Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

Hello all! I hope this paradigm answers most of your questions, but please contact me at alex.abarca@yale.edu if you have any outstanding questions. I’m also happy to discuss debate in general. I’m a first-generation, low-income student and down to answer any questions about college!

I competed in NPDL-Parliamentary all four years in high school. I was a two-time NPDL TOC qualifier, a four-time state qualifier in IX (CHSSA), and a four-time national qualifier in IX (NSDA). I top spoke at the Jack Howe Long Beach Invitational and won the 2020 Stanford Invitational. In college, I was a member of the Yale Debate Association, served as tournament director for the 2022 Yale Invitational and Yale Osterweis Invitational, and judged both tournaments.

I have judged elimination rounds at NPDL-TOC 2021-2023 and the semifinal and final rounds in 2022. I have experience judging the West Coast Circuit and the NYPDL/East Coast Circuits.

I’m happy to judge either lay or tech rounds, but I see myself more as a traditional judge. I don’t like to think of debate as a game – we sometimes discuss heavy topics in rounds and articulate policies with theoretical real-world implications. Viewing debate as a game is unfair to our logic and skills, the people and situations we draw from when writing resolutions, and people who want to learn from this activity. Thankfully, theory usage as a strategy to win has begun to fall out of fashion in the community – I’m happy to judge theory debate when it’s well-warranted and called for. If you do it in an attempt to shut your opponent out of the round, I may vote for you, but don’t expect to speak above a 25.

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I avoid speed and jargon unless you and your opponents agree on it (jargon such as turn/cross-apply/extend is great if both teams understand it!). I encourage the 1AR/1NR (PMR/LOR) to collapse functionally towards the most critical arguments and weigh (against both sides, even-ifs, and counterfactuals) using a variety of weighing styles (scope, magnitude, brink, etc.). In constructive speeches, connect your arguments to a definite weighing mechanism and the resolution. Be explicit in your definition and operationalization of terms (this will make your life easier when impacting arguments). As mentioned above, I am generally unreceptive to Kritiks or Theory unless they are well-warranted in the round and executed well and have some basis in either the resolution or an in-round fairness violation.

I encourage everyone to share their pronouns – although you are certainly not required to. Do not make harmful generalizations about groups of people in your argumentation. If your opponents argue with you on your rhetoric, I have a medium threshold for dropping you. If I vote for you, your speaks will suffer. Share content warnings with us before each speech where there is new content.

As a note for me: I have ADHD – please ignore my facial expressions and body gestures for the most part. If I stop flowing and give you a confused look, that’s a sign that you’ve lost me in terms of argumentation.

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

I look at the flow and see where the critical arguments in the round fall. From there, I consider which side won more of those critical arguments. I will vote as strictly on the flow as possible. In the case where everything is a wash, presumption flows to the opp unless there is a counterplan, in which case presumption flows gov.

In-Round Intervention

The act of having a paradigm means none of us are tabula rasa philosophically. However, I will not intervene in the round unless arguments or inaccuracies are called out. If something is factually wrong (especially in my field, Comparative Political Development/Representation Linkages), I have a low threshold for tossing an argument or fact out.

Argumentation

Have a clear framework, weighing mechanism or criterion, and have sound plan-text.

Use cohesive logic with well-structured link chains. Have strong and defined warrants coupled with transparent impact chains. If I hear, “This will improve the economy,” I will not be happy. In what way, in which sector, who will benefit from these improvements? This a gentle reminder that the more expansive the magnitude and severity of the impact, the tighter and more cohesive the link chain.

For refutation, please substantially interact with the argument. Consider the claim, warrant, link (internal/external), and impacts of the argument. I've been judging rounds recently where I keep using "ships passing in the night" in my RDF, and I'd rather not have to say that phrase again. Cloudy refutations mean I must intervene more in the flow, which is potentially bad for you.

In the rebuttal speeches, please have voting issues, explicit weighing, and collapse down to the most important arguments. Except for the PMR/1AR, you do not need to go down the flow line-by-line. In the case of the PMR/1AR, I suggest you interact with the most substantial new arguments in the opposition/negation block and not waste your five minutes going down the flow.

Organization:

Please signpost – I flow on spreadsheets, so signposting makes my life easier. If you don’t have clear signposting, there’s a high chance of me dropping an argument accidentally. I prefer using jargon such as turn/extend/cross-apply/etc., but only when both teams are comfortable using such language. Regardless of jargon, make it clear where you are on the flow.

Framework:

Provide a mechanism for flowing the round. Use this reference point to weigh all the arguments. Lately, I have judged rounds without such a reference – these rounds inevitably become a mess of “prefer our side – no, prefer our side.” Why should I prefer your side? How do your impacts and logic better link to the weighing mechanism? Impacts in a void are unhelpful – debate and life are relative.

Speaker Scores:

I start around 28 and then go up or down. More substantial argumentation and speaking will warrant higher speaker scores – where your contribution to the round is substantial. I disagree with judges who think anything rhetorical is irrelevant – how you convey your ideas matters, or why don’t we type out responses online and save ourselves the hassle of attending tournaments?

Theory

If used correctly, I am open to hearing almost any theory argument. I'm happy to judge the round if you sincerely believe a Kritik or Theory Shell is warranted. If you use a K or theory for strategic purposes, I will have a low threshold for voting against you if called out by your opponents. The history of theory debate is that marginalized groups and debaters used it to access better the space they had historically been shut out of. Using theory debate as a strategic decision without acknowledging these historical reasons is a disservice to the art of theory, philosophy, and the people who used them. I also believe that we can read more conceptual and technical arguments in a way that makes them more accessible while still retaining their core purpose.

As a first-generation, low-income, queer(bi), and Latinx former debater, I don’t think being against K’s as strategic gains is against minority debaters. I think we should all be inclusive first and then go to theory when that’s functionally not realistic or save it for the moments when we need that access or want an issue spotlighted in an accessible manner.

School Affiliations:

• Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Types:

• Parli

Years judging:

• 2-3 years at a variety of tournaments

• Lay judge

Speaker Points?

• Start at 28.5, and go up and down from there.

1. Things that will make you lose points

1. Unprofessional language

2. Stating false information

3. Being Disrespectful

2. Things that will make you gain points

1. Humor

2. pace(not too slow or fast)

3. Good word choice

What I vote on:

• I look at the arguments both debaters make and look at the responses. I like when debaters have a variety of different refutations to a single advantage or disadvantage.

• Do not lie! If you continuously lie about dropped arguments, I will drop you.

Notes Habits:

• I take a decent amount of notes(about a page). Notes are filled with the most important arguments from each speech.

Evidence Preferences:

• Please do not lie about evidence(Parli). I am pretty informed, and will likely know when something is false. Other than that, I’m okay with anything

RWI:

• Okay with them as long as they are explained

CX:

• I will not flow

• A good chance to display argumentative skills

• Be respectful

Lay vs Flow:

• I will always look at the quality of the arguments before I evaluate the way you deliver an argument. An outstanding speaker with bad arguments is worse than a bad speaker with good arguments

Other:

On K's:

Don't try plz.

On Speed:

TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. After that, I am going to drop you.

On Theory/Topicality:

Default to reasonability. I have a low threshold for what is considered "a-topical"

On Truth Testing:

Truth exists if I say so.[Don't Read it]

FW:

I enjoy util.

For Parli:

- PICS are a great part of debate.

- Don't read new evidence in the 1AR

- If you read new contentions in the 2NC that could have been made in the 1NC in an attempt to overload the 1AR, I won't flow them

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. That being said, treat me as you would any other lay judge: refrain from speed, jargon, tech, etc. I don't usually disclose after rounds.

My biggest request is that you are all clear in your line of reasoning and be explicit in why you win and your opponents do not. When you bring up a previously referenced source I want you to say what information is relevant from it as opposed to just calling out a name and date. I'm fine with more out-there cases so long as everything is well-substantiated and rock solid. Be clear, be thorough, and have fun, we're all here to learn.

Experience: LD Debate 4 years in High School. Presently a coach for both speech and debate.

Paradigm: I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Therefore I don't have any hard rules such as "voting on framework". It is up to the competitors to make well reasoned arguments why their arguments have priority on the ballot within the hierarchy of other arguments in the round.

This means that for an argument to make it to the ballot it must be fully supported throughout the round by the debater, cradle to grave. Extending arguments is very important, especially in the case of a dropped argument or a cross application.

Spreading: I generally don't like speed reading because it usually used at the expense of eloquence. However context is important so at circuit tournaments it might be acceptable if you really feel it is important to your round.

Finally, if something isn't read it doesn't go on the flow. For example, if you say "I have a card that proves this" but do not read that card, it will not go on the flow.

I am a lay judge, i have been judging for 3 years. My preferences:

1) Speak clearly and slowly to build and argue your contentions

2) Prefer No Theory or Ks

Be courteous in your questioning and speaking.

Occupation: Technical Product Management, Telecommunications

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 4

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

Use of Evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Examination: 6

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 10

I am a parent judge with not much experience. I don't have really strict guidelines for what you should or should not run as long as the argument makes sense. If you want more in-depth information, see below.

1. I will not understand your jargon. Put every argument in terms anyone can understand and make sure each argument has a clear story.

2. Please explain your arguments thoroughly and articulate your points well.

3. Signpost. Please. Not the ULI signposting (I won't understand what part of the argument you are talking about), just tell me where on the flow you are and what you are talking about. Off-time roadmaps would help me keep a neat flow too.

4. I am not familiar with technical debate. Please no Ks. I will not vote for them. If you want to run theory it better not be frivolous and make sure it makes a lot of sense. Even then I may not vote for it. If you are trying to skew your opponents out of the round with technical debate I will not vote for it.

5. Just have logical arguments. We are all here to grow and have fun, remember that first and foremost.

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Types: Parli

How many years have you been judging? Two years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I give points to speeches that are articulate and intelligent, and/or with good delivery and analysis. Humor always help.

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

Quality of the argumentation, rhetorical skills, and wit. I leave my own biases and views behind when making decision.

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

I do take notes/flow of the debate.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

Solid evidence always help with building/destroying a case.

Thoughts on real world impacts in the debate?

Real world impacts are always persuasive points

How do you judge cross examination?

No new evidence should be introduced and debaters should use this time to re-iterate their case while pointing out flaws of opponents.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

Debate skills are important for winning but more so you want to be truthful and avoid appearance of deception

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

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

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

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

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

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

And because I cannot stress this enough..

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

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

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

_______________________________

Background

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

General

Tabula rasa

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

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

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

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

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

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I judge rounds

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

Case

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

CPs

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

Theory

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

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

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

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

General Preferences:

- POIs are fine, but calling them excessively to throw off your opponent will lose you speaker points.

- Weigh impacts clearly in rebuttal speeches. I won't weigh your case for you, so even if you have stronger impacts on my flow after constructive speeches, you won't win unless you take the time to tell me why.

- For policy rounds: If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread please give it to me, but be warned that I do flow, and will only be judging you off of what I can HEAR.

- For parli rounds: Speak clearly and concisely. It is your responsibility to ensure you're speaking at an adequate speed for me to flow down all your points. If you speak too quickly, I won't be able to flow all your points, which will only hurt your case.

- Please don't be mean to your fellow debaters. I know debate can get competitive, but I do not support debates where people try and win by tearing down their opponents themselves.

- The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent.

- Evidence is great, but until you can link it to your case and show me WHY its relevant to your contention, it won't matter. Evidence is there to support your claims. Don't give me an entire speech spouting statistics without showing me their relevance. Without showing me their impacts.

- In your conclusion speeches I need to hear why you win each point of clash. Don't just go over the one point you think you won and hope it outweighs everything else, if you want to win I need an in depth analysis of every point of clash that you think mattered. After each round I evaluate my flow to see which points of clash were rebutted successfully, their weight in impacts, how important each point is, etc.

Good luck to all competitors!

I am a lay judge. I generally take notes on my computer while you are speaking. I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments that are well supported by citations to evidence. I don't find spreading to be helpful to the speaker.

My preferences as your judge are

1. Speak at your normal pace - not too quickly and breathe!

2. Enunciate clearly and define unfamiliar terms. You have studied the issue - I may not be as familiar with the topic.

3. Do a short wrap up of your main points at the end of each timed section.

Enjoy yourself in the competition - there are many rounds and it's a marathon, not a sprint. Good luck!

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

As a judge who competed for three years in high school in PF, Parli, and LD, debaters are free to focus their attentions on the analysis, evidence, and framework at hand at the highest level they can. In my judging of the round most weight will be placed on clear, concise, and well founded argumentation. The facts of ones case is just as important as their ability to do the actual act of persuasive and intelligent “debating” , so both will be considered in my decisions. More is not better, the quality of a case is far more persuasive than its length. I will be weighing in round impacts based on the extent of their hypothetical out-of-round impacts, or sufficient clash to found a serious support/disproval. I am a stickler about rules so in fact debate I do not accept counter plans, alternative options yes but an advocacy for a specific plan will be dropped; in value debate every claim and contention must be weighed under and tied back to the value and canine criterion, otherwise they have no weight; and in policy debates funding must be accounted for, as well as solvency sufficiently proven. A debaters performance will be taken into account. Ownership of ones case, professionalism and respect to the opponent, logic and analysis that is easily followed and understood, and ownership of questioning periods are all considered in my final decision. Speak as quickly as you like, though do not spread, if the speed is too fast I will let the performers know. Lastly, debate is an exciting exercise in strategy, memory, analysis, and persuasion, so have fun and prove to me that you can do these things better than your opponents.

Spread is a cancer on the body of debate which must be excised. If I can’t understand what you are saying, how can I vote for you?

If you run a lot of theory, you need to convince me why I should care - I am not an expert. The last time I took a debate class, you weren't born yet.

Skeptical of Kritik, but if you can persuasively tie to the actual topic, it could work with me.

I want to see engagement and clash more than anything else. This should not be two teams talking about two worlds. To win, you need to address what the other team is saying. This is a simple point, but sometimes overlooked. This happens most frequently when the negative team has a Kritik that they have clearly practised and polished. If you can't relate it persuasively to the actual topic and what your opponents are saying, it's not going to work no matter how smooth your canned speech is.

I strive to be a tabula rasa. If you tell me the moon is made of green cheese, it is, until the other team refutes it. However, the blatantly fabricated statistics in use by some teams are tiresome. Once you get into "pants on fire" territory, I am going to start docking speaker points even if I have to give you the win. FYI, for the team faced with the "pants on fire" argument, you have to point it out to me. It may not take a lot of evidence to refute an argument postualted without warrants, but you still have to call your opponents on it. If you don't, they win the point by default.

I am basically a "flay" judge, meaning I am a lay judge who attempts to keep a flow chart. If you help me by making your arguments easy to flow, you are more likely to win.

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

• Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.

• The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.

• This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.

• Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

• 4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).

• Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.

  • Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

• BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

• I will avoid intervening as much as possible.

  • This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.

• The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

• I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).

• I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.

• I protect the flow.

  • Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.

• I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.

• I will not actively fact check UNLESS:

  • I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND

  • Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.

  • Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

• Trichotomy

  • I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.

  • Value Debate

    • Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.

• Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

• I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.

  • This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

• My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility

  • This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).

  • Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

• I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.

  • For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.

• I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

• Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.

  • Please signpost these.

• Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

• These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.

  • Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”

• Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

• I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.

  • I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.

• I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).

  • Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

• The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

• It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.

  • Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.

  • Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.

• I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.

  • Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

K

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

• I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.

• I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.

  • Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):

    • Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.

• I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.

  • You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.

    • If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.

  • Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

• I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.

• I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.

  • Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.

• I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

• Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.

• I default to competing interpretations.

• I default to drop the argument.

• I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:

  • Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse

  • Frivolity of Theory

• Please read Theory/T in shell format.

• I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.

  • A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

• Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.

  • The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.

• I will call slow or clear if I need to.

  • If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.

• Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.

  • Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.

  • I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

• Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.

  • This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.

• I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).

• Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.

• Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

• <= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.

• 25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.

• 27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.

• 28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).

• 29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).

• 30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

• Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.

  • This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.

• Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.

• Please take points of information.

• I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

• Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).

• I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).

• I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.

  • I’ll call slow or clear as needed.

  • Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.

• LD Specific:

  • I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.

  • I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.

    • I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).

    • Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.

  • As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If you’re going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have some incredibly strong evidence.
-Don’t be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, don’t ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.

Hello,

I am a novice Parli judge and a traditional debate judge. Please speak slowly, no Kritiques, no theory, please sign post and keep it simple.

I have been in speech and debate for a while and do not have a specific paradigm for debate, other than speed. I understand the need to speak a little faster to get all the information in, but I really do not like spreading. If the goal of debate is education, I do not think spreading is an ethical practice, and to me, it deters the point of educational debate and wanting the audience to learn from it. If you really want to/feel the need to spread, by all means, go for it, but please be aware that this will more than likely affect speaks and my ability to extend arguments on the flow. Other than that, I don't have a specific paradigm, but here are some small reminders:

1. Please make the link between claims and impacts very clear! Please do not assume that I will just "know" how your claim causes the impact.

2. While I will do my best not to let my own thoughts interfere with the round itself, please also remember that I am an individual person with my own thoughts and that I will not buy everything you say unless you back it up.

3. I will extend the impacts of saving lives over economic impacts unless there is a significant reason why economic impacts should come before saving lives.

4. Do your best not to be rude to your opponents, as it takes a lot of energy and resources to attend tournaments, and the last thing we want is for someone to be rude to us at 6 in the morning when we are doing our best to compete. This isn't something I would necessarily give a loss to, but it will be something I look out for and may affect speaks.

Have fun debating! If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the start of the round.

TLDR: I am a parent judge who did high school policy debate in the 80s. I won state (WA) my senior year. OK to speak fast, but a little above conversational speed is probably what I am most comfortable with. I will tell you slow/clear as needed. I am unfamiliar with theory and the K, so if you run these please explain them very carefully and justify them. If I do not understand your argument, I will probably not vote for you. Weigh in the rebuttals and tell me how I should evaluate the round - this makes my job easy and makes it easier for you to win my ballot. Homophobic/sexist/racist comments and other abuse will not be tolerated. If you abuse your opponents in any way I will drop you and tank your speaks.

Case: Please weigh in the rebuttals, it makes my job and yours a lot easier. Make clear, concise arguments.

Theory: I have a rudimentary understanding of T and how it functions in a round, but please explain your shell very well. Give me a clear interp, standards and voters as well as how I should be weighing T(ex. apriori). Do not run friv T. Prove to me that abuse has happened in the round and that you have an actual reason for running T other than to get an easy route to the ballot and dodge your opponent's case.

I do not understand RVIs and IVIs. Please do not run them. If you do, I will most likely not understand it and vote you down anyways, so it is in your best interest not to.

K: I have virtually zero knowledge about K lit and the structure of the K in general. I would prefer you not to run K’s but if you must, explain how it is relevant to the round. Still, keep in mind that there is a high chance I will not understand your argument and will vote against you as a result.

Speaks: I judge speaks mostly on substance and persuasiveness, not much on individual style. If you are abusive in any way/attempt to spread your opponents out of the round (although a certain amount of speed is fine - just don't be abusive with it), I will dock your speaks.

I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS (Santa Clara, CA) and this is my third year of judging. I have judged multiple formats (LD, PF, Parli) at both the novice and varsity levels.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

- Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help if I cannot understand what you are saying.

- Keep your own time.

- Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches, based on your off time roadmap. It's easier for me to keep track that way.

- I do take notes throughout the round so make sure you emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech to tell me what to base my decision on.

- Overall, remember to remain respectful during the round (to your opponents, and to the judge). It is important to be assertive in your arguments but no yelling, interrupting, etc. I will take away speaker points if I have to.

- Please try to stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If you are going to use a technical term, it is imperative that you explain it to me (as the judge) as well as in the debate space.

- Lastly, remember that the goal of debate is education and productive discourse. I prioritize inclusiveness over overtechnical strategies. This means that if your opponent is a relatively new varsity debater, and cannot engage with theory, K, etc, do NOT run them. If you do run those strategies, simply to gain an easy win rather that engaging and arguing the topic with your opponent, I will NOT vote for you because you are making the debate space exclusive. I would much rather see a strict case debate (value, framework, counter plan) rather than judge high level arguments (theory, K), because at the end of the day, we want to become more educated and better informed in our society.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun!

I’m a parent and volunteer judge, have been judging for just over 6 years. Have judged some speech events but mostly Parliamentary Debate, and some Congress events. I like logical, reasoned and well developed arguments. Dislike aggressive speech style, frequently raised POIs, tag teaming. POIs raised should be concise and well articulated. Granting at least one POI is encouraged. Like quality over quantity with respect to arguments. I mostly use flow to decide the outcome. Given the remote format imposed by Covid-19, would appreciate it if participants look at the camera other than when they are reading from / writing notes.

I am a parent judge with no prior experience in judging debate. I will look for logical arguments that are concise and well thought through. Please explain any debate jargon, and please do not talk too fast. Please do not run theory or a kritik.

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

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

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

Have fun and good luck!

I have little judging experience. I will judge based on how logically concise your debate is and how the person decides to refute their opponent's contentions. The final decision will be based upon my own personal opinion of who has constructed the most logically sound argument and has well accounted for the opponent's contentions in their speech.

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley Lay Judge

How many years have you been judging?

I've been judging for 2 years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.

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

I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude.

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

I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not flow. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.

1. Speak clearly (no mumbling/spreading)

2. Offtime roadmaps are helpful

3. Maintain a clear speech order (do not jump around from contentions to refutations to standard, etc.)

4. Time yourself

5. No theory unless explained thoroughly

6. Give me clear impacts, I'm not going to make them for you

I'm a lay parent judge with little judging experience. I will flow and take notes.

1. please signpost

2. no spreading please, I'm not good with speed

3. Be courteous - no profanity

4. Make well-explained arguments that are warranted and have clear impacts

5. Give me a clear reason to vote for you (weigh in your last speech)

6. You can try theory but it has to be really well explained (explain the abuse) or I'm not voting on it and please no Kritiks

*Updated for TOC 2023:

Quick reference for prefs based on your strategy if you don't read anything: Case (1), K(2), Theory/FW(1), Phil(3), Tricks(4), Heg lol (1)

Background: Debated hs parli for 4 years with Los Altos. Last debated in 2019. I haven't done anything related to debate for a few yrs now (other than periodic judging) so I won't be well versed with whatever's popular - be clear and explain.

In general, I will evaluate almost every position and be willing to vote on it, so just debate what you want and make sure it's well articulated. If you think you have an interesting argument that will make the round fun, read it! I debated with Shirley Cheng for the most formative parts of my time in debate, so her paradigm pretty much lines up with how I view things: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=24626

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

Be accessible or I won't be against intervening

Some other notes:

General:

Call point of orders, but I'll try to protect.

Signpost, slow on tags, repeat interps.

New in the block means I give the aff a lot of credence in answering it - that being said, 2a theory will probably be held to a higher threshold in terms of accessing golden turns

Claims require warrants. Warrants require explanations. I might be less willing to vote solely on blip claims/tricks without warrants and explanations if I can vote elsewhere.

Add sequencing questions in rebuttals and be sure to collapse. Super strategic and makes my evaluation a lot more straightforward. You rebuttal should be my RFD + any preempts.

Case:

I essentially only read case in hs. It would help to have a strategic uniqueness and a good link/internal link scenario. Impacts should still be fully impacted out. Ex: better economy means very little to me while extinction means a lot.

While I will default magnitude absent any weighing, I tend to prefer probability weighing if it's given to me. For me, that comes from the link debate. Link defense can serve as mitigation of the probability of an argument as stated above. Explain how different arguments interact with the links and what that means for my evaluation. Flag specific things in the last speeches especially.

Case turns only would be interesting to watch.

Theory:

Down for theory debates

I could be convinced that pics, condo, etc are good or bad.

Nebel T against super small squarely affs would be a fun strategy to watch if you can properly explain it.

Will default competing interpretations

Seems recently in parli, there's been a lot of 2a theory and even 2n theory :// In that case, please layer and order - otherwise it's an even larger mess.

What if all T interps were read as a POI in the 1A?

Split the ballot theory is cool if you both need a 1-1 split at TOC

Ks:

I was not a K debater, so I don't have much background in the lit. I was mostly around methodology Ks, but you can read whatever you want. Regardless of what you read, still make sure explanations are clear and explain jargon.

If you read a K from a backfile and don't have any idea what it says, it will be clear, and I will find it really easy to drop you.

I think nontopical Aff Ks specifically should be disclosed. If they aren't, I'm sympathetic to disclosure arguments and probably have a lower bar for T or other theory arguments. Note this is distinct and doesn't apply to defending the topic and deriving critical impacts + framing. In general, the further you are from defending the topic, the more sympathetic I am to t-fw.

Assume I haven’t heard of your lit.

I am parent judge, who has been a lawyer for 30 years. I have no competition experience, and this is the second tournament I am judging. I will judge you with a view to how I expect lawyers to debate:

* Speak slowly--don't make me or your opponents struggle to understand your arguments.

* Avoid jargon. Talk in plain English.

* Winning in oral advocacy is not about making every point, but selecting the most important points to illustrate the logic of your position, and anticipating and fairly responding to counterarguments. It is quality, not quantity.

* Acknowledging points you cannot win builds credibility; it's best to find a way to explain why those points are not dispositive.

* Use logic and reason, not emotion.

* Don't engage in hyperbole.

* Do not use pejorative, and always be polite and respectful to the opposing team. If I don't trust you to debate with dignity, I will tend to distrust your arguments.

* Arguments grounded in fairness and justice tend to prevail.

* Have fun!

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

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps a dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

==============================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

Please go slow and clearly call out your contentions. I expect clear arguments with supporting factors. Reinforced contentions with additional supporting factors in each speech to further provide clarity. No personal attacks and no spreading please.

Hi!

I look forward to judging your round. I am a "lay" judge, so please do not spread.

For debate: I appreciate clear and concise arguments, so I can flow more effectively. Impact calculus is very important. I also need both sides to talk about how they are going to weigh the round. Above all, please be respectful and make it an educational debate. Congratulations and good luck!

For speech: I give a lot of emphasis to originality, relevance of topic and quality of speech. Please make sure you test your sound and image with a friend, coach or family member connected virtually when you practice for online events. Good luck-know that you are awesome just for participating! 

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging : None

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

Talk clearly and slow. Make eye contact. No stalling. No Public Forum jargon.

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

Who most effectively argued their position. How they handle counter and interactions

Do you take lot of notes or flow the debate?

Flow the debate

Clothing / Appearance - Somewhat (5)

Use of Evidence - Weighed Heavily (10)

Real World Impacts - Heavily (8)

Cross Examination - Somewhat (5)

Debate Skill over truthful arguments - Weighed Heavily (10)

I'm honored to be a judge and so impressed with the quality of teams that I have the pleasure to judge:

- I find roadmaps helpful, either off-time or on-time is fine

- Please speak at a pace that is understandable. If you are speaking too fast, I won't be able to hear your key points

- Please be respectful to me, your teammate, and your opponents

Good luck and make your school proud!

- I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging.

- I was a Policy debater in high school (over two decades ago!).

- I am familiar with major debate terms and structures, but some of my terminology may be dated. Moreover, I believe that debate terminology should be used to guide ideas but not communication -- so be sure to explain any terms you use and be clear on why you believe it should shift voting your way.

- I can and will flow but please don't rely on that, and be sure to make a clear articulation of arguments, what they are in response to, what is being actively or unintentionally dropped, etc.

- Please time yourselves and track the rules for each other. Be gracious and give the benefit of the doubt on procedure - we're focused on the content, not the mechanics.

- While I appreciate the pressure for speed at times, please make sure you are understandable for both me and your opponents. When in doubt, slow down and make less points, but more clearly.

- I think debate teaches very important critical thinking and communication skills that will be valuable for your entire life - in both personal and work environments. I'm excited to be part of your journey in honing these life skills.

- Don't forget to be humble, gracious, collegial, and to smile a bit -- let's have fun!

I am a parent of the student. I encourage debating with logical thinking, reliable facts, clear voice, steady pace, and respectful manner.

Hi, I am Manish Modi, I am a parent(lay) judge.

Here are some preferences I have:

- speak slow and clear, I will say slow/clear once if you are going to fast

- likes factual arguments with many supporting warrants/stats

- I don't like it when people self proclaims victory

- ex. Judge, we win this debate because...

- I love well written foreign policy arguments

- please make your contentions structured (TULI or CWI)

- signpost and give roadmaps

- Don't like frivolous theory argument

- I do not understand Ks

• Add me to your email chain, saramoghadamn@gmail.com.
• Please time yourselves.
• Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
• (Pertaining to parli) I’m not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
• Be aware of your opponent's speed preferences and adjust accordingly when they call clear/speed. If you don't, I will take off speaker points.
• Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
• I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I won’t make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
• I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
• I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
• K’s should only be run when the other side believes it’s more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please don’t assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
• I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why it’s both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
• I really really like to see clash within a debate.
• Extend arguments!
• Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I don’t want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated.
• I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
• Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends.

Important points:

Please respect your opponents, keep the language civilized.

Speak clearly and don't race through your contentions. No spreading.

No K's. Minimal use of theory, only if absolutely necessary.

Please give brief background context to the resolution, including why it is important.

Specify contentions (usually identified by number) and sub-arguments (usually identified by letters) clearly and consistantly throughout the round.

Deep breath and relax.

Good luck!

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and parliamentary debate for four years, as well as competing in various speech vents. Currently, I am both a college competitor and do freelance debate and speech coaching.

Speed/Preferred Style : I prefer speakers that are clear and concise, and ultimately do you prefer a slower debate. Well I am not opposed to debaters to do speed or spread relatively fast, be clear you are, the more likely I will be able to understand your position and evaluate effectively.

Main Philosophy: Ultimately, I mainly judge other tabula rasa. I honestly am for anything within the debate as long as the debaters are able to explain it in a way that is both effective, concise, and competitive. It is the role of a competitor to tell me what is important, and as long as they effectively do so over their opponent they do deserve the ballot. I do come from a Lincoln Douglas/value centric background, so admittedly I am partial to moral theory and arguments.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

Hi!

I am a parent judge who has judged parli debate for 6 years.

- Please make your arguments clear/logical.

- Use strong evidence and clearly explain your impacts. I highly take evidence and impacts into account, so this could really win you my vote!

- Be organized. Signpost! It is really helpful for me to flow your arguments if you tell me where you are on the flow. Off time roadmaps are also always helpful.

- No spreading. I need to be able to understand you if I am going to flow your arguments. I think speaking too fast is not only hard for me to understand but also completely unfair to your opponents who may have difficulty following your case as well.

- No theory, K, or other advanced debate strategies. I am not experienced in specific debate rules and I highly lean towards on case debate! If you run theory or K, I will still try and flow it but be warned that you will most likely lose the round.

- Please be respectful of your opponents.

Good Luck!

I have been judging policy debate for 2 years.

I am familiar with this year's resolution. I understand advantages, disadvantages, counter-plans, and topicality (but explain it clearly).

I am not familiar with Kritiks, K-affs, and other theory arguments (unless you explain it well)

Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly

Make compelling arguments and convince me that your argument is better.

Polytechnic '20

Harvard '24

Add me to the email chain: oogbogu@college.harvard.edu

Competed in policy debate throughout high school and currently competing in college. I have competed in PF and parli as well, though.

I generally am more familiar with the K; however, please continue to run whichever argument you want. Everyone should have that fair opportunity.

Pref me lower for a policy vs. policy round, but policy vs.K or FW vs. K or K VS. K I'm better suited for.

Framework: I do love framework when it is utilized and argued properly by both sides, and I find that especially for Kritikal teams, I love to see teams leverage their K's impacts against the impacts of the framework arg. Clash is key when discussing FW; the team who can better articulate the setup of debate and their impacts will have a better chance of winning FW and further args.

Please use framing and judge instruction. It truly will bolster your arguments and when done right. Streamline the debate very well.

CPs: Pretty neutral on these as I haven't really hit them in a while. Your CP has to be competitive to the purpose/solvency of the AFF. Please perm, perms allow you to test this competition.

Das: Again, pretty neutral, but your link must be articulated well, and your impact must be carried through. Affs should evidence and link chains thoroughly and weigh their impacts against the DA.

K: I read the K most of my high school career and still reading it in college. I am most familiar with critical Race Theory, antiblackness, Black Feminity literature, and args in generally all capacities. That being said, I follow identity args and literature much better than high theory, so for high theory Ks like Baudrillard, please be clear with your argument throughout the round. Jargain is not debate or clash. I am sympathetic to some explanations of the K, but I am in a firm belief that the K must be grounded in the aff, especially links. I love performative links, and I think extrapolating those performances to textual links makes the strong K args. Contextualize your alternative. I need to know what the alt is and what it does, and how it solves. It must be coherent, and I say this outside of clear, but the alt must make sense by the end of the round and prove competitive. Affs should always perm to test both competitions on solvency and link. Outside of that, I love hearing all new sorts of Ks and args, and it would be appreciated on both sides if there is a K vs. Policy/FW debate that both sides create clash so an in depth debate can take place.

K affs: I personally ran k affs as well throughout high school and college, and I think they offer a lot of creativity and perspective to various topics I think are needed. That being said, my only ask is that you explain and extend. If you aff is a counter-model to debate, I need an explanation of how and why it is needed. If you do not have a counter interp, I need an explanation as to why it is not needed. If your aff is somewhat grounded in the resolution, I need an explanation of the relationship between the aff and the resolution and why you chose your stance. If you choose not to be with the resolution, I need a clear reason why that is a necessary choice. Be consistent with your args, have proper solvency, and do a lot of clash and weighing of the aff and its impacts. Please extend your arguments. It will only make the aff stronger but don't lose the aff in the debate, that will be harmful.

CX: I am fine with tag team cross. If. I feel that someone is rude that will mark down speakers. That being said, I like seeing a respectful cross and an understanding that some of the args that people read are more personal than others. Therefore, understanding CX should be the point in debate where we go back to being normal people who understand this. I believe CX does garner args from the flow. I will write down these arguments, but it is a team's responsibility to extend them to be proper arguments. Extra speaks for good CX starts and questions. I appreciate humor, but I also appreciate seriousness, so however you enter the CX, enter it the way most authentic to yourself.

Overall, you do you, and I will flow. I start all my evaluations from the level of framing, so please have a lot of judge instruction and ROB and ROJ. Clash, weighing and impacts key, and run whatever makes you happy. It goes without saying I don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything of the sort, and teams, especially those running these arguments within reasonability, should feel comfortable pointing this out in round and determining if they are voters or not. Simultaneously it is also important to understand we are all learning and growing and notice that weaponizing growing moments against people may not actually educate anyone or solve the situation, so prioritize education and growth over debate.

Thanks, Maddox, for helping me with this, lol.

Background:

I currently attend UC Berkeley, but back in the day, I competed in Congress and Parliamentary Debate, competing at the state in the latter for a couple of seasons and alongside OI, Impromptu, and FX. I dabbled with TI (or POI if that's what you call it now) and Expos, but let's pretend that never happened :).

Debate:

First things first- I'd appreciate a civil debate on all fronts. Be respectful of your opponents and partners at all times. It not only helps stimulate a better atmosphere but also helps me remain unbiased while I'm allocating speaker points. I can flow, but that said please be mindful of your pace for both my sake and your competitors'. And if you want me to be even more explicit, it's fine if you talk fast but don't spread unless you flash me your case before the round. I firmly believe in the notion of your round being a means of engaging in productive discourse, not the debate edition of Epic Rap Battles of History. So any strategies involving extra-topicality, running ridiculous Ks (note: ridiculous Ks), and outrageous T-shells (note: outrageous) meant to derail your opponent and make this round a miserable and messy experience for them for the sake of your dub, will be heavily scrutinized. I'm not the biggest fan of the debate style that certain politicians tend to favor- attacking your opponents in the hopes that it diverts the attention from the holes in your case. Your defense needs to be as good as your offense. Stay on case and all shall be fine.

I don't award speaker points based on who wins the round. Your ability as a speaker is independent of how you hold up an argument in a debate round. As a former debater who has had their fair share of... interesting... experiences with the speaker point system, you have my personal guarantee that I will try my best to not become the one thing that irked me during my debate career. That said, try your best to be coherent (especially while you're introducing your case). If me switching off my camera/ looking elsewhere would make you less nervous, please don't hesitate to let me know- this YOUR debate and I want to provide an environment that will help you perform your best! If you have any clarifications regarding my judging preferences that my paradigm may not cover, feel free to ask away :)

PS: As a meme connoisseur, bonus speaker points will be awarded if you can make me laugh. Puns are not a valid sense of humor unless finely executed (it's a gamble I wouldn't recommend taking). I find analogies interesting, so feel free to experiment with those on me.

Speech:

I think this is pretty self-explanatory: I just wanna understand what you're saying and put your best foot forward as a competitor. Not being toxic would also be appreciated- don't leave halfway through a round unless you're legitimately double entered, have a legitimate personal emergency (yes this isn't my first rodeo) or someone's speech (that's just plain rude). Respect everyone. I actually like when you react to someone's speech- it shows that you're genuinely engaged and it's very wholesome to see competitors support each other.

TLDR: be respectful, use impact calc if you can, weighing, slow down when saying card name (thats how i keep track of them on the flow), warranting is very important (not just cards), write my ballot for me

background: i currently attend UC Berkeley but in high school i did PF with my twin (competed at states and invitationals). although i predominantly did PF, i've competed in Parli and Congress at a couple of tournaments. in speech, I've competed mainly in NX, Impromptu, and OA. i've also done OI and Duo.

i hate reading long paragraphs so I made bullet point lists instead :)

debate (in general):

1) the most important rule- BE RESPECTFUL of your opponents. although you might not lose a round for being very disrespectful, you will lose speaker points!

2) speed- any pace is fine as long as it isn't too slow or too fast. i guess i can understand ppl who speak slow but it might help to speak faster cuz you have more things to say. don't do any policy-debate-level spreading unless you flash your speech. i have to be able to flow what you're saying.

3) how i evaluate the round: please WEIGH your arguments. i judge based on IMPACT CALC a majority of the time (might vary with event and how you guys frame the round). please try to write my ballot for me instead of just telling me that you won certain contentions and making me put my own thoughts, opinions, and weighing into the round.

4) framework-

pf: net benefits/cost-benefit analysis will be assumed if you don't specify

more important in other events (parli/ld)- writing my ballot for me includes telling me the lense through which i need to view the round and how i can evaluate subjective arguments through an objective lense. this is why specifying the framework will be very important

if you encounter a framework debate, make a case for your framework but try to win under both frameworks

5) i'll try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but some things are wayyy too far fetched not to dismiss them (very rare occurrences)

6) i hate definition debates. they waste time. sometimes they're necessary though if an opponent is being abusive with their definition. if you do encounter a definition debate, make a case for your definition but try to win under both definitions (unless its not possible lol) cuz I don't want to give someone the dub just cuz I like their definition more. I have encountered a couple of debates where the definition debate was actually intriguing because it was based on something nuanced and both teams tried to win under both definitions, so if you do end up having one please don't make it lame.

PF:

1) i judge based on what you say in the final focus, so please extend the arguments you want to make across the flow (especially summary). don't extend dropped arguments.

2) ppl have questions on whether neg rebuttal should respond to aff rebuttal. i don't think it's a question, neg should respond in rebuttal cuz a) otherwise you're bringing new responses in neg summary which is unfair to your opponents b) you won't get to cover everything you want to say if you leave it for summary c) you don't have that much time in summary anyways so why would you waste most of it responding to a rebuttal speech

3) aff summary speeches can have a few new responses to neg rebuttal, but don't bring in any important response that changes the entire dynamics of the round in the summary, it's a little unfair given the time constraint your opponents have to respond. if you really have something amazing you have to say you can just spike your opponents' argument in a previous speech.

4) please state the card names clearly (NAME AND DATE). i want to get the name as accurately as possible in the moment so that it doesn't become a problem in the future when you say the name and i can't find the card in any previous speech.

5) signposting is very helpful (not just in the begining/end but also in the middle of the speech), esp. in high speed rounds.

6) when you're extending responses, i like it when teams use the card names, but don't just leave it at that. although detailed warranting is better, i understand that you might be time-constrained, so a tagline works in those situations when you want to quickly extend something.

7) a majority of the round should be warranting. cards are great and necessary, but nothing substitutes good warranting. think of the entire round as trying to sell your version of the story. explain your arguments with nuance and don't contradict what you're saying. don't run on just cards because good warranting beats good cards most of the time.

8) i don't judge based on cross-ex. it's your time to ask questions/get info. please don't make cross-ex another debate- it's for questions.

9) I am repeating a point from earlier because i can't stress it enough---> how i evaluate the round: please WEIGH your arguments instead of just saying which contentions you won on. i judge based on IMPACT CALC. please try to write my ballot for me instead of making me put my own thoughts, opinions, and weighing into the round.

Parli:

1) im repeating the framework section from the general "debate" section again because frameworks are very important in parli. as i mentioned above, i want you to WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME which includes telling me the lense through which i need to view the round and how i can evaluate the arguments through an objective lense in an otherwise arbitrary debate. Weigh impacts using IMPACT CALC (when the framework of the debate requires/allows you to do so).

if you encounter a framework debate, make a case for your framework but try to win under both frameworks

2) i don't really like T-shells and Ks (they are usually never compelling) but i will judge them if you choose to run one. please try to make them productive instead of saying something about how the rules are not fair (p.s. i don't care). i like being on topic more and enjoy discourse about the actual topic instead of some weird extraneous argument. however if you do run a K and it is topical, i will judge it fairly.

3) not every topic is the same, but fact debates should have a good amount of evidence. value debates should focus on philosophical and morality-based arguments and policy debate should outline inherency and a clear plan (follow SHIPSA and you'll be fine).

4) i will flow the round so speak at a good pace (anything from conversational to fast-paced, but not CX-level spreading)

5) state the CARD NAME (the author's last name & date OR other source identifiers like news source/organization/universities/websites). parli debaters have a tendency to not say where they are getting their evidence from. also, say the source clearly (esp. last names), so that I can write it down. it's better to say it clearly the first time around so that when you extend it, i can find it easily on the flow.

speaker points:

1) i understand how getting judges who have bad scales for speaker points can be frustrating so i'll try to be as fair as possible

2) i will evaluate your points based on your effectiveness as a speaker: style might have some impact (it doesn't really matter that much tho), but mostly confidence, clarity, speed, and strategy will be taken into consideration

speech:

extemp- catchy intros work best, have a clear outline/roadmap, have a good amount of evidence

impromptu- you could stick to the roadmap and two/three points, but sometimes getting really creative might be a good thing

there's nothing really to say here for other events- speech is more of an art so I don't have any requirements you have to meet/ things i want to see in particular. just have fun and be respectful of those performing.

also, it's always good to watch and support your competitors instead of leaving after you have performed (unless you're double/triple entered/ have a good reason for leaving).

if you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask me before the round

good luck and enjoy :)

I have been judging for two years, primarily LD; but, at the core, I am still a lay judge. I vote more on tech than truth. If you defend your argument with REASONABLE points, and your opponent does not refute it, then your argument will stand.

At the end of the day, remember the following points:

1. Don’t spread— If I can’t understand your argument, then I won’t vote for it.

2. Be Reasonable— While LD is not an evidence based debate, don’t make unreasonable claims or present unreasonable (aka untrue) evidence.

3. Make impacts— Explain WHY you are right and your opponents are wrong.

4. Be respectful— Don’t yell, and obviously no foul or disrespectful language.

In conclusion, be clear, persuasive, and HAVE FUN.

Please always introduce yourself and speak at a normal pace.

I am a parent or lay judge with a few years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, oratory skills, and respect for your team mate and opponents. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. I look forward to an educational experience.

- Be respectful

- Have a structure / framework and a clear line of reasoning

- Speak clearly and be coherent and compelling

- Substantiate your claim with truthful evidence / data / information as much as possible

- Summarize

BACKGROUND:

• HS (4 years) Speech/Congress/Parli/PF. College (1 year). Speech coach (5+ years). Worked with multiple flow debate programs. Debate is fun! 

• DEBATE PHILOSOPHY:

• Debate provides students an opportunity to be passionate advocates on any given topic by means of using clear communication. Utilize unforgettable rhetoric, teach me something new, and always play by the rules. Most importantly, make sure to be extremely respectful of one another!

MY JUDGING CRITERIA:

I am heavy on flow. I love responsiveness and crystalization. Make it easy for me to follow you.

• Jargon: I’d prefer students not use it for purposes of clarity. I’m sure audience members, your judge, and your opponents would appreciate this as well. One of the main ways to receive good speaker points from me is to always treat each other with respect.

• Value: You should always link your arguments to value. Otherwise, your arguments don’t have as much weight from my view. If you can also demonstrate how your arguments work under your opponent's value, that’s a bonus.

• I appreciate off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind “spreading” (fast speaking), but make sure to slow down and enunciate tags and citations. Also, if I find the entirety of your speech to be filled with unnecessary diction, I will frown. Why? Word economy. Lastly, you will note that I stop flowing as soon as the following occurs: information previously stated is being brought up once more, I cannot understand the speaker or your argument is not making sense to me.

• Theory: Not a huge fan of T. If you decide to run theory in your case, do know that I will always make my decision based off of what I feel is most important in debate; the educational experience. I avoid making a decision based off of my own personal beliefs or experiences.

• If you decide to run a Kritik (should the tournament allow it) I would appreciate your case most if it still acknowledges the round. Stressing a K without continuing to be a part of the entire debate is too dull. Not only should you be clear as towards why the other team is diminishing the value of the debate by means of what they are communicating, but you should also demonstrate that you care about the entirety of the debate.

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals. More specifically, you should cover all sub-points mentioned in each contention.

• Often times, competitors do not cover an entire contention and generally cover an argument - no. Simplify the process of me disregarding an argument entirely. In rebuttal speeches, cover something that has not been covered before. Do not present old news to the table.

Hi o/

I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

glhf

Hi, I'm new to judging parliamentary (parli) debate. I'd really appreciate if you could talk slower.

Thank you!

parent judge for 3+ years with a focus on parliamentary debate.

no theory or kritikal arguments, big advocate for fairness and i will hear arguments against abuse and violating fairness

evidence + reasoning > evidence > reasoning

i prefer when debates stay respectful, and most importantly, have fun :)

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 third 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. I'm fine with CP's as long as it has solvency. PIC's are a great strat. Don't run conditional cps. TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. Don't read K's. Not a big fan of theory either but I default to reasonability. On framework, I enjoy util.

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. Please weigh in your last speeches.

I have been judging Parli tournaments for 2 years now and I love the energy that the students bring into the debate.

I am a logical person and like to see figures and statistics to back up your claims. I don't like speakers who speak at breakneck speed because it's hard for me or their opponents to understand what they are trying to convince us about. Eight minutes are enough to make your point.

I am not a fan of theory but I will honor any valid points around theory, given that you explain each point. Sometimes it's unavoidable but don't run theory just to distract your opponents or eat into their time. You don't have to take all POIs, but I would suggest you take at least one. You are not obligated to take it right away, you can say you will take it in a bit, that's fine.

Speak at a normal pace, make good use of hand gestures and body language. Make eye contact, don't just bury your head into your notes. Be respectful of your opponents even though you are "fighting" them.

Good luck, and don't forget to enjoy your time!

1. Speak clearly (no mumbling/spreading)

2. Offtime roadmaps are helpful

3. Maintain a clear speech order (do not jump around from contentions to refutations to standard, etc.)

4. Time yourself

Welcome to my paradigm. My name is Daniel Sorial, and I debated in High School for the Academy of Information Technology and Engineering (AITE for short) for three years, the latter two heavily in parliamentary. I'm now a junior at Yale, and a member of the Yale Political Union.

As a judge, I most value weighing and effective rhetoric. Final speeches on both sides should go off the flow and paint the bigger picture. Why does any of this matter? What are the future implications of passing or not passing this motion? 

As per debate techniques, spreading within reason is acceptable. Feel free to speak faster than conversational pace, but necessitating hyperventilation does not pair well with good rhetoric. Spreading should be avoided, but I understand if it is necessary. If you genuinely can't offer your entire case in your first speech, you can give more arguments in the second speech. If you think of a new argument before the second speeches, give it. However, purposefully designing your first two speeches to give some arguments in one and others in the other is bad debate etiquette because it does not allow full engagement by your opponents. It therefore ought not necessitate the same level of refutation. As for other things, Ks and T-Shells are fine, but explain them well incase your opponents are not familiar. Different parts of the country have different techniques, so use them as you please, but ensure everyone is on the same page.

In parliamentary, take POIs, as it shows you have control over your speech. You should offer multiple to your opponents in every speech you can, though the speaker should only take one or two.

I appreciate civility, but being too nice is awkward. 

Good luck!

Background: I've debated for 8 years between high school and college (since 2015), mostly in Extemp & Amercian Parli. I have tons of experience competing, judging, and running tournaments.

Paradigm: Arguments that focus on weighing and logic are more persuasive than those that rest on statistics. Statistics are often biased; logic stands the test of time. I heavily value weighing mechanisms in rounds. A debater with a consistent vision in a round that carries through in all speeches is most effective. Accordingly, rebuttal speeches are very important and should consist of much more weighing than further argumentation. Really take the time to explain why your argument leads to a better outcome than your opponents'. This means that constructives should be extremely well-organized and easy to follow to set up rebuttal speeches in a way that does not make the round messy.

Other miscellaneous things:

1. Definition debates are the worst, I generally err on the side of gov/aff unless there is good reason not to (usually abuse that is called out by opp/neg);

2. Treat everyone in your rounds fairly and do not belittle arguments or speakers. Remember why debate is important: for education & in order to have a constructive conversation -- no side is inherently better than another;

3. Spreading is fine but signposting is always important (if you want to make sure I flow it--signpost it!) Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1;

4. And finally, theory shells should only be used if absolutely necessary and reasons for doing so should be explained in ways that apply to the specific round at hand (and not to all rounds in general).

Good luck!

Easter egg: If you use the phrase "dandy" in one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)2

1 credit: preston bushnell & 2 inspired by: cara weathers

I am a parent judge. I have judged a few parliamentary debate tournaments, but I do not have much experience.

I would like for you to state your name and speaker position before you go, in order to keep speaker scores accurate to whom is speaking. I would also prefer for you to have a small introduction in the beginning of your speech (a bit middle school, but it would help me a lot).

Road maps: Give me one. That's all.

Theory: I understand most theory shells, just don't go too crazy and get excessive.

Kritiks: I do not understand these, so please don't run one:)

Speaking: Speak clearly and go over your case if time permits (it helps me solidify my flow).

Spreading: Please do not spread, I will lose you immediately and it will only hurt the results of the round.

Overall, I enjoy cool arguments and I am pretty caught up with the world, so I should understand the topic.

I also do NOT nor will I ever permit any of the following: misgendering, homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. I will respect you, as will you respect your opponents and me.

Remember: It's just debate, not do or die, do your best and HAVE FUN!!

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

My preferences are fairly straightforward.

If in a debate round, don't talk too fast. I'll judge largely based on the arguments themselves, but the amount of persuasion in the speaker's presentation is something that will inevitably sway my decision.

If in a speech round, simply deliver the speech to the best of your ability. The speech will be evaluated based on the novelty of the topic, how well the speech was written, and the charisma of the speaker. I'll be paying keen attention to both the writing of the speech itself and the effectiveness of the delivery.

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

I did 4 years of high school parli and I'm currently a senior at UC Berkeley.

Parli: Generally, I value case over theory (Kritiks, T-shells, etc.) Theory is founded off of pre-prepped arguments, which inherently goes against the intended impromptu nature of parli. I don't have many other preferences—I'm fine with just about everything else, aside from tag teaming. Please also try to be very clear and organized with structure (roadmaps, taglines) so that I can follow along on my flow. Good luck!

I have 3 years of experience in high school parliamentary debate. I strongly dislike kritiks and don’t recommend running them. Please only run legitimate theory arguments. Illegitimate ones that are only run to waste time will count against your team. I will only consider arguments made in round, regardless of personal opinions. I prefer explanations of a few strong pieces of evidence to lists of statistics and don’t recommend spreading too quickly.

I don't have much experience with IE, but judged some rounds at a previous tournament and am familiar with the format and judging criteria.

Good luck!

Clear and concise speaking with roadmap. Well organized arguments with clear signposting, minimal spewing of tangential information

Speaking skills/communications

I am a parent judge, and would appreciate it if you do not run theory unless absolutely necessary. If you must run theory, explain everything in detail, as I am not familiar with it.

I appreciate well-reasoned, clear arguments. Effective link chains help. Evidence always helps your arguments, but explain why it is relevant to your points.

Overall, I'm looking for a clean debate with minimal theory. Have fun!

I'm a parent judge. I've judged a few rounds, but very much a novice. Please speak at a speed at which I can understand well and keep your jargons to a minimum

My criteria for judging are:

- I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments

- support with data and other evidences

- I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. If I see any of these, I will give you a loss.

Second year lay judge.

1. Do not speak too fast. Be Clear.

2. Rather than just reading cards, make sure to clearly warrant everything you say in round.

3. Make sure your arguments are consistent throughout the round.

4. Any arguments made in final focus must have been mentioned in summary.

5. Be sure to weigh clearly. Interactive weighing is great.

6. Do not be rude to your opponents during the round.

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.

Hello! I am a former competitor, now judge who is extremely passionate about all things forensics. My experience lies mostly in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate, but I am familiar with all styles (save for Congress)

Because I am well versed in debate, feel free to talk at an accelerated rate, as long as your opponents can still understand you. As long as you aren't spreading, more than likely I'll be able to track what you're saying.

Theory arguments are fine by me, but make sure they are accessible to your opponents as well. If an opponent is unfamiliar with how theory arguments work, then as a courtesy I ask that you refrain from running them.

For Parli, I do my best to protect the flow but I ask that you still call out Points of Order when they occur and clearly state the rule violation just in case I missed something.

Lastly, I will disclose and critique after each round under the circumstance that all competitors would like to hear the results and the critiques present.

My name is Connor (he/him) and I have four years of high school parli debate experience. During that time I considered myself to be a "flay" debater, meaning that while I did use theory and other technical arguments I almost always structured my debates around case. As a judge, I will evaluate any arguments that you can prove are important.

Case

• I love good case debate with warranted uniqueness, a strong link chain, clearly terminalized impacts, and organized clash on the line-by-line

• Organization will boost your speaks

• I generally like when people collapse on a few impacts in their voters

• I assume probability>magnitude>time frame>reversibility if not told otherwise

• Please do impact calculus

Counterplans

• Please have a specific counterplan text. It would also be ideal if you could give a hardcopy to me and the other team if it's a particularly complex one

• Try to be mutually exclusive, run perms as a test of competition

• Run theory against CPs you think are abusive

Theory

• Love theory with a clear interp, standards, and voter issues

• I probably have a higher threshold for friv theory than most, but will still vote on it

• My default is competing interpretations, if you argue for reasonability give me a brightline

Ks

• Assume I know nothing about your lit base, Ks were never my area of expertise

• Please try not to run something super generic, tell me how the aff or the res applies to your argument

• Signpost as clearly as possible

Speed

• Ok with some speed, but probably can’t keep up with spreading

• I would encourage you to call “slow” or “clear” on the other team if needed

Misc

• I flow answers to POIs

• Call POOs if the new argument is borderline

• Answer a POI or two in your constructive speeches

• Tag teaming is fine, just make sure the speaker ultimately says everything

Feel free to approach me before the round with any questions or concerns and I'll be happy to answer.

I'm a parent judge who strongly prefers standard case debates.

I have only judged since 2020. I look for good organization and evidence. I can judge debates of any speed.

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

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

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 parent judge and have only judged a few prior debate tournaments. I value well-reasoned logic more than the presentation style, although both count. Speaking slow will help me follow your arguments. Correspondingly, speaking too fast could be to your detriment. I expect the debaters to stitch together their rationale and not leave it to me to connect the points. Roadmaps are helpful. None of the debates I judged used theory, so I'm unfamiliar with it.

Hello debaters!

I'm gonna keep this short because your time is probably better spent prepping. My name is Ella Yitzhaki. I'm a freshman at Cornell studying government (political science). I did Parli debate all 4 years of high school as well as some MUN and political advocacy. Even though I didn't do debate this past semester, I like to think I still have a good grasp on the basis of it all (ie timing, jargon, and voter issues). Nevertheless, my four years of debate taught me that every school has different rules so I'll try my best to be open-minded.

Therefore, I will allow on-time and off-time roadmaps (just tell me what you want to do), leniency with timing (for all I know they've changed it again), and asking to repeat certain phrase/pieces of arguments (I've heard that it's difficult to understand folks online). This is my first time judging (outside of practices when I was in high school) so I pray I'm not a lay judge (for my sake and yours).

If you wanna impress me, here's what you wanna do:

1.) Don't spread - your arguments should be strong enough without some race of words + it's probably difficult to understand spreaders online.

2.) Don't rely on tons of stats (especially if you can't source it) - stats can be really useful in small doses but please don't forget the contention part of the contention.

3.) Don't be a jerk to the other team - this should be basics but I've gone to tournaments and invitationals with teams who would laugh at their opponents during speeches. Not only is this rude as heck but it's also distracting to everyone.

4.) Flow as much as possible - call me old-fashioned but I think taking a good amount of notes to produce line-by-line rebuttals is useful (hint: if you do line-by-line rebuttals, please refer back to the point rather than saying "their third point under contention 2")

5.) VIs/Final speeches shouldn't be a summary of your case - please use weighing mechanisms to qualify and characterize the cases.

6.) Don't overwhelm the round with theory - theory is good in small doses so please refrain from using it unless you find it absolutely necessary. Oftentimes, debaters use it to simply overwhelm their opponents and the judge. I will not be impressed with your theory if it doesn't come with a solid reason.

Okay, maybe this was a little long. Regardless, I wish you all luck with your prepping! Please offer me some slack if I forget a specific piece of debate jargon (my last invitational was in Feb 2020).

Updated September 2021

I am a parent judge and it is my second year judging (mostly Parli). Having judged at least a dozen tournaments, I am comfortable with terminology and have heard a variety of styles and strategies. That said,

1. Please signpost - it helps me organize my notes and make a decision

2. No spreading if possible, I have trouble flowing when you speak fast

3. You can use theory but it has to be well explained.

Debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate your arguments to the best of my ability. Most important: have fun.