in the round -- this is Parli. Focus on argumentation and logic. (Important caveat: if you're going to make something up, don't insult my intelligence.)

On Theory and Ks: If you invoke theory, I'm going to stop being a tabula rasa judge and I will judge your team harshly if you invoke it frivolously.

For Ks, the same rules apply. I'm pretty harsh about what I think justifies a non-case debate, so these options should be a last resort. I am open to them if I genuinely believe there has been harm done by the end of the K. Please do not use Ks as a means to just "surprise" your opponents.

Have judged Parli for 5 years, also some policy and LD rounds.

No preference to speak rate.

I am a parent judge, and have judged at several tournaments across 2+ years. Jargon and technical debate do not impress me, whereas plain talk does. I take notes throughout the round.

I decide based on who is most convincing and respectful of the art and sport.

I'm a parent judge with about 1 year of judging experience. I'm a lay judge, but I have knowledge about most topic areas and will probably know if you're outright lying. I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I don't believe that anyone can be fully Tabula Rasa. Don't shake my hand.

Case: I'm skeptical of link chains that sketchily lead to huge, improbable impacts. I understand, though, that this can be strategic for many debators. I will probably use some degree of reasonability in deciding if you access your impacts. This is the biggest frustration for me in judging: have better links. Do not lie to me, it's a bad norm for Parli and it's against CHSSA rules anyway. Strong uniqueness is very important to me, and you should cite an organization if you're reading quantitative data warrants. Be topical.

Speed: I can handle a clippier debate, but be reasonable. Think fast conversational speed at a max. If you go faster, I won't be able to take notes as effectively. If you're talking fast but aren't saying much substantive, I'll get annoyed.

Impact Weighing and Framing: Just tell me where to vote, make it easy. Also, COLLAPSE!

Perms: An immensely powerful tool for the Aff. I default to the perm as an advocacy, but I'd be open to a well-explained competition perm.

Counterplans: Do not run Plan Inclusive Counterplans, unless there's obviously no ground for you.

Theory: My daughter explained theory to me, and I could see it as a viable response to abuse. That said, I've never encountered theory before when judging. If it's presented to me, it would need to be well explained. Even then, I may not vote on it as an a priori issue. I'd probably weigh it against case, unless given a strong reason otherwise (as in, not a blippy a priori claim on voters).

Kritiks: I've never seen one run, and probably wouldn't vote on it if presented. Disads and Advantages using Kritikal lit would probably be more effective, if you really want to run it (change mindsets in the post-fiat world).

Speaks: I will try my best to rank your speaking fairly and without bias. I think that speaking convincingly is important for real-world applications, as much as I'd like presentation to not matter.

POO: I know what this is, no need to explain. One response from each team, I don't want to a hear a back-and forth. I don't protect the flow, so POO new arguments. Don't use POOs to try and throw the other team off, I'll get annoyed.

POI: These are pretty consistently abused. Unless it's an important clarification point that will further the education/clash of the debate, I don't really care if you don't take them. It's your choice.

I am a parent judge and don't have past debate experience. I primarily judge Parliamentary debate.

K's

I am not a huge fan of K's but if you really think it pertains to the debate, don't be afraid to run it as long as you are able to link it back to the debate at hand.

Delivery

This applies to all forms of debate, not just Parliamentary. Probably my biggest preference is that you do not spread. It makes it more difficult for me to render the right decision as I want to be able to hear your arguments, but I can't when you speak so fast to the point where it is impossible to understand.

TLDR: HS parli debater. Prefer case debate over theory / Ks, impacts and weighing are key, education is important so don't jargon/spread your opponents out. Tell your opponents before the round if you plan on spreading or running a K, and make sure they are comfortable with it! I will flow the round and do my best to vote for the team that has the largest/most-likely impacts as they relate to the round's value criterion.

ME: College Grad. 4 years high school Parli debate experience, 3 years as team captain; my debate experience has not been super tech.

ARGUMENTS: impacts are key, tell me why your claim & impacts lead to the weighing criterion. Also, do my weighing for me: tell me that your impacts are more important than your opponents', and give me evidence as to why using your advantages/DAs.

LAST SPEECHES: I do flow last speeches, and I don't protect against new content in the last speech. If you spot your opponent bringing up new content and think this is unfair, say "point of order." I will stop time and you can state why you think this is unfair. Your opponents will have an opportunity to respond, then state "start time" and continue their speech. I will not allow back-and-forth discussion between debaters in the point-of-order.

THEORY: I will vote on theory if I think there was abuse by your opponents and you’re able to justify a) that real abuse occurred, and b) that it harmed you / your ability to win the round. I don’t like friv T.

KRITIK: I’m not a huge fan of the kritik, if you feel you have to go for it make sure before that speech that your opponents are comfortable responding to it. If you have the K pre-prepped before the round and plan to run it regardless of what your opponent says, you should tell your opponents / the judge that. I have a very limited base of K literature, so assume I've never heard of the K you're going for and be prepared to explain how it works to me in-round. I will be receptive to arguments that Ks are abusive to non-tech debaters; my personal opinion (though you can convince me to vote otherwise) is that K's should only be used when obviously necessary (e.g. resolution forces a racist advocacy, etc).

SPREADING: As I said, my experience has been pretty lay so there is a definite upper limit to how fast I can listen/flow. If I can't flow at the rate you're spreading, I'll yell "CLEAR". If I've had to yell clear 3 times I will stop flowing. importantly: confirm with your opponents that they can flow at speed before you start a speech including spreading. If you do not do this and your opponents say you're spreading them out of the round, I will be receptive.

OBVIOUSLY: Dont be racist/sexist/.... you will get bad speaks and lose the round.

have a good debate!

I am a lay parent judge. Please present your case clearly and enunciate your words.

I am a parent judge for parliamentary debate and speech.

I appreciate clarity of argument and argument development through the course of the debate. Please do not spread, talk extra fast or use jargon. DO NOT RUN THEORY because I will not understand it or flow it. Please do not attempt to argue anything outside of the resolution (ie. kritiks and nontopical arguments) as this strategy will not be a winning one. I will always favor debaters who speak clearly at a regular pace, who treat their teammates, opponents and judges with respect, and who focus directly on the debate topics as presented.

Please time your own speeches accurately and honorably. Please follow tournament rules regarding use of internet, citations, etc. Please treat everyone in the room with respect.

I am a flay judge.

I look for clear statement of the topics, understand the flow you will take for the debate.
No critics please.

Make sure to have good impacts and solid evidence.

Don’t drop any refutes or contentions.

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

I am a parent judge with some experience judging parlimentary debates in the last five of years. Starting with a road map is helpful for me to follow your round. I value clarify over speed. I appreciate strong reasoning and data/facts-supported analysis to make it clear for me to decide who wins the round. It is also important for me to see you are respectful to your opponents.

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

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

I debated in Public Forum, Parliamentary, and World's Schools debate throughout high school. For the past four years I have been a part of the Debate Society of Berkeley's team competing in British Parliamentary debate. I have over 8 years of debate and judging experience. I expect everyone to be respectful and civil for the entirety of the debate. I do not like speed as I can not flow arguments well if they are given too fast. I appreciate signposting and would like debaters to weigh their arguments in the end so I know how to value everything they have said. I think having clear impacts is really important and I value the big picture, overall impact of arguments more than making sure everything is addressed on the flow. If you are going to use theory please explain it very thoroughly and thoughtfully.

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.

Physics student at UC Berkeley

I debated in the Indian Debating Circuit (yes, like in the country of India) for 6 years. I did 1v1, 3v3 debates that have no direct comparison to any American formatting styles, but they worked a lot like Parli. I have been judging high school Parli since I came for school to Berkeley, and I currently debate in British Parliamentary format.

If I stop flowing, that means I've stopped listening since you're going too fast or repeating stuff. Change strats if you see that.

~~

Don't really like K's, but if you do them, explain them really, really well or you'll lose me.

I'm alright with theory debate (as long as its not frivolous or TRIX). Just don't spread or speed too fast since I'm still getting used to American debate.

PF prefs:

Please weigh impacts and signpost. Extra speaks if you're snarky during cross.

I will call for cards if I smell BS, and especially if another team tells me to.

I have been a parent judge for two years. I relish good writing and argumentation, and have enormous respect for debaters who can craft their arguments well.

I will take copious notes and flow the debate, and I strive not to let my own politics or views cloud my judgment of the debaters' arguments.

What I like: Courtesy; clarity of thought; a strong, compact argument back up by good evidence and stats; and above all, explaining why your evidence matters to your argument.

What I dislike: Side conversations at a volume that is distracting to any speaker; too much jargon or too many undefined acronyms; unnecessary references to history or other topics that aren't really relevant to your argument.

Thank you for debating and giving me the opportunity to learn from all of you. Good luck!

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

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.

This is my first high school tournament, so I am new to everything. Please don't speak fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you. Speak with clarity and do not use any jargon; if you do, explain what those words mean. Please explain EVERYTHING, so I understand what you are saying. Please provide well-developed arguments. I would be more impressed with two or three well-developed deep arguments over several superficial arguments. Make sure to be respectful. Thanks and have fun!