I am a parent judge and prefer things to be warranted and impacted out clearly. Please do not spread and make well thought out arguments.

Signpost so that I can keep track of where arguments go on the flow.

I will reference a paragraph from Stanford University's “A Guide to American Parliamentary Debate” as a tool for my understanding of best practices.

A high premium is placed on quick thinking and logical, rigorous analysis. APDA debate is audience-centered; speaking skills learned on APDA can be directly appreciated by the general public, not only specially-trained judges. By focusing on argumentation and rhetoric rather than rapid recitation of evidence and technical rule-based strategies, parliamentary debate is an activity which is easily learned, extremely adaptable, and widely accessible, yet still rigorous, intellectually demanding, and rewarding.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/debate/pages/parli-guide

I am a Lay Judge and have 0 experience with Policy debate. Please accommodate. I cannot understand spreading or arguments that require debate experience to understand.

Thank you.

Occupation: Para Educator

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley Highschool

Years of Judging/Event Types: 0 none

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?: Ability to speak well and stand out in round

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?: How well individuals are able to stand out in the round and make a clear argument.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?: no

Rank each using the following rubric:

1-not at all 5-somewhat 10-weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 5

Use of Evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 8

Cross Examination: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 8

JUDGE PARADIGM

Occupation:

Samsung CRM Manager

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types:

No years of judging, will judge the Congressional Debate.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

• Fluency

• Clarity

• Volume

• Eye Contact

• Emphasis on necessary or important statistics

• Appropriate hand gestures

What sort of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

The overall delivery of a one’s speech helps me make a final decision.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

I have not judged before, but I’m planning to take notes on the aspects I’m going to judge them on, including the content of their speech.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Speaking skills: 7

Use of Evidence: 8

Cross Examination: 6

Real World Impacts: 9

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Use of Evidence:

• Cite the sources, say at least the author and date.

• Statistics is highly recommended

• Relevant pieces of evidence must be incorporated.

Real World Impacts:

• How it will affect all people

• Weighing is very important

• Why is your stance in the debate important? Why does it matter?

Cross Examination:

• Speakers must be fluent and give relevant answers.

• Ask a lot of questions, but useful ones.

• Make eye to eye contact during one on one cross examination.

Debate skill over truthful arguments:

• Must be fact based

• On topic, don’t drift off to other topics.

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

K's

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

Delivery

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

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Relatively Tabula Rasa. Explain arguments well and don't assume things in your argumentation.

No K's unless you can't help it, same with K's, happy debating

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my fourth year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. If you run a counterplan, make sure you effectively argue why it's better than affirming the resolution, or going for the status quo. If you run a PIC, you have to make it very clear why the PIC is more net beneficial than the AFF's plan.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win.

Lay judge, slow on speaking, discouraging tech debate. Be confident in your speaking and be nice to your opponents. Make sure to impact out your points and relate back to the standard of the debate.

Occupation: Hardware Engineering Manager

School affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Judged for 2 years, Congress and prepped speech

Speaker points are awarded based on delivery, clarity, confidence and hand gestures

My decision at the end of the debate is based on content in points, and more so comparison and refutational analysis

I do not flow

1- not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing and appearance: 4

Use of evidence: 7

real world impacts: 9

cross x : 6

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 9

I am former parliamentary debater and I competed in GGSA for three years.

I value presentation and speaking style, so a clear, concise, and logical case is always appreciated! Please sign post your contentions, as I will be flowing. I am not a huge fan of overly technical debates, especially in Parli, so please try to avoid kritiks unless you find it necessary. That said, if you are going to run one, make it good!

I don't have a strong preference on POIs. It is nice if you take one, but I won't look poorly on a team that doesn't (I have seen some team try to abuse them to waste other teams time, so I totally understand if you don't take them). Also, please try to refrain from asking your parter POIs. I want everyone to have a chance to speak.

Once your time is done, please finish your thought/sentence, but do not start a new argument after time, as I will ignore it. I am fine with phones being used as timers. I will be timing with my phone.

I do know the rules of debate quite well, so please don't make up imaginary rules.

I've been a lay judge for 5 years, so by now understand many concepts of flow and take many notes, but I don't keep track of every argument and counterargument nearly as closely and skillfully as what you'd consider a true flow judge. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you speak quickly.

I appreciate aggressive argument but don't appreciate disrespect of the other team, such as snickering at or mocking them under your breath while they are speaking.

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).

I am a parent judge and lack a little bit of the technical lingo that goes along with the event.

I believe that an argument should be well thought out, well structured, and cogent. I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with crafty and well-timed rebuttals.

Speaking : I can handle reasonably fast speed in talking as long as it is clear and if I find it too fast, it becomes hard for me to understand. Try to focus on clarity over speed.

Hello!

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

Case Debate:

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

K or T:

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

I am a current engineer at Ordr Inc. I've judged for Dougherty Valley High School in multiple events, including Extemp, PuFo, and forms of prep speech for about 5 years.

I'm usually most interested in how well speakers respond to arguments and effectively communicate their ideas in a way that's easy to understand and that makes logical sense. The flow of debate is extremely important, and I will be docking points for rehash. Clothing and appearance do not influence my decisions too greatly, just be sure to remain respectful and composed throughout the round, and well as before and after. Make sure your warrants and evidence are solid and that you explain them effectively. Know your facts, express them properly, and you're good to go.

As someone relatively new to the judging scene, my preferences are not complex and they are very easy to meet. I dislike an excessive display of debate mechanics - spreading, theory, and using obscure jargon, for example. I want to be able to understand the round! On the other hand, if you can establish arguments that are clear, concise and rooted in the real world, and you can convince me that your arguments' impacts are more important than your opponents', then you will most likely win the round. In the end, though, the best way to win my vote will be to try your best, using reasoning and logic to build up your points and attack your opponents' points.

As a parent judge, I prefer for debaters to have structure in speeches (ie. roadmaps/order, signposting, etc.) so that I can clearly flow down contentions. It is preferred that debaters time themselves and not rely on the judge to time speeches or give time signal. 

This is my second year of judging. Please do not speak quickly or use jargon. I look for clear logic in the arguments and sensible links. For major impact arguments, I would like to see clear evidences for that. I prefer a few well articulated points than many superficial points.

I am a lay judge--debate parent--and have done parli judging at several tournaments.

I am not fluent in theory and it's best not to spread or give me kritiks. I look for persuasive, organized arguments. Impact is key for me.

Good luck!

Hi I'm Marco Zepeda (he/him/his), I competed in high school parli for 4 years and I'm currently coaching, both for Bishop O'Dowd :)

Give content warnings for before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permits. LMK if you're not game :).

Theory: I'm open to "friv" t, I think it often leads to important conversations about how we should construct our debate space. I try to evaluate only what is on the flow, meaning I want you to do the work for me. Make sure to engage in the standards debates and talk about fairness and education.

Case: Impacts please! Impact weighing!! I like cp debates, you can get tricksy with them. My biggest, biggest pet peeve with case debates is when people go "our claim is this, we know that because of XY major publication or Professor Name at Z School says so." And then they don't elaborate any more than that! Evidence is great and all, but you really need to elaborate on that warrant with some analysis of the evidence itself, or your own logic as to why its true. Also please do lots of clear sign posting throughout your case, it goes a super long way for me.

Ks: I was a critical media studies major in college and feel like I have a pretty solid understanding of the basics of critical theory. I'm down for k's! But please explain everything well, I don't want anyone to be excluded from the round. There's no honor (or fun) in winning a round because your parents paid for you to go to camp and your opponents' didn't (this is also very true of theory rounds). Please don't read a k on something you're not well versed in, I feel like it defeats the whole purpose of even having the k debate. There must be a clear alt and role of the ballot.

Speed - I probably can flow your speed, I'll call slow if I can't.