I have been a member of the National Speech and Debate Association for 18 years. I grew up doing speech, and as a teacher, moved more into the direction of coaching debate. I love this activity, and I am genuinely rooting for every team that I judge.

I currently coach a large, successful middle school debate team in Harlem, where we do mostly Parli.

1. I appreciate cases that convey a sense of originality of analysis, clarity, and authenticity.

2. When it comes to any data-based evidence, I am going to be more swayed by the narrative you create around the numbers than the numbers themselves.

3. I appreciate thoughtful research, but when it comes down to it -- perhaps it is all the time I spend coaching Parli -- I am easily pulled into the world of ideas and logic. I will have a longer leash for more philosophical reasoning than many PF judges.

4. Whenever I experience PF debate, I am so impressed by the way the best teams are able to manage their time-- because you have so little to work with. Do not be afraid to let things fade from the round in order to focus the round into the real voting issues.

5. In crossfires, get underneath the premise of your opponent's argument rather than the splitting hairs or (in most cases) getting into the nuances of the validity of the evidences. Force concessions from your opponent.

6. Create legitimate clash. Show me the contrast between the worlds of yours and your opponents. Make the contrast obvious to me.

5. As you speak, engage me naturally on a human-to-human level, and read my reactions. (I'm told I am fairly easy to read)

Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Mel DeBlasio (she/her) Yale '23.5

General Info

I'm a New England girlie who judges West Coast tournaments every once in a while. Parli experience only.

Be kind, be chill, and above all be respectful!! Any act of aggression (table banging), intimidation (yelling), disruption (whispering during speeches), or abusive argumentation will result in the lowest possible speaker points awarded. Please tell me your pronouns prior to round start.

Include trigger and content warnings. Let me know if you have preferences or accommodations that you're uncomfortable sharing with your opponents directly, and I will make an anonymous announcement prior to round start.

If your opponents have strong prefs due to different debate backgrounds/experience, you must try your best to accommodate them. There is nothing satisfying or educationally valuable about gatekeeping your opponents out of a round.

Debate Preferences

I hand-write all of my flow and have the attention span of a four year old on methamphetamine. I can keep up with fast rounds easily but if you spread, I will stop listening and the only RFD you'll get is how many ceiling tiles there are in the room. Spreading is unnecessary and an accessibility concern, and in my mind spreading = bad debater.

Please please please do not rely on tech jargon in the round to describe your arguments. If you cannot explain your case to a random person on the street, it is meaningless. The only "perm" I care about is the one Elle Woods used to win her third-act court case in the 2001 cinematic masterpiece "Legally Blonde", and if you start using half words, acronyms, and other nonsensical ten dollar words I will stop the round to perform the Cincinatti Stroke Scale on you. Techy terminology does not replace actual warranting.

Please no tag-teaming or verbal team communication during speech times, save it for flex time!

ELI5 and pretend that I have never read a book in my life.

I will listen to whatever type of round you want to have, however keep in mind that I don't have a tech background. All arguments will be evaluated the same, regardless of the technical or stylistic context: is it well-warranted? Is it unique? Are the impacts clearly linked? Did you weigh your impacts? And at the end of the day, you have to tell me in the PMR/LOR why your arguments win you the round. Lowest pref is theory because I find it uninteresting.

Please give me your creative, crazy, and radical cases. Please try to present unique and entertaining arguments, and feel free to joke around a bit and have a good time. My Breaking Baby brain loves it, and if you're having fun in the round then I'm having fun in the round. But leave your edgy bigoted "death and suffering are good, actually" cases for your Discord meme channel. And don't try to go OTT on details and style in sacrifice of argument quality... you still have to run a good debate round to win!

I care deeply about warrant strength and will intervene against over-claimed impacts. Please avoid theory and be reasonable.

I debated for four years at Stuyvesant. Now I'm a senior at Yale.

I'm open-minded and I like creative arguments and frameworks. If you want to run something risky and fun for our round, I'm into it.

I have a pretty low tolerance for rudeness and anything that excludes your opponent from participating in a fair round (in particular, esoteric debate jargon and excessive speed).

I am flowing. Please make sure summary and FF are super clear and even a little repetitive. If you want me to vote on something, you should cleanly extend it. If an argument is important, really hit me over the head with it. It's hard for me to vote on something that came up for 5 seconds in FF.

If you weigh clearly and starting early in the round, and give me a consistent, coherent narrative to vote on, you will probably win.