The use of evidence, logic and other methods to support contentions are important.

Effective communication is important. Excessive speed will result in lower points.

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

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

Email: marinaalan02@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her ♀️

Email: nalan0815@gmail.com,

Please also include: damiendebate47@gmail.com

I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for 10+ years now.

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember: magitude⚠️, timeframe⏳️, probability ⚖️. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts, and compare them with your opponent's as reasons for a judge to prefer your side.

• However, I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.
• Be sure to extend arguments (especially your T voters) even if they're uncontested - because that gives me material for the reason for decision. If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it (tech > truth here). Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

------------------------- Miscellaneous ----------------------------

Prep and CX: I do not count emailing /flashdriving as prep time unless it takes ~2+ minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner. Please keep track of your speech and prep time.

Full disclosure: Beyond the basic K's like Cap, Security, Biopow, Fem, etc., I'm not familiar with unique K's, and especially where FrameWork tends to be a mess, you might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or I might get lost.

I often read along to the 1AC and 1NC to catch card-clipping, even checking the marked copies.

Clear logical arguments based on evidence.

As a second-year judge, I want to understand your logic and evidence. If I can't understand what you say, I can't award you points. Though I understand speaking fast (spreading) is sometimes necessary, by the end of the debate I will judge based on what I understood. If I don't follow you, you may lose. Overstating your case also loses points with me (in other words, "x is unlikely and so many people will suffer" convinces me a lot more than "x will never happen and so the entire world will suffer and die").

I don't appreciate frivolous theory or too much theory. If you can show me why your opponent is being unfair in debating, that helps me judge. Otherwise running theory will probably lose you the debate.

I am a freshman at USC, majoring in Political Science on the Pre-Law track. I am new to judging debate, and am looking for clear, confident arguments and respectful discourse. I do not like speed/spreading. :)

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Concerning Parli:
Sign Post. If you do not, I will not flow.

Spreading is ok.

I highly suggest not using K/theory. If you do, it better be good.

Any signs of rudeness, unsportsmanlike conduct will not be tolerated.

I have 5 years of debate experience. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum, and I now do British parliamentary at the University of Laverne. If you make me laugh or smile, I'll be more willing to give you better speaks, but don't fish for votes, make it natural.

I'm good with speed

If you're debating policy try to have some original thoughts, I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

If you have any questions, my email is: colin.coppock@laverne.edu

Updated: 03/12/2024

Add me to the chain:cbpelayo94@gmail.com

I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.

Experience

Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).

I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:

- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)

- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)

- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)

- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)

I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!

Truth > Tech

Kritiks

Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.

Other things:

- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.

- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).

- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.

- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.

- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.

- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.

Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)

This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:

- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.

- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.

- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.

- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.

- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.

- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.

Procedurals (FW/T)

Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.

- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T

- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think

- Founders intent is so mid

- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.

- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3

Speed

My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"

This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:

[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.

[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.

[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.

I will choose from among the arguments presented to me.  I pay close attention and keep an accurate flow of the debate.  Both are important to me.  Cross examination exchanges are important as well in shaping how I view arguments and debates.  Consequently, I usually have thoughts about who won the debate immediately after its conclusion.  Then my decision making process goes something like this:  (1) who  do I think won and why?  (2)  does that team think they won for this reason?  (3) why does this team team think they won?  (4)  Are they correct?  (5)  why does the other team think they won?  Are they correct? (6) who has the better claim to victory?  (7)  Decide.  (8)  what will be the losing teams complaint and what will I say?  (9) Vote.  10.  Deliver.

I vote for plans, counterplans, interpretations, performances, alternatives, permutations and presumption.  You should be clear about what you are asking me to vote for.  Know your plan, interpretation, etc.  Know the other team's interpretation, permutation, etc.  I usually start with a very narrow question to resolve a debate and they center around these issues.  I usually ignore role of the ballot arguments except and unless it helps me resolve an otherwise irresolvable debate.  I will usually just dismiss these arguments.

As a judge in a competitve academic activity I find that maintaining fairness is a paramount concern.  Deciding these issues usually take precenden over other issues because as ther judge I am the only protection that eitther team has against unfair practices and these matters must be resolved immediately, in the round.  Education is an important but secondary concern for me in my role as judge.  It's a primary concern of mine as coach.  You will notice that my decisions focus exclusively on who I voted for and why and rarely on what I think either team could do better or where either team or debaters came up short.  I will talk about these things if asked, but I am primarly concerned with delivering a correct decision that resonably honors both team's expectations.  A decision that is fair.

Card clipping:  I have been convinced that this is an important thing.  If you are caught card clipping in any debate that I am judging I will vote againtst you and give you 0 speaker points and ensure that you receive any and all of the proper punishment.  However, anyone who accuses another debater of card clipping in any ddebate that I am judging will be held to an incredibly high burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence.  That's something less than beyond a resonable doubt, but should still effectively deter anyone from making any weak accusations.  I would much rather not have to decide this debate.  Also, it would help me and you significantly if you included a materiality argument when making such an accusation.  I.e. the other team clipped cards AND it's materially impacting the outcome of this debate.  This is the equivalent of an in round abuse requirement.  

Lastly, I do not vote for critiques of performances in front of white audiences.  I am not a white audience.  You must take note of this when you debate.  Even if there are white people around, they don't matter to me as a judge (even on a panel).

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

Hello! I'm a third year parent judge, but I am experienced. When speaking, please speak slow, I judge what I can understand. I am not so clear on debate terms, so either clarify of refrain from complicated terms. A weighing mechanism (in debate) is preferred so I know how to judge the round. That's about it, good luck! :)

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the National Circuit for all 4 years of High School. I’ve qualified for Gold TOC, Nationals, and placed 5th at state, so I’ll flow don’t worry. I’m a fan of public forum being for the public so I prefer you to stay away from theory and technical debates and focus on the real, tangible impacts of the resolution.

General

Warrant your arguments well. If you read something, explain why it happens/its true. This applies to blocks in rebuttal as well as case arguments. I’ll be writing down evidence cards so if you’re gonna carry something across the flow mention it by name.

Please weigh. Love that.

Signpost. This also makes everyone's life a lot easier and if you do it well, I'll reward you with higher speaker points.

Time yourself but I probably will too because I hate when teams go like 30 seconds over.

I believe public forum should be accessible to everyone. I’m big on the idea that it was made for the public and should be treated as such. I will probably not vote off of theory unless there is a serious abuse. If you do decide to run theory, don't run it as a cheap way to win.

Evidence

Preferably read dates

Don't misconstrue evidence.

Usually I won’t judge the evidence myself unless what you say sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or both teams read conflicting evidence and neither team weighs one over the other.

Case/Rebuttal

Warrants are mega important. If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but I highly suggest using the advantage of speaking second and responding to offense in the first rebuttal (case turns and offensive overviews). I don't require any kind of time-split (2-2, 3-1, etc). However, I won't buy a brand new response (to a turn) made in second summary unless the turn came in first summary.

Arguments that are not responded to are considered conceded but only if the team brings up that it was dropped. If the summary calls the argument conceded, and it is, then they will probably win the round unless you can outweigh the argument effectively.

If you're turning something label it as a turn, I'll probably figure it out on my own but it just visually makes it easier on my flow.

Offensive Overviews

I will only evaluate offensive overviews if they are read in first rebuttal. Case turns and general responses/defensive overviews are permitted in both rebuttals.

To clarify, don't run random DA's or new contentions in 2nd rebuttal and call it an"Overview." I think this is unfair as it gives the first speaking team almost no time to respond.

Summary/Final Focus

You don't need defense in first summary unless there was frontlining in second rebuttal. You do need turns.

Don't read any new evidence in second summary unless you're responding to new arguments from first summary.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Give me 1-2 voters in final focus.

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. I want magnitude, time scale, all of that good stuff.

Crossfire

My attention to crossfire will usually be solely for speaker points. I don’t weigh it highly unless it’s brought up in a speech.

How I vote

I'll look at what offense was extended through summary and final focus then vote for the argument/narrative that was weighed best. If no one weighs then I'll do my own weighing and that means there's a good chance you will be upset with the outcome. If both teams weigh and it's still very close, I will take the path of least resistance i.e. the cleanest piece of offense in the round.

Avoid spreading and jargon, both are lazy. Focus on direct clash with opponent. While I expect you to time yourself, I will also time you. Anything said beyond time will be disregarded.

I have a couple of years’ experience judging debate events, and when judging I try to be as Tabula Rasa (not bias) as possible. Some of the points I focus the most are the following:

Excessive speed and excessive jargon don´t not add value to the debate, instead, strong arguments and clear exposition addressing the opponents contentions, are more appreciated.

I am counting on the debaters to use their time to transmit confidence in their arguments by using evidence, documented reference, deep screening during cross examination and logic to support their cases.

Spreading is not always the best way convince a Judge. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not have a way to weight your arguments.

I consider the debate, not only as a contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers, but as a great opportunity to present strong arguments logically linked, easy to follow in a convincing manner. Be polite, be respectful, be convincing and enjoy the moment.

Hi! I'm Natalie, a former PF/LD debater from the Archer School for Girls (WBFL) and a current student at Wellesley College.

I will grant the W to the debater who best carries their arguments across flow, so please be thorough and extend your offense! Be sure to explicitly link your cards to your value and value criterion; I tend to care about net benefit and am less inclined to back a case hinging upon a low-probability circuit-style externality (so please no more witches or animal shape shifting!).

I come from a more traditional background, so I’m not the best judge for Ks or obscure circuit style arguments, but please unpack them clearly and make sure they're genuinely relevant to the resolution if you include them. Stylistically, I prefer if you avoid spreading (if you do spread, I need your case via email!) and emphasize the core tenets of your case for me. Remember that I don't have nearly as much knowledge about the resolution as you and your opponent; use your speaking time wisely to highlight the crux of your argument.

Presentation matters to me, so please speak in the way that is most comfortable for you as the debater and the most clear for me as the judge. I like a clean and fair debate that can be followed - avoid getting hung up on CHSSA rules or other irrelevant jargon. Debate should be an accessible medium! Play your part and don't further obscure it! And lastly, though this goes without saying, please treat each other respectfully; uncalled for aggression or rudeness will result in low speaks.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at ng2@wellesley.edu.

Sixth year parent judge for New Roads, which is my only debate experience. I am, however, familiar with argument as an attorney for more than 30 years with lots of trials, arbitrations, administrative hearings and oral arguments in appellate courts. You could say I argue for a living.

I am most familiar with Parli and LD. I’m old, with slow ears, so don’t spread. Speak clearly and enunciate. Theory, Kritik and other more technical forms of debate are fine, but only if you really explain your position. All too often the punch of these arguments is lost without a full, complete and thorough explanation truly supporting the point being made. Don’t rely on debate jargon or buzzwords. Likewise, explain why your proposed framework for how I should decide the round makes sense.

Over all I am looking for the most compelling argument. This can be several smaller points, or one or two very strong points. Most of all, always explain how your arguments relate to the topic in question.

Include me on your email chain: gurrola.victoria@gmail.com

Background:

I competed in policy debate for Claremont High School from 2006-2010. I enjoyed running K's. I was a volunteer mentor coach and judge for the Bay Area Urban Debate League from 2011-2015. I have a masters in Public Policy from Mills College. I taught first grade for the last three years in Oakland Unified. I've only judged at a few tournaments over the last few years as teaching took up most of my time.

I am fine with speed. However, my ear is not as trained as it used to be. Please slow down for taglines and theory arguments. If I miss something because you were going to fast on a bullet point, it can hurt you. Argument quality over quantity is always better.

I am open to hearing all kinds of debate. Just as happy hearing a k debate as I am a cp/da debate. I do believe that the aff has an obligation to affirm the resolution. I don't think that K affs need to have a plan, but you need to have some connection to the topic. Tell me how the debate should be framed. If you're going to run a K I need to have a clear understanding of how it specifically links to the aff. I am less likely to vote for a generic K with a broad link.

PLEASE do not assume that I have read/am an expert on any of your K arguments. YOU have the obligation of explaining your arguments. If I don't understand your argument then I can't vote for it. I have no issue with voting you down on something that you didn't clearly explain to me. For K debates I've found myself much more compelled in debates where I am told the roll of the ballot/judge. I don't believe that debate exists in a vacuum.

Don't be rude or condescending to your partner, opponents, or me.

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

I am a lay judge with very little debate experience, and therefore prefer case arguments over all. Not keen on theory or kritik arguments. Please signpost to make the argumentation as clear as possible to follow. I vote on clear impacts with strong links, impact a warrant out to show me why it matters in the frame of the debate.

I've competed in Speech and Debate for over 6 years now, 4 in High School and 2 in college. I've done 4 years of LD and 6 years of Parli/NPDA, as well as impromptu and extemp. I prefer debate rounds with solid argumentation and good framework, and am not the biggest fan of theory shells and K's. I will listen to them, but you would present a much more convincing argument to me if you were to argue the topic of the round rather than the the theory shell.

I am a parent judge. I have debated in LD when I was in High School over 25 years ago. 2 years ago I have reacquainted myself with debate when my son started competing. So with this being said, I am comfortable with all types of debate however I am not super familiar with all the arguments that currently popular. Assume my understanding at your own risk. What you will get from me is an independent judge that is flow-based. I will base my decision on how articulate your arguments are and if you adequately addressed your opponents key arguments.

I can handle moderate spread, but NOT if you're incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and articulate. Additionally, although I will base my decision on the flow of arguments, I do NOT appreciate any show of disrespect to other competitors, spectators, and judges. I cannot guarantee that it doesn't affect my decision or assignment of speaker points.

School affiliations: Redlands High School,Los Gatos High School, Leigh High School

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

Email:: dylanj.debate@gmail.com :: add me to the chain

Update 2020-2021: I haven't judged this year, or even looked at any topic literature. I'm not going to know your acronyms. Just be clear :)

Overview/TLDR: I was a 2N, but have also been a 2A. I've been in policy debate at Damien High School for 4 years (Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education). Currently attend Emory University, but do not debate. I went for T the majority of my neg rounds (including T-USFG). If I didn't, then I went for the PTX DA (Agenda PTX) or a K (Extinction K, Fiat K, Edelman). I’ve gone for big stick Heg Affs, and Settler Colonialism Affs. I will vote on literally anything (yes, even though I'm from Damien).

Theory: I put this first because this is an under utilized part of debate. Give me solid warrants. Actually clash. If you don't engage them well, don't expect me to vote for you. You should probably disclose on the wiki. (X)-SPEC is a real thing. However, O-Spec is not a thing and may be the only "Theory Argument" I fundamentally disagree with. I reward creative, new theory arguments (yes, you can do that) as well as carded theory debates (yes, those exists too). If you plan to go for Theory, I want comparative analysis on the interps and clear impacts to your standards. If Theory (Particularly Condo) is your aff strategy going into the 1AR, you're gonna need at least 3-5 minutes, unless it's dropped, in which case, 30 seconds - 1 min. Although I was a 2N who read multiple conditional advocacies, I think there is probably more pedagogical value behind 1 conditional advocacy. If you don't tell me your dispositionality standards, then you probably shouldn't have said you were dispositional. I'll just flow you conditional in that case. Otherwise, Dispositionality =/= Conditionality. Perf Con is probably bad. If theory arguments aren't well-articulated and/or are overly blippy, I'll simply dismiss them. Of course, you can always convince me you're right, even if I disagree with you - the flow almost always dominates. These are just some vague opinions to help guide your strategies. I'll vote on anything... Except O-Spec. That's still not a thing.

Topicality: It's the only "rule" of the game. Affs are rarely ever topical. That being said, I still have a high threshold for T debates. You need to execute well for me to vote on it. 40 seconds in the 1NR is not enough. Nothing is core of the topic, so stop saying your aff is - this isn't an argument. Legal precision, if you actually understand why your definition is legally precise, is one of my favorite arguments. Also, debaters underutilize "jurisdictional voting issues." If you don't know what that means, go learn it to do T better. Reasonability is a standard for a Counter Interp, not a "we reasonably meet." Topicality is a procedural, so don't pretend like you can make it a time skew. "Lol, they dropped T - vote neg" doesn't mean anything and I won't vote for you. It'd be a disgrace to T debates. I tend to evaluate T before other Theory, but can be convinced otherwise. Go for Framework like it's T... because it is. I've gone for 13 minutes of T in the block against an aff with a plan. I love a good Topicality debate.

Case: Why have these debates died? Seriously, a 2NC that can spend 8 minutes on case might deserve a 30. I reward good case debate. Make teams cry because you've researched their aff better than they have. Case debate =/= impact turns.

Kritiks: Look. No high schooler actually knows how to run a K. Y'all are lazy and reading your coaches blocks. I know, because I was a lazy K debater too. Still, don't expect me to know all your "buzz words". I'm open to your kritik, but I want a substantive alternative - not just reject the aff. No alt => no K => linear disad => see impact turns OR just lose the K. Also, the link debate should be clear. Don't have your blocks be written by your coaches and have the cards not support it, even if you are right in the grand scheme of the literature base. Also, Baudrillard sucks and the fiat K is the K of the damned.

Impact Turns: These always tend to be messy, or become the messy strategy of kicking the alt and going for the K links as case turns (which isn't that great, because the aff always has a small chance of solving something). Keep it clean and clear. 1-defense on top 2-links and internal links 3-terminal impacts. That should be the order of the impact turns every time. If you don't win defense, it becomes a DA that I can weigh case against. (Believe me, this is not a good place for you to be).

Disadvantages: I love complex DAs. Be clear on the impacts. Love the addition of impact scenarios in the block. Make it impossible for the aff to deal with, but still have a clear story. For the PTX DA in particular, this is both the worst and best DA in existence - if you can't explain the story of these DAs coherently, don't go for them. I personally don't think election based PTX DAs are good - I err on the side of the aff, since the uniqueness is shotty at best; polls have far too many problems and have too many uncontrolled variables. But I'll still evaluate the DA.

Counterplans: They must have a net benefit. They must have a solvency advocate. I love Advantage CPs, but only if they have a solvency advocate. Cheating CPs are cool with me.

K-Affs: K-Affs aren't my favorite, but I'll evaluate the flow - honestly, you do you. I think a lot of K-Affs think not reading a plan is a vital component. It's probably not. If it's a method v method debate, I tend to find that these round are always lacking clash and hard to evaluate. Try and make it easy and actually engage with the philosophical underpinnings of the aff/neg kritik. I tend to lean negative on the question of T-USFG, but it doesn't mean you have a guaranteed neg ballot. Or you can just read the Heg Good K against the K-Aff - thats probably an easy neg ballot, but still not guaranteed.

Side Notes:

You do You! Just because I'm from Damien, doesn't mean I won't evaluate a K, K-Aff, or K v K Debate. Just because I'm from Damien, doesn't mean I ONLY vote for T/Framework, heg or (x)-war good. I want you to do what arguments you believe are best/true. The only thing I ask is: make an argument.

Help! I'm Aff!: straight turn DA's, exploit double-turns, have tricky Affs, and write my ballot in the 2AR.

Help! I'm Neg!: if the 1NC just throws bad options around to see what gets under-covered, you will most likely lose. if the 1NC is 1-off DA or PIC, and you're ready to throw down on an impact turn, more speaks.

Debate is a game, but it is also a place to learn. Don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, or Colin Coppock, etc. We are all friends, and you should always prioritize teaching your fellow debaters the best techniques for being successful debaters.

Blocks: DON'T JUST BLOW THROUGH YOUR THEORY/TOPICALITY BLOCKS! Slow down. Articulate the impacts. Make comparisons. Don't drop arguments. For you (lazy) K debaters, make sure you're tailoring your blocks and not just reading the generic stuff your coach gave you or the crap you find on CX.com. Specificity is your greatest weapon in debate.

Efficiency > Speed. There's a difference. Otherwise, just make sure you're articulating your words and not clipping. (Obviously). I won't yell clear. I just won't flow. Pay attention to your audience! Debate is a communicative activity. So if people can't understand you, why are you even speaking?

Tech>Truth or Truth>Tech: These are so useless. 1 aff card with a beautiful warrant can answer 30 negs cards with crappy warrants. And a dropped argument will [almost] always be flowed as a true argument. Judges who think there is a difference between Tech and Truth are doing it wrong. YOU need to tell us what matters... Also, "Spin is spin"

Depth over Breadth in terms of strategy. I'd rather see a 1-3 off debate that goes really in depth. I get you sneaky 2Ns have strategies. I did too. Predictable blocks are always bad places to be for the neg. But if you are fundamentally winning arguments, even if you don't spread the 2AC out flow wise, that's the sign of a great debater. Spread the aff out on one flow.

“My Aff is my Baby” logic is bad. Be courageous and kick the Aff to go for theory or an impact turn to a DA.

"Cheating" Counterplans? Hell Yah.

PICs are legit... PIKs are probably not legit.

A Few Quotes:

"I may not be a good judge, but I'm better than Sage Young" - Donny Peters

"Framework is like riding a bike" - Lincoln Garrett

"people should impact turn.... everything" - Ian Beier

"that was LITERALLY A LIE" - Elliot McMillan

"My gold standard for debates would have to be Abraham Lincoln vs. Frederick Douglass." - Alex Jeong

"maybe if i nod a lot during t then he'll go for t" - Martina Povolo

"I know this looks bad, but..." - Malone Urfalian

Hello competitors!!

My name is Francis (Sae-Rom) Kim,

I am a parent and an assistant coach at Redlands High School, have been judging Congress for about 6 years now, and I am very excited to see all the amazing, talented speakers today.

As a judge, I evaluate the "Best Legislator" in the chamber based on a demonstration of various skills, not just speaking. I often use the congressional debate rubric chart. This means I evaluate basic skills as well as participation in setting the agenda, making motions, asking questions, as well as content, argumentation, refutation, flow and delivery. Most importantly, I'm looking for effort, passion, and consistent participation in the round. Just because you gave a good speech doesn't mean you get an automatic good rank. You need to show you are engaged with the chamber. Also being a well rounded debater is very important for me. During rounds, I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Any speech after the first cycle should be referencing other speakers in the round and you should be utilizing refutation. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. Providing evidence is very important for me.

I will try to be as fair and just as possible, so enjoy the experience and be respectful during the round!!!

Thank you.

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

ryanryan.koh@gmail.com

Debated for Fullerton Union High School - policy for 4 years

- 2a for my entire career only ran affs with plans. 2a's be creative. I want to give you credit, but you have to justify it. 2ns flag stuff and close doors.

- 2n senior year, only went for politics, process CPs, and T. Not too much T as a 2n tho, but I love it. Ev matters. Predictable Limits >

- cheating CPs are fun, but have a good theory block. If I don't catch your args and the 2a goes for theory, I will assume it wasn't said. I won't fill in gaps.

- not a fast flow. Explanation and clarity plz.

- I'm probably not the best for K affs. I didn't understand them when I debated at a high level, so the threshold of need for explanation in debates is probably much higher, but I will vote for them.

- I went for FW against K affs. Fairness impacts need to pair with an arg about why fw is good for skills or something.. try to solve their offense plz and not just complain.

- take advantage of drops

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Head LD Coach at Peninsula High School.

Hey - I debated LD and Parli for 3 years and graduated from Northwood High School (Irvine, CA) in 2019. I qualified to LD and Parli TOC my senior year. I also debate NPDA for Cal (I’m a 3rd year right now).

Include me in the email chain: karkri23atgmail.com

tldr:

For High School Parli TOC:

I am and always have been a lay judge (You don't need to read the rest trust me).

I will evaluate the flow as objectively as possible with minimal intervention (speed is fine)

Read any theory/K/phil you want and I'll evaluate it

All things being equal, I lean FW-T over K but can be convinced otherwise

Love a good Case/DA/CP debate the most but you do you

Don't be a jerk and you will probably get speaks somewhere between 28-30

I will vote on presumption

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Where to Pref me:

Larp: 1

Theory:1

K: 1

Phil: 1

Tricks: 1

In case you haven't noticed, I am a GOD.

Most importantly, Have fun :)

The Long Version:

What I read in LD:

Aff - big stick, soft left

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard

What I read in Parli:

Aff - big stick, soft left, Orientalism, Settler Colonialism, Model Minority

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard, Settler Colonialism

Parli Specific Notes:

Speed is not an issue for me but if you excessively yell slow and clear to your opponents and proceed to be just as fast and unclear, I will be fairly annoyed.

Call POO’s just in case but I will protect

Weighing is not a new argument

The PMR does not get new warrants unless its answering a new MO argument. However, cross applications are cool as long as the warrant and implication was made in the MG and you are just merely weighing it on a different part of the flow.

LOR does not have to extend the MO

I think ruse of analogies with K debate or Independent Voters can be pretty problematic and/or nonsensical at times and realistically believe that you should make the internal link very clear as to how certain actions and rhetoric relate to larger events or mentalities.

General Notes (Mostly LD):

All impacts matter - the degree to which they matter is up for debate. This means I'm not fond of strategies that rely on preclusion or permissibility. (This does not mean you can make arguments as to why considering a certain type of impacts can be violent e.g. focus on materiality is settler colonial so you should not weigh the aff. However, just asserting the state is settler colonial means no aff is not compelling.)

Dropped arguments only mean the warrants for them are true - their implication can still be debated.

Bad arguments should be answered easily

LD: Extending the case in the 1AR does not mean card-by-card extensions. Leverage warrants in 1AC evidence efficiently.

Pet peeve: "that was in the overview"

LD: Clipping is cheating - if I notice it, then you will lose regardless of whether your opponent notices it.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to 1NC arguments about only needing to respond to spikes if extended in the 1AR - this does not apply to topicality preempts and/or paradigm issues. I don't think putting condo/pics/etc bad in the aff and warranting it properly counts as a "spike"

I'll clear you 3 times - after that, it's up to you to notice that I'm not flowing.

Do what you want with flex time/CX but good questions can definitely help your speaks

LD Only: Disclosure - more is better. I believe all cards should be disclosed open source (this includes the 1AR/2NR). I am happy to boost speaks for good disclosure practices - just tell me before the round. I'm more willing to vote on theory arguments related to disclosure than almost any other theory argument.

Parli: Disclosure is not a thing and I will not vote on it

Saying "independent voting issue" doesn't matter to me until there's a warrant for why.

Defaults (These can be easily changed by just asserting the converse should happen)

T/condo/disclosure: Drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs

All other theory: Drop the arg, reasonability, no RVIs

Epistemic modesty

Affs -

Do what you want- defend the topic or don’t. I probably lean slightly towards T-FW but I am willing to vote against it if the arguments are won.

Topical stuff:

Properly warrant out the internal links to your scenarios- even if you are big stick, explain to me why extinction happens because of tensions. Solvency should be specific to your aff.

If your only strat against Agent CPs and PICs is theory, you probably should have written a better aff.

Disads -

I love a good case vs da/cp debate- if you do it well you will probably get high speaks in front of me.

LD Only: I like both topic-specific and politics - I read a lot of cards after the round, even if you didn't reference them. That's not what makes my decision, but I compare it with my flow.

LD Only: Affs need cards against politics disads.

Counterplans:

I have no real disposition for or against condo. Feel free to be condo, but I’ll also evaluate condo bad theory.

I have no real disposition for or against “cheater” counterplans. Feel free to run consult, delay, sunset, etc., but I will evaluate theory against them.

Permutations are tests of competition

I will judge kick CP's as long as you tell me why I should and under what conditions I should kick it under.

T-FW:

Do what you want but make sure that if you are going for it, implicate your fairness and education impacts as either a prior issue or as turns specific to the aff's method.

I read this a lot and I love a good collapse on it.

I am more than willing to vote against it but all things being equal, I probably lean towards FW rather than against it.

Other T/Theory:

I am very comfortable voting on “frivolous theory.”

I will vote on disclosure theory in LD, and I am very sympathetic to disclosure good.

Paragraph theory is fine but if I miss it, then your opponents most likely did too and I won't vote on it.

I have no real disposition for prioritizing proven abuse or potential abuse. I will default to potential but can be persuaded otherwise otherwise.

I default to drop the team for most theory but I will buy drop the arg if it makes sense. When reading theory, give me a good reason why I should drop the team or the argument.

RVI's are fine

Burdens arguments don't need voters, but they do need sequencing claims.

I think that fairness vs education weighing is highly strategic. Nine times out of ten when you go for theory, you should tell me whether I should prioritize fairness or education, why, and what the in-round implication of the weighing is.

Kritiks:

I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, so don’t be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. However, informative overviews and explanations are appreciated, especially if the K lit is dense.

If it’s relevant, the ks I’m most familiar with and used to running include Anti-Blackness, Orientalism, Cap, Set Col, Agamben, Baudrillard and Deleuze.

I default to evaluating the alternative as a method of resolving the k. This means I don’t particularly care what the “world of the alternative” looks like, as long as you’ve told me why your method is a sufficient strategy to resolving the harms of the k.

I evaluate the alternative like a counterplan in terms of conditionality/permutations. See the CP section.

I default to evaluating fairness and education before the k, but I will buy arguments that kritikal impacts either come before or impact turn theory impacts.

If you have questions or if there’s a question I haven’t answered, please ask me before the round!

1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.

2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.

3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.

3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.

4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.

6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.

7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."

I have experience judging for 3years in LD, Congress, Parlie, and Policy.

I don't give that much emphasis on the speed of speech as long as they speak out clearly.

I give more emphasis on the logical, solid connection of arguments.

Delivering their arguments with the concise and most important concept, without any redundant expression, provides me a great impression all the time.

I want to see articulated and detailed information on evidence.

I am a relatively new high school debate judge with about 1 year of experience. I prefer clear, somewhat slower speaking. Please articulate your points and offer thorough explanation of any ideas that would not be clear to a lay/newer judge. I expect a respectful and honest debate.

northwood hs 19 (no longer coaching. coaching northwood ff; debatedrills ld) chain: danielluo.pi@gmail.com

northwestern 23 (ma econ, ba econ + math + some other stuff): not debating.

past: i don't debate in college, but coach policy (and previously ld). when i was debating, i got a few bids in policy and ld, was mostly a double 2 (2n otherwise), and usually read a plan.

0. racism, sexism, queerphobia, ableism, and other arguments which advocate violence based on immutable characteristics are bad and will result in an L 0.

1. boilerplate: tech > truth, judge instruct and i'll abandon my predispositions. don't clip. dropped args = true, but implications = up for contestation. evidence quality matters. spin, contextualization, and judge instruction matter much more.

2. "judge type": ideological differences are usually a result of heterogenous academic background filtering the way we read arguments. to be explicit: i work in abstract economic theory and pure mathematics (particularly game theory, mechanism design, information). this implies

a. i think of the world much more through the lens "definition theorem lemma proof." i enjoy specific claims with good warrants that have clear implications for why you should win, and do not enjoy "warrant by n = 1 example."

b. if you ask me to read cards that cite statistics, i will read unhighlighted portions to check statistical significance of the results.

c. i did not go for, nor do i interact with the literature for, "hard-left" critical arguments; you will need to do more work to win my ballot as a consequence of the above. even though i find myself voting for k affs and all types of ks when i do judge them, i have found my predisposition towards preferring axiomatically formal, rigorous argumentation implies winning these arguments is an uphill battle in front of me.

3. what i like:impact turn debates, multiplank process counterplans with smart advantage and uniqueness planks, aggressive 2acs that don't modularize the debate, and well-contextualized politics disads.

4. what i dislike: high theory buzzwords, assuming i have the same references/knowledge as you, a lack of judge instruction, and particularly messy block/1ar organization.

5. condo: conditionality is good. a lot of conditionality is even better.

6. theory: counterplans are arbitrary modifications to the status quo using the actor identified in the resolution to identify the existence of an opportunity cost. any counterplan that meets this definition is a-priori not abusive (i.e. theory is an uphill battle). however, "sketchier" counterplans might justify creative permutations and bolder strategic concessions, both of which will give you higher speaks.

7. ld: i don't anticipate having to judge ld again in the future. if i do and you are reading this trying to pref me, if the word "kant" means anything to you, strike me.stanford 2023 update: the aff gets to read a plan. the neg gets at least some conditionality. these are non-negotiable dispositions and cannot be argued away by judge instruction.

8. speaks: if you care, my speaks have mean 28.45 with standard deviation 0.57. if you know what you're doing, you'll probably get fine speaks.

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

I am a lay judge who has been judging speech and debate for about a year. I will vote for the debater(s) who extend their argument and clash with their opponent's case the best. I (and perhaps your opponent too) will not be able to understand your arguments if you spread, so do not or I will vote you down. Besides that, keep it respectful. As for speech events, just try to make a genuine connection with me. If you're able to do so, it will reflect well on your ranking.

Hello! My name is Manav Manivannan and I was a former debate for Northwood Highschool in Irvine California. I did a variety of events from parli to pf to speeches like extempt and impromptu. I qualified for the NPDI twice, won 2nd at CHSSA state for parli in my junior year, and qualified to 5 national extempt tournaments.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round about any questions you may have regarding my debate experience or even my college and work experience. Don't keep the room silent!

Judging Preferences:

Be RESPECTFUL to your opponents at all time, I will dock you on speaks if you are unnecessarily rude or cut them off without any consideration.

I'm fine with any speed, I'll tell you to stop if your speech becomes unintelligible.

Weight your arguments at the end of the round and make your VOTERS clear. Don't make any assumptions and clearly explain why your team deserves the ballot.

Honestly I don't really care if you treat me like a lay judge and if you feel the need to explain every single concept, especially relating to T/K.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on a couple of criteria:

1) Comprehension: Can I understand what you're saying.

2) Professionalism/Respect: Treating everyone in the room with courtesy and being respectful to all parties (opponents, judges, audience). Debate helps you prepare for the real world and therefore you should act in a professional manner.

3) Argumentation: Are your contentions properly structured, logically flow, and do you explain them properly.

Usually I will default to laddering speaks giving winning teams higher speaks. I will not give a 30 because no one can be perfect but I'm fine with giving 29.9. I range speaks from 25-29.9 unless you are just atrocious, then I'll give less.

Case Debate:

I 100% prefer case debate that is relevant to the resolution and honestly will pref case over everything else unless SPECFICALLY pointed out as to why I should pref K, T, etc. over case. Education about the topic is important and should not be overlooked.

Theory:

Theory is good when used right, but when done poorly it can really ruin a round. I will drop your speaks if you run friv T. RVI's are fine. Don't make me work hard to weigh what is more important in the round, be CLEAR or else I will default case.

Kritiks:

I never really ran Kritiks, so really don't run them unless you absolutely need to, i.e. you couldn't come up with a case. If you use K's as a tactic to exclude other groups or people I will drop you.

Honestly, you can consider me to be an old school judge and I promise to give a fair and equitable decision. Most importantly, make sure to HAVE FUN. Speech and Debate genuinely changed my life and is one of the most impactful things that I have done in my life.

Good luck!

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

Email for chain: debate.wm@gmail.com

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

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

Please have fun.

-I will only judge information that you bring during the round, any outside information that I have will not be included in the decision-making process

-Please speak clearly; no spreading

-I do not enjoy listening to theory (big no-no)

-I appreciate thorough links for each contention

-Signposting is appreciated

-Please be organized in your speeches; arguing with the flow of the debate is appreciated (attack contentions in order that your opponent has spoken)

-When you enter a round please write the resolution on the board (if there is one) and your names/speaker positions (if applicable)

I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 10th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate and I defiantly prefer truth over tech.

I am a parent judge. who has judged few tournaments in the past. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters who can articulate their arguments well. Please be friendly and respectful to your opponent. Absolutely no spreading.

I am a philosophy professor (emphasis on logic and ethics) and a parent judge. This is my sixth year judging, and I enjoy LD most, followed by Parli and PF.

I prefer when debaters have a clear and well-researched case supported by a specific ethical theory or moral principle. I expect that debaters will be assertive but never disrespectful toward their opponents. In terms of debating style, please avoid "spreading." Also, I don't like it when the round has been reduced to debate jargon and you're arguing the rules of debate rather than debating the educational issues within the resolution.

Hi! I'm a parent judge and I take both quality of arguments and speaker clarity into high consideration. I prefer debaters who can clearly articulate their arguments and at the same time create a logically cohesive argument.

Im not familiar with progressive arguments such as kritiks, theory and topicality. If you do plan to run them please be extremely clear with your explanations. 

Please don't spread as I don't have exprerience judging speed rounds.

Hi, nice to meet you!

In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.

I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!

If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:

General/Important Things on How I Judge:

-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.

-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.

-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them

-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.

-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.

-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.

-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.

Background on Me:

-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).

Case Debate:

-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.

-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.

-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.

-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.

-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)

Theory:

-It should make sense and be specific to the round.

-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)

-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)

Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.

-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.

-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.

-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.

-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.

-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.

-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.

Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.

25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).

26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.

27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.

28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.

28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.

29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.

30: You were godly.

This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.

Updated for Economic Inequality Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

This Year's Topic: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating and are better equipped to win my ballot.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

I am a high school senior and I have been in speech and debate since middle school. My main debate event is Public Forum although I have done LD a few times throughout the years.

I am a flow judge so I will jot down anything and everything that you say as well as if something is dropped or not responded to. I am not a fan of spreading, but feel free to talk at whatever pace you want. If I can't understand you due to technical difficulties, then I will let you know. Please sign-post so I can keep track of whatever you say in my flow.

In terms of what factors into my decision, everything on the flow determines how I judge, including dropped/unresponded points. Impacts are a must and if you want me to buy your point, then warrants and impacts must be explained and expanded on. Be nice and don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, disrespectful, or rude to anyone in the round, otherwise, you will get bad speaker points.

I chose to keep this paradigm pretty brief, but if you have any questions, you can ask me before we start the round.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

emailchain: passapungchai@gmail.com

Current:PhD student @Rice

Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,

Debate stock**, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not just at 300 wpm. I am not that fast anymore, I do not coach, and I don't even read the topics. You have been warned.

** I like fun arguments still and can get quite bored of stock. If you run zanier things, just take the time to explain better.

TL;DR:

Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump

I do not like seeing theory shells in PF. Please do not do it. Debate substance. Pretend that I'm a very well-read parent judge at this point

I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.

Condo bad

"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."

I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.

Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).

for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.

If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~

If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.

I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.

Online Stuff:

It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.

I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.

~~~

PF prefs:

I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.

Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"

NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.

Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.

On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.

ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:

PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.

Tabula Rasa with the exception of easily verifiably false statements.

I believe that claims require evidence and that big claims require a higher standard of proof. Impacts like extinction for example are not compelling to me unless they are very well substantiated or weighed correctly. This means that I might not take extinction actually happening, but a debater whom weighs the massive cost of extinction and substantiates the cost even with an extremely low likelihood of occurrence may win the debate in my judgment. Impacts without weighing are not impacts. Tell me why/how much I should care.

I flow, am able to flow spreading, and will likely allow it especially if the tournament has a TOC bid on the line. I will also take Ks but as the logic of a K is that a real world impact outweighs in round impacts, to win the K I personally, as opposed to the tabula rasa mindset I use for in round impacts, have to be convinced by the K.

Ask me any judging questions before the debating starts as I won't answer once it does.

Add me to the email chain- katieraphaelson@gmail.com

Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I also come from a circuit background so I flow very diligently.

I just graduated from Smith College with a B.A. in Government and French Studies. My gov major concentrated on international relations.

I've been coaching and judging for about 5 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background. This paradigm used to be super long but at this point I really only have like a few important things:

1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!

2) Please don't read super circuity arguments at States/Nat quals/Nats. I'm good with jargon and such, and I am very comfortable judging circuit rounds, but like be reasonable.

3) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time.

4) Feel free to share your cases but I can keep up without a document.

5) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!

6) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!

fun fact for this PF topic-

Im a former student athlete! I played d3 softball at smith college (small historically womens college)!

Always include me in the email chain'

Email: israel.debate.email@gmail.com

Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN

Speaker Points:

I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech.

Spreading:

I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed.

Basics rundown for Policy

Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.

Case: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.

CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.

DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.

Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. I'm fine with performance, narrative, etc. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.

Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.

You decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Theory/Ks/spreading all cool

I debated 4 years in high school parli and PF and I’m a year into college British parli so I have a lot of experience!

Here’s a list of things that I do and do not want to see in a round!

1. Introduce yourselves and make sure that you are following proper etiquette when entering the room.

2. Don’t stall the round I’m here to judge and you are here to debate.

3. It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of your case and the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit.

4. Theory debate is something that I know can be imperative for a round but please avoid at all cost and if not use it properly and not to pigeon hole a debate via some specific definition

5. Make sure you properly tag and flag rebuttal I will pick it up but I shouldn’t have to do that for you.

6. Speed is something I don’t mind when it is because you have a natural habit but if you are purposely spreading I will most likely drop my pen.

7. Rude debaters aren’t fun to watch at all so really try to not.

i weigh rounds based off of 1. Impacted out arguenents with proper explanation and linking 2. Understanding and context 3. Etiquette

No spreading.

I'm a coach.  Blank slate.  I'm pure flow in all formats.  I'm fine with speed.  Fine with anything pre or post fiat in LD and policy.  Team or debater who wins the flow wins the round.  No intervention.  I will vote on topicality.  I will vote on theory.  I will vote on case.  I will vote on K's.  Depends who better sells that I should prefer their voters.

Add me to the email chain: sylvada94@gmail.com

Bottom Line

Show me clear structure in your arguments. Signpost everything clearly and highlight your impacts. Tell me how to weigh the round and lay out clear voting issues in the 2NR/2AR, the final foci, and the PMR/LOR. Be inclusive. Make sure your opponent(s) are okay with your rate of speed, work to help them understand your arguments, and just don’t devolve into insults and bigotry. Bigotry will result in an automatic loss for the offender(s). Otherwise, please be competitive, intelligent, and considerate.

Experience

I’ve been active in the forensics community for 14 years now. I’ve been a competitor, a judge, and a coach, and have experience in PuFo and Parli at the high school level, and NPDA and CEDA at the college level. Outside of forensics, I have an MA in National Security Studies from CSUSB. My specialties are in WMD strategy and East Asian comparative politics.

Philosophy

To me, goal of the round is to synthesize and disseminate knowledge. This activity is meant to prepare you for higher academic discourse, and good academic contributions are original, intelligent, and comprehensible. Thus, my general expectation for competitors at all levels:

1. Show me that you’ve done YOUR OWN research into the topic. To be clear, I don’t expect you to have prepared for the debate all by yourselves. Of course we rely on our teammates, and sometimes victory briefs, to help write and research cases. However, there is a difference between using these means as tools, and relying on them completely. Good cases will demonstrate an excellent command over the topic area and contribute an original idea which synthesizes the research presented in the round. A lack of understanding of the topic, your research, or your entire case will make a loss very likely.

2. Show me that you are an excellent critical thinker. Do not just present me with 600 of other people’s research papers. Give me some original analysis. Respond well to your opponents’ arguments. I don’t expect you to have prepared for every possible contingency, but I think good debaters are clever enough to find ways around that issue. Evidence isn’t everything (even in Policy). If you provide me and your opponents with evidence with little to no analysis, you will very likely lose the round.

3. Show me that you can clearly, concisely, and coherently communicate a cohesive and complex idea. Gut-spreading a nuclear war-extinction impact at 500 wpm for a healthcare topic is none of these things. I will not flow arguments like this. Generally, the longer the link chain you need to prove an impact, the less likely I am to vote on it. Contrived and counter-intuitive impacts derived from pure theory communicated incomprehensibly do not good academics make. For the sake of making good arguments that can enlighten the uninformed while contributing intelligently to the discourse, please make clear and coherent arguments. Please present cases that cohere without long, convoluted, and/or purely theoretical link chains. In regards to speed, specifically, I will accept spread in some cases (please see “preferences”).

Other Preferences

· Debate as a game. Debate is a game where the objective is to synthesize and disseminate knowledge in the round. I can't fact-check everything you say in the round, so I defer that duty to you. To synthesize knowledge there needs to be clash. I highly prioritize direct clash in my decision calculus because you don't create knowledge by merely claiming your position. By clash, I mean providing evidence and analysis which directly addresses your opponent's contentions. It means putting your opponent's case within the context of your own. What makes both sides mutually exclusive? Where are they mutually inclusive? How does your thesis surpass the opposing antithesis? To disseminate knowledge, I need to understand what you are trying to communicate. If you are going to spread, that's fine, just make sure that I can read your case. To this end I highly value structure. Arguments need to flow in a logical order, I should be able to intuit how links fit together, and impact calculus should be as transparent as possible.

· I like theory and straight-up debates equally. That being said, I still expect kritiks to be intelligent, original, and comprehensible. Carry your K all the way to the end of the debate; commit to it. Don't just read one sentence long blocks and call it a day. Show me you have an in depth understanding of the literature you are reading or I will drop the argument. Same goes for theory and topicality. Interpretation is always a prior question. That means that kritik, theory, and topicality take priority over case, and if you can successfully prove them for your side, I drop the opposing case and you win the debate. on the flip side, if you fail to prove your interp issue and you have no case coverage, then you will lose the debate.

· PICs are fine so long as NEG adequately shows how the counterplan isn't just a permutation of the AFF plan.

· I’m fine with speed ONLY so long as your opponent(s) are also good with speed. Keep in mind that I flow on paper, so it will be a little more difficult for me to flow the debate in its entirety if you spread.

· Signpost EVERYTHING. I want you to really walk me through the structure of your shells and contentions. This is less to show me that you understand the structure of arguments, and more to help me with my own flow. Really, anything you can do to make my evaluation of you easier is a big plus.

· I love stock issues. I’ve noticed that stock issues have fallen out of favor in a lot of high school leagues. Nonetheless, I think good cases really do need to address significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency. I expect competitors to zero in on these issues if their opponents lack them in their case. I really like to vote on stock issue

· Tell me a link story. Don't just read blocks and assume I'll know how to put them together. Give original analysis and go through the process of establishing that the premise of your contention/advantage is true, then walk me through how your premise leads to a terminal impact. In other words, what are the external links that prove your premise true? What are the internal links that lead to a persuasive and significant impact? Please do terminalize your impacts and give me some clear and concise calculus with which to weigh your impacts.

· Tell me exactly how to weigh the round. I’ve seen weigh too many people drop their weighing mechanisms, not fully understand what a value criterion is, and straight-up not tell me why they should win the debate. Please do not be these debaters. Please understand your weighing mechanisms, values, etc. and give me a clear list of voting issues at the end of the debate.

· Hate and bigotry lead to an automatic loss. If you espouse hate speech, belittle your opponent period, or otherwise judge or attack them or anyone else for anything other than the quality of their arguments, I will drop the debater.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

Intro: This year is the start of my 8th year as a parent judge. I have judged every Debate event and most Speech events, but I have the most experience with PF, Congress, Impromptu, Extemp, and LD. Of these, Congress is my favorite!

Expectations:

- be professional and courteous to others at all times

- play the part, and enjoy it

- speak in a way that allows me to understand you - not too fast, and assume that I don't know abbreviations and "lingo" related to the legislation

How I judge/rank/assign points:

- quality of speech and quality of answers to questions: relevant, moves the debate, concise, original, organized, logical, supports your position or refutes the opposing position, demonstrates knowledge of the legislation, reliable evidence, persuasive

- delivery: mostly extemporaneous, poised, confident, mostly correct sentence structure & grammar, clear transitions with signposting

- use of time: use all, or at least the majority, of the time allotted for your speech

- demeanor: respectful, professional, personable & memorable (you need to make yourself stand out from the others), be an active participant

Have fun and impress me!!

I’m a parent judge. I’m looking for mainly clarity and articulation throughout the debate, so please, no speed. I’m not experienced in theory so please keep it to substance. Don’t make crossfire a yelling match and have fun!

5 year speech and debate coach with an appreciation for well-tied arguments.

When in rounds: I appreciate live argumentation instead of reading blocks. A debater should know their arguments and not rely too heavily on notes; be confident in your research and position and you will have an upper hand.

I would rather see a few well-thought arguments vs. many barely covered perspectives, do not spread yourself too thin. Solidly backing your main contentions will ensure your argument comes off clear.

Lastly, be sure to address your opponent's arguments and try to avoid surface questions, when possible.

Clear and fair debate

READ THROUGH MY ENTIRE PARADIGM, PLEASE. I've listed the brief details I want you to know.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀

QUICK HISTORY ABOUT ME:

I debated 4 years of American Parli in high school and am currently a British Parli debater at the UCLA Debate Union. I won't list my awards, but trust that I know how to flow.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

**IMPORTANT SIDENOTE**:

You'll be able to guess my party affiliation from the political stickers on my laptop, which I use to flow.

Please do not let that distract you.

Conservative, moderate, and liberal ideas will be weighed equally, so don't feel obligated to appeal to my opinions.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

PARLIAMENTARY

How I Judge:

1) I'll ONLY judge what has been said in the round. I won't use my outside knowledge against you. On the flip side, if you do NOT respond to an argument, I can't fill in the blanks for you.

2) I don't expect statistics from your limited prep time. Quality over quantity here.

3) Good impact calculus and/or voting reasons will benefit you.

4) I don't have many notices on this paradigm, because a lot of it will be up to you. This is your round. Make the most of it and I will reward you.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Preferences:

1) Please do not use personal examples/anecdotes to support your argument. Debaters should not be expected to counter each other's unique experiences.

2) SIGNPOST (a.k.a. list your points clearly) please.

3) DO NOT abuse Points of Orders to interrupt a speaker. Some schools do this more than others...

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Miscellaneous:

1) Two-worlds analysis is encouraged if you'd like.

2) No entirely new arguments should be brought up in your closing speeches; HOWEVER, I will accept extensions of your argument that offer greater analysis.

3) I can judge Points of Orders for myself, so don't fight over them.

Feel free to ask me about collegiate debate and/or for feedback after adjudication. :)

I did Parli and PF for 3 years in HS. Prefer not to vote off theory. I should be fine with moderately high speeds, and I'll let you know if it gets too fast. Signposting is good! Extend arguments through your final speech if you want them to be considered on the flow. I like weighing and impacts in summary/final focus. I don't flow cross-ex, so make your arguments in speeches.

No spreading.

Counter plans allowed if the tournament allows.

Please do not spread, I am new to judging and if you spread I will miss arguments.

I do not flow CX.

I am not as up to date on the topic as you are, please make sure to explain your arguments appropriately so that I can fully understand and weigh your case.

Good evidence is required for your case, but you don't need to read a full article to me to back up your ideas. I would rather take your word for it that your evidence is factual and allow your opponents to find faults in it than me.