I am a parent judge who’s judged at quite a few tournaments. Please be clear and explain your arguments thoroughly (no jargon). Please check your ego at the door! I look forward to a great round.

Hello, my name is Miller Allen. I am a first-time parent judge.

Please refrain from "spreading" and "running k's". Please try to minimize running theory.

I am a freshman at Cal studying Political Science & History, and I competed in Parli, LD, Policy, Congress, and World Schools while in high school. So, I am familiar with various debate formats. Here are my preferences:

I love creative/unique arguments.

I am not familiar with spreading, but I can try to keep up.

Overall, I love reasoning and warrants, but evidence is still important. I weigh on impacts a lot. Be explicit with your impacts and reasoning. And signpost!

Please don't use "insufficient evidence" arguments without impacting out why that matters.

Ks: I don’t like hearing them, but I will consider them.

Theory: not very familiar with, but I will consider it.

I will stop flowing at the end of grace period if you keep talking over time.

No tag-teaming.

Do what you think is best in the round; be respectful of your other opponents.

I was a successful policy debater in high school, many years ago. I've been judging parli rounds for the last 2.5 years. I can flow your round and assess your argumentation, but I won't be up on the latest debate jargon. You'll need to explain the arguments you make and not assume that a quick label or phrase can make an argument for you. I can flow and follow a fast spread debate, but my preference is for speaking that is not faster than normal speech.

I will judge based on the content of the round, and in principal I'm open to any argument you want to make. I enjoy creative arguments, but I'm skeptical of theory that allows either side to ignore the topic or avoid clash. I expect rebuttal speakers to focus on the critical issues, sum up the debate with intelligence, and explain why they've won and how to make a decision.

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

Hi I am Rosie (she/her). I did American Parli debate at Berkeley High School for three years and I won the 2022 NPDL TOC. I am now captain of IPDA debate at UC Santa Barbara.

This is all you really have to read, if you want to read my specific ramblings see below.

Please don't give me an off-time roadmap. I like good case debate. Don't talk fast or use jargon. Quality over quantity--usually the team able to explain better wins. Be creative and have fun, just don't be unfair to your opponents.

Preface: I want my paradigm to be accessible to people who don't know debate language. If you are confused about anything I have written please ask me to clarify. I remember being very confused reading paradigms--I still am sometimes--so please, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. At the bottom of my paradigm I have linked a document that I wrote going over the basics of some of the debate terminology I have used. I have also included my email if you want to talk personally.

Long(ish) version:

My preferences are pretty simple: I enjoy case debate with good reasoning. I do not enjoy theory. I like voting issues in rebuttal--tell me what the most important issue in the round is and why.

Tabula rasa

I guess one could call me tabula rasa (meaning I pretend I know absolutely nothing about the world at the start of your round). However, if someone says something absurd, and you give a two second reason for why it is absurd, I'll believe you. That being said, don't expect me to do the work for you if your opponent lies or makes a large leap in logic.

Evidence

Evidence in parli is easily misrepresented or straight up lied about. Statistics should support your argument, not be your argument's backbone. I will be hesitant to decide a round based on one statistic or piece of evidence. If you want me to weigh your evidence more, provide details. Also, if you think a statistic is suspicious don't be afraid to call it out, tell me why I shouldn't trust it.

Counter plans

Counter plans are fun. I don't need plans to be mutually exclusive, but I will vote on arguments saying all counter plans should be. Run them if you wish!

Jargon

Do not expect your opponents to have read the same literature that you have. Don't expect me to have read the literature that you have. All jargon should be explained, even jargon as simple as "utilitarianism." If you are using a lot of jargon and don't take POIs it will be hard to win my ballot. Also, if your opponents use too much jargon, please POI them and call them out for making the round hard for you to debate.

Theory

I know some people can be unfair so run theory if you need to. I wouldn't use theory as your primary path to the ballot if you can avoid it. That means if your opponents don't state a weighing mechanism, you are better off giving me one yourself than telling me to vote against them because they didn't. Attack the plan/weighing mechanism/etc. only when you can genuinely prove it has made the debate less fair or educational. Also, as long as you get the point across, I don't care if you run theory in a proper shell or not.

Kritiks

I don't like them very much. Only run when abundantly necessary. If your opponents tell me that Ks are bad I will be inclined to believe them.

Don't spread and have fun everyone! I look forward to judging you :)

Email me at nataliabultman@gmail.com if you want to talk or have any more questions.

Document that explains things: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lnmSwREGG2zKGaC1PodU9wv1tED2oCxL_9qjPrO9upA/edit?usp=sharing

Hey there!

I've done parli for around 4 years now, and am fairly experienced. I'll ask for the standard stuff: signpost well, don't drop arguments, create clash, and have an educational debate. I don't weigh evidence any more strongly than logical reasoning on the principle that parli is good specifically because it forces debaters to make arguments without evidence - any kind of warrant is good as long as the logic is sound. I'll take theory arguments, but avoid kritiks.

Have a good round!

I am a parent judge with two years experience. Please speak at a normal pace. It is helpful when warranting is supported with evidence. I find signposting to be helpful as well. Weighing is important in helping me make my decision for who won the round.

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.

I'm parent judge and former high school policy debater, and won a few local tournaments during my senior year. I did not debate at the college level. I have some scattered past judging experience, both high school and college level, but most recently, my judging has been limited to several tournaments during 2021. I judged elimination rounds at three or four tournaments this year and have always voted with the majority.

My suggestions:

Be persuasive. Explain the voting proposition and why your side merits the vote. I generally vote based on overall persuasiveness of the presentation. Some arguments are accorded more weight than others, and you do not automatically win simply because your opponent drops an insignificant argument. Quality of arguments is far more important than quantity of arguments. I am unlikely to vote based on technicalities or procedural error.

Be logical: I am most persuaded by arguments that make sense and are consistent with your position overall. I'm prone to notice unexplained inconsistencies in arguments, although I like to think this will not affect my voting unless the inconsistencies are identified by the opponent. In most debates, there is merit to both positions. I am more inclined to be persuaded by debaters who recognize this and make a nuanced explanation of why their side is preferable rather than just trying to steamroll over the opposition.

Be creative: I am open to any arguments, and particularly appreciate an argument that I have not heard before. If your argument is rooted in debate theory, please explain the theory rather than just labeling it, and explain how it should inform the vote.

Be relevant: Tailor your arguments to the specific issues raised in the specific round. I find it frustrating when debaters make standard -- particularly disadvantage -- arguments without much effort to tie them to the specifics of the round or respond to specific issues raised by their opponents. If you want to use the same "millions will die" argument every round, that's fine, but please connect it well to the topic at hand.

Be on topic: I prefer debates that focus on the assigned topic. Although I will consider novel arguments, arguments that stray far off topic defeat the purpose of the debate. Debates about topicality also defeat the purpose of the debate -- so if you make a topicality argument, make it and move on. Along those lines, I'm all for a good creative counterplan, but not if it appears that the counterplan is simply an effort to reframe the topic or thwart the purposes of the debate. Counterplans that are similar to government plans with minor adjustments frustrate the purpose of the debate. I'm open to -- but not a huge fan of -- and not sure I always understand kritiks, so proceed with caution (or very clear explanation) if you go there.

Be organized; I track every argument in writing. If I can't follow your presentation, I'll have difficulty tracking your argument. I don't object to spreading, but please be clear so that I can follow your presentation. If you're all over the place, or just ticking off lists as quickly as you can with no development of arguments, I will likely stop flowing. It is easier to follow presentations when arguments are clearly numbered or labeled, and the labels are used consistently throughout the debate. I have no objection to roadmaps and signposting, nor do I expect off-clock roadmaps. It is your argument to organize and present as you wish -- but do be organized.

Points of information/points of order: I'm generally indifferent to points of information. Make/respond to them or don't, as you deem appropriate. Good points of information can help clarify or focus the argument. Overdone, they're annoying and rarely helpful. You should have a good reason to interrupt someone's speech with a POI. If you have a good reason, by all means, go for it. But don't make a POI just for the sake of making a POI. A POI should be used to get information or clarification, not to usurp your opponent's platform. Regarding points of order, feel free to make them, but keep them brief and focused. I will take them under advisement. You don't need to make a POO about new arguments first raised in rebuttal.

Speed: A brisk rate of delivery is fine, but be reasonable. If you talk too fast, I will have difficulty tracking your arguments. Fewer, carefully chosen words that focus on important arguments are generally more persuasive than rapid-fire presentations that fail to highlight what is most important.

Be polite. Be respectful. Being witty, funny, or occasionally sarcastic is fine, even welcome, as long as it is not rude. Although presentation is not as important as the strength and substance of the argument, it is noted and much appreciated.

I am currently a third year law student, I am taking the California Bar Exam this summer, and I have a B.A. in Philosophy with a minor in Sociology. I think social justice is a serious issue, especially in our country today. If you can make an argument related to it I’ll be more likely to vote for you. I have never competed in debate myself, I have judged at Stanford a handful of times, and I am not a coach. I am taking notes on an Excel sheet. If you want me to open different tabs for sections of the debate I am happy to do that but you need to tell me what they are and when to shift.

Speaker points:

Respect and professionalism are key in debate and in life. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters will be punished on speaker points for being rude or abusive. Toxic masculinity, racism, and microaggressions are real and I take them very seriously. My job is to oversee this round as well as protect everyone participating. That said, I have the right to stop the round as I see fit. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I do not have experience evaluating debate theory, but as far as I understand, it is similar to legal statutory interpretation. So, as long as you’re clear I’m happy to hear your arguments.

Kritiques:

Here are the family of things I’m familiar with: gender theory, Marxism, critical race theory, and other moral philosophical theories. That said, I’ve never evaluated these in a debate before, but I’m more than happy to be walked through it by debaters.

Case:

I much prefer good case debate with solid warrants. There is no verifiable evidence in Parli but please let’s now abuse that. I will gut check on obviously false stuff but don’t expect me to know the exact percentage of a random subsidy. The Affirmative is not required to stick with two advantages. I’m fine with perception debates. Terminalized impacts matter.

CP/Permutations:

Permutations are fine, but keep in mind that my legal education shapes how I approach them. That is, I’m likely to be very literal about the question of mutual exclusivity. Counterplans should be real. It will be hard to get me to say that everyone should get a farm subsidy and a cookie is enough to vote. Give me something real to distinguish the CP from the plan.

POI:

Teams are free to either (1) turn their camera on and say out loud “POI” to audibly indicate to the speaker that they want to be recognized, or (2) they can be put in the chat and partners of the speaker can reply to those/tag team. THIS DOES NOT MEAN pasting large blocks of text in the chat box. It should be brief. No articles from news sources, no long wordy answers. If you engage in any of these behaviors you’ll get one warning. After that, I will drop you.

Speed:

I am not comfortable with a high speed debate. Please do not spread or move quickly, slightly above conversational speed is fine.

Matthew Dean: idc what you call me, I called the judge “your honor” because I was in Mock trial for four years. But besides that, I really don't care. You can pick a random name to call me in round honestly, literally anything, just be consistent. I'll probably find it funny and give you higher speaks.

Email: Mhadd.eon@gmail.com

I try my best to be tabula rasa but don't try to convince me death is good.

I originally had a really long paradigm on here but, realized no one's gonna read that, so here ya go. I'm a flow judge and I will accept plans in LD, I hate K's and k style debate. However, I will accept them.

Real quick, if you feel the need to run a K I gotta be given the K, unless its off the cuff, which then idc. Progressive argumentation is something I am painfully used to, I did policy debate and some LD though mostly policy. I understand progressive debate just not overly fond of it. However, if you want to do it just do it right and there will be no problems!

I'm fine with unique arguments and really have fun with your rounds ok?

If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread, please give it to me, but be warned I flow, and will only judge you off of what I can HEAR, so if you're too fast and I have to shout clear you've lost speaker points. I did Policy for multiple years and am adept at good spreading I know what bad spreading sounds like. In events like LD please focus on value debate, If I don't hear about it you don't win. I cannot stress this enough if your argument says that not voting for you is racist, sexist, or some other stupid ism that somehow I am for not choosing you, I won't buy it. I want to hear you win on the merits of your ability nothing more. Try to stay away from attacking opponents verbally you will lose the round if you do. I expect people to avoid flimsy link chains (but if you can back it up I don't care how long that chain is). I truly love clash, the more arguments clash the more engaged I will be in the debate. 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. I did debate during high school, I did policy and went to nationals twice in it, I did PF for every year. I did parli for every year and went to states twice in it, I did LD and went to the NCFL national tournament in it. I know every debate event both on the circuit and off of it, feel free to ask clarifying questions as I'm not going to type everything out on here.

I'm a senior at Trinity High School in New York City, and this is my fourth year competing in and judging Parliamentary Debate.

As a judge, I encourage debaters to be as organized and clear as possible. Please sign post and guide me through the flow -- explicitly tell me what your contentions, warrants, and impacts are. I'm only writing what you say. Final two speeches should be mostly weighing - tell me what you believe the major clashes are in the round. Tell me why you win under your framework as well as your opponent's.

I am a varsity debater, so I will be keeping a flow and I understand the rules of debate. I don't like theory rounds, I would much rather hear a productive debate with convincing, logical arguments and strong impacts. The best way to win a round is to prove to me why your side actually has the impacts you propose, and then weigh those against the impacts of the other side using your framework, i.e. net benefits. I don't mind what you're wearing, how fancy your diction is, or how fast you speak, I care that you have good arguments and that you can effectively refute opposing points. Please organize your case as clearly as you can, it will make you look much better, make your points more convincing, and be easier for me to follow. Most of all, please be respectful of one another!

This is my first year of judging. As additional background , I am the head of finance and compliance for public biotech company and give high points to clear presentation of facts and well supported evidence.

Prefer slower debates, articulate presentation and clear flow of thoughts is valued higher than speed. Maintain respect at all times and also dress appropriately for debates.

A few tips for winning

- Introduce your argument before jumping into it

- Make your points in a concise manner, do not spend too much time on any one point.

- Summarize your argument

- Be sure to address all your opponents points in your rebuttal

- Treat being on virtual calls as being in the room, body language counts!

2019-20 is my 3rd year as a parent judge. Please speak clearly and not too fast.

I did parliamentary debate at Berkeley High for 4 years. Above all else I just want to see a good round.

Make sure you provide actual clash and don't just restate your arguments as refutations.

Weigh a lot in the rebuttal speech, I need to know why your arguments matter.

Don't run frivolous theory, but if your opponents actually do something abusive do of course run theory. If you make abusive standards, definitions, plans, etc. I will be predisposed against you even if your opponents don't run very good theory. Just don't be abusive.

Good luck and have fun :)

I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.

I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.

Updated February 25, 2022

Ukraine note: I am normally pure tech over truth, but denying or willfully ignoring the invasion will result in a drop. Thanks.

Debate is an educational activity first and foremost. I will drop speaks, or at the most extreme drop the debater, for conduct which infringes upon the accessibility of the debate space. Namely, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, or other discriminatory behaviors will be tolerated.

Background

Most recently, varsity Parli coach at The Nueva School, CA. Not currently employed as a full-time coach.

Former coach at Menlo School, CA and Mountain View-Los Altos, CA. While in school, I was a TOC-level PF debater; I typically debated as part of Los Altos GV.

Short Form Paradigm: I flow and vote off the flow. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I care about evidence and weighing. When I vote, I look to the last speeches first, so you need to extend both your warrants and impacts to those speeches. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win. Give me an easy path to the ballot.

COVID-19 Notice: This is a really weird time, and a really weird way, to be doing debate. Accordingly, for any round conducted virtually:

-I will be very forgiving with technical and related issues. Please speak up or message me in chat if you have literally any problems. Debate is an educational activity first and foremost and that needs to be preserved.

-This pandemic affects all of us in some way, and some of us very personally. Please conduct yourselves with the appropriate respect.

-I will not be minutely assessing speaker points in any round conducted virtually. Speakers on the winning team will receive 30s (or 30 and 29.9 if necessary) and the losing team will receive 29.9s (or 29.8 and 29.7, if necessary). I reserve the right to drop speaks for uncivil and/or discriminatory conduct, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

Definitions:

Disclose: to inform the debaters who won the round.

Dropping: to vote against

Fiat power: the government's ability to declare that their plan will pass through appropriate channels into law, and be executed by the appropriate authorities. Fiat power does not absolve the government of the potential downsides of this process.

Flow: my notes of the round. I capture the essence of, or paraphrase, all content.

Framework: an argument about how the judge should assess the various content in the round. A common example is a net benefits or cost-benefit analysis framework, which adheres to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

K: short for "Kritik," a category of arguments which seek "to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views" (Bennett).

Line-by-line: a way of organizing rebuttal and later speeches that addresses arguments and evidence in the order they were originally stated, rather than grouping them together in a condensed format, thematically or otherwise.

Non-interventionist: I do not insert myself in the decision of the round; I judge based on who provided the better arguments as recorded on my flow.

Plan: an organized description of the government's proposal for addressing the resolution. It must include a description of the timeframe, funding, and actor.

RFD: Reason for decision. This is provided in written form on the ballot, and frequently verbally immediately after the round as well.

Signposting: when a debater indicates which argument they are addressing, before addressing it.

Spread: a very fast style of speaking, frequently eclipsing 300 words per minute.

Theory (sometimes 'T'): a category of arguments about how the rules of the debate and how it is conducted, rather than arguments about the content of the resolution. "Friv" T, short for frivolous, is that which is only tangentially related, if at all.

Tabula rasa: lit. "Blank slate," meaning I come into the round without bias (as much as possible).

Tag teaming: a parli debate practice when in the middle of partner X's speech, they confer with partner Y, either in a hushed tone or with an audible statement by partner Y that is then repeated by partner X. Statements are not flowed unless they are said aloud by the partner whose designated speech it is. [My own opinion of this practice is quite negative, in the context of in-person debate. Virtual debate sometimes makes it necessary, and that's ok.]

General Paradigm

1. I flow and vote off the flow.

Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for the argument. If you spread, I won't drop you automatically, I just won't be able to understand you and so I'll probably end up dropping you. I'll only say "Slow" a few times to try to tell you to slow down.

Signposting is key. I will write everything down, but if you're disorganized, my flow will be too, and that makes my job a lot harder.

I like to give oral RFDs and disclose if possible, but if I need extra time in order to examine my flow, that takes precedence over giving you a decision in the room. I will tell you you're not getting an oral RFD as soon as I realize I'll need the extra time.

2. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I will not complete the argument for you.

I am open to anything as long as it's within the rules of the event. For example, if you're running a plan in PF I'm perfectly open to that, just don't call it a plan (hint: use "advocacy"), and remember the neg doesn't have fiat power in PF.

3. Don't play around with evidence.

If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence (more so in PF than Parli).

I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at, if you do so within the round (all events included).

Empirics are king, but they are not the be-all end-all. Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, as Cayman Giordano says.

PF: Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.

4. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable. If you have a short-circuit voter or IVI that I should look at first, you need to tell me that clearly AND warrant why I should be considering it first.

5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be. I will detract speaks for rude behavior; this is an educational activity.

6. Off time road maps are fine if they're useful and brief. I do particularly like road maps before the Opp block and PMR speeches in Parli, but they're not necessary per se.

It is fine to ask if everyone's ready before you start speaking. It is fine to not ask as well.

PF

1. I like to see high level warrant debate that doesn't get bogged down in "we have bigger numbers" impact debate. Talk about why your side makes more sense and why you have better proof than the other side does.

2. The second rebuttal should ideally address some of the content of the first rebuttal, even if it's only to weigh against it. If you've got a perfect 4 minute long attack on your opponent's case, that's fine, just be aware of the challenges you're going to face later in the round for doing that.

3. If you're going to go line-by-line in summary, tell me off time that you're going to be doing that. I don't care either way, but I prefer to be prepared for that.

4. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.

5. Give me voters in final focus.

I will not extend arguments for you from the summary: if you want me to vote on it, you must say it in the final focus.

The second speaking team's final focus should address points, most preferably voters, from the first final focus. Extend your warrants and impacts.

6. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is first for clarifying questions, second for offensive/attacking questions, and third for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.

7. Speaker Points: Each speech is worth about 4 points and each crossfire one, roughly. Two speeches + two crossfires = 10 points (on the 20-30 scale). A 30 is reserved for practical perfection, and after my decade plus in debate, I can count on one hand the number of speeches I've seen that have deserved a 30. If you get below a 25, you've done something wrong, not just spoken poorly, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

8. I'm tabula rasa, so I'm willing to hear theory and kritik arguments in Public Forum. That said, it's really not in the spirit of the format, so please don't do it if it's not justified. I'm also used to arguments of these sorts in high-level parli, meaning that they're well structured, warranted, impacted, etc., so I'd expect the same in PF. Unfortunately, most theory arguments I've seen in PF recently are undeveloped and poorly argued, so please be considerate.

Parli

I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. Extend both your links and impacts.

That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I also like evidence - most tournaments these days have internet prep; you should use it, but be careful with your sources. Full disclosure of topical bias: I'm trained as a political historian and evaluate cases on the flow as a historian would examine documents (I reiterate: be careful with your sources!). I have a regional speciality in Europe, in particular the EU, Germany, and former Warsaw Pact states (esp. CZ, SK, PL, HU), and topical specialties on populism, minority participation in politics, and transitional democracies. Also, if you're going to impact out to nuclear war, your warranting needs to be pretty darn solid, and you're probably going to need to make a case for why I should prefer your end of the probability/magnitude weighing game.

I will vote on all sorts of T, theory, etc, but please signpost and explain each part of the shell. In this case, as in others, theory is no good if there is no praxis to uphold those values, e.g. claiming education as a voter but failing to educate the other participants in the round about the supposed issue. This criterion includes stock components like education and fairness, and is especially true for non-stock. I like listening to bizarre and friv T for entertainment value, but the flow is a sheet of notes incapable of being entertained, and I vote off the flow.

I don't have a background in Ks, but I'll vote on them. I generally find them engaging, so don't shy away, but know that I do not have a high level of theoretical/technical knowledge about the kritik format, nor am I up to date in the latest developments in K debate on any circuit. If it's important enough for you to center the debate around, please consider it important enough to fully contextualize as well. Please do not run an identity K based on an assumption you make about your opponents' identities, which could lead to outing. Many identities are not visible.

Speaker points (if in person): I treat 27.5 as my average, scoring roughly on a flattened bell curve. Typically, the highest speaks I give on a regular basis at an invitational/flow tournament is a 29.2. The highest level tournaments may see a 29.5. I have yet to see a parli speaker deserving of a 30.

Tag teaming is absurd for high level debaters, and I'll deduct your speaks if you do it. Exceptions to this standard of deductions are granted for COVID and for teams of mixed experience (e.g. 8th and 12th graders together for a learning experience).

POIs are a courtesy. It is nice, but not necessary, for the speaker to take them. POIs need to be a question. If you don't ask a question, I will deduct your speaks.

POOs: I will comment on them in the moment, saying that the POO is either a) valid/sustained, i.e. the argument is new, b) invalid/overruled, i.e. that the argument is not new, or c) that I'll need to examine my flow more closely.

I am a parent judge with relatively little judging experience. That said, I've taught speech, studied philosophy, and worked for many years as a researcher of public benefits programs. I appreciate well-reasoned, and logically presented arguments that are grounded in research. I also appreciate a clear and straightforward presentation: sign-posting of your arguments, using plenty of examples, and explaining any debate terminology that you might use. Overall, please be kind to one another and focus on making the best case for your position and against your opponents'.

Hi Everyone!

I'm David, I'm a former Parli debater and I'll be your judge today. If you have any questions about my paradigm just ask me before the round starts:

Things I like:

->Warrants, warrants, warrants. I will not vote on arguments that you made if I don't believe them. I am not "tabula rasa".

->Debaters having fun! Debate is supposed to be a game. Please don't ruin the fun for anyone else.

->Accessibility. Debate is (in)famously exclusive. My favorite debates are ones generally free of a lot of jargon, highly technical debate, and where teams make an active effort to be clearly understood by the other. My recommendation is try not to talk to fast, take a few POI's, and generally avoid Kritiks and frivolous theory arguments (I can evaluate these arguments I just don't like to, usually)!

Things that give me the ick:

->Arguments with no impacts. Please, please, please tell me why I should care about your arguments more than your opponents.

->Asking if "everyone is ok with an off-time road map" and then not waiting for me to say "no" and starting to present your roadmap that I didn't ask for.

->When debaters say nasty things. We often debate sensitive topics but in my experience there hasn't been a single valid time a debater has said something severely problematic and it was justified in the round, if you think something you're about to say could be in any way possibly seen as yucky, don't say it.

->When debaters are condescending. Don't call your opponents' arguments dumb and don't smirk while your opponent speaks (I'm watching you). This tends to specifically be a problem from boy only teams being rude to their female opponents, but it's a common problem in debate. Everyone is here to learn, just don't assume your better than others because when you lose to the people you thought you were better than, the only person smirking will be me >:)

Things you can read if you have time (but totally don't have to):

->I'm generally towards the left end of the political spectrum (shocker). That being said, I won't believe your "socialism/communism is utopia" argument unless you give me as good as a warranting as Marx himself.

->I love answering questions about the debate or my decision so please ask if you feel like it!

->I love to yap. I usually deliver my RFD verbally but I can write it down for you if you really want me to. I think rounds are recorded though so please don't make me write anything.

->I go to UCSD! If you think you might wanna go, feel free to ask me questions about it.

->My email is: davidgol3p@gmail.com feel free to email me with any questions you might have!

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

Please speak clearly and concisely. I'm not a fan of spreading.

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

I am a first year parent judge so keep spreading to a minimum. Also signposting will make it easier for me to track your arguments across the flow. I do the best I can to protect the flow(keep in mind I am a new judge), but if your opponents make a new argument when they are not supposed to, make sure to vocalize it. If you cause an equity issue in the round(IE: being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or sexist) I will drop you from the round and give your team an auto loss.

For me arguments are most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of clarity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. I tend to frame it like this: I prefer articulation over information. I've heard many brilliant cases made that unfortunately ended up going over my head because they were delivered at a dizzying pace. The flows that tend to be the most effective are slightly more measured.

For me, ideas and concepts that can be explained to anyone who just happens to take an interest are more effective, in my experience, than overly technical language or abstruse rattling off of sheer data. As a judge, I value transparency and accessibility above anything else. This informs my judicial philosophy and shapes my attitude towards what makes for an effective debate.

Hi! I'm a previous West Coast Parli debater, now college student who does Ethics Bowl (kinda similar?) Be kind to each other, don't be overly technical for the sake of looking more competent, and don't spread. I don't love frivolous theory or Ks, but if they're genuinely needed I can handle 'em.

I LOVE when debaters take their time to make arguments, and speak like they're trying to be convincing, like a person would actually talk to someone else, not like they're trying to speed run their case. To me, if your manner and voice immediately changes from calm to frantic the second you're on time, it is likely that your case will be harder to follow. I will never vote a ballot on this, but if your argument is good, please take the time to explain it well; it is so much more likely to be understood and flowed through by me and I think by most other judges. If your argument is not so great, spread away.

I won't vote against you for using off-time road maps, but I don't prefer it — use your time to do all your outlining and debating.

Counterplans are great, but I don't love plan-inclusive counterplans — I won't reject them on that alone, but it seems difficult to have a productive interesting debate with them.

Try to take some POIs, I understand you can't take all of them, but one or two is more than reasonable.

Have fun and be respectful!

I won't give you better speaks or a better chance at the ballot but I will give you a virtual gold star if you can manage to work the word "snail" into your argument.

Please don't talk super fast; I value clarity of argument over quantity.

None of these topics are black and white; saying in your last speech "all of their contentions fall etc" isn't helping your case.

I like critical, logical arguments; taking me step by step through your case will make sure I understand it.

Please speak at a normal pace. I prefer substance over style but enjoy good rhetoric. No ks. Theory will not be appreciated as a tool to win - only use it to point out actual abuse. Warranting should be supported with evidence. Weighing is important. Signposting is greatly appreciated.

PARLI:

THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime roadmaps/thank yous. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.

1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.

2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.

3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.

4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.

5. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-90 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters. That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-90 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." That was 12-17 years ago. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY DEBATE

I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.

I am a debate parent who has never done debate myself. This means I don't know all the debate jargon. But I was a philosophy major and I am a skilled communicator, which means I recognize and appreciate sound logical arguments.

I like systematic presentations that benchmark where you are and where you're going. You get points for making my job easy and mapping your arguments.

I prefer surgical precision and clarity in debate to the all-to-common strategy of trying to overwhelm your opponent by effectively throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.

I am not a fan of slippery-slope arguments or hyperbole. You will get points for acknowledging real-world complexity rather than deploying simple binaries.

I am hard of hearing, so please speak clearly and slowly.

Most of all, I want you to have fun and leave your debate round feeling proud of what you learned in the process.

I have been judging debate rounds for the last 7 years, and high school debate rounds for the last 3 years.

I judge by deliberating on the overall presentation of the debaters, including arguments and delivery.

I prefer a slower round of debate, that allows for a more involved, persuasive style of debate.

I prefer less debate technicalities, and more common sense arguments to make your points.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

basically: weigh weigh weigh! the impacts sign my ballot

the round is yours! do as you please as long as it is not exclusionary.

hi, i hope everyone is doing well

some things to consider for Parli:

uniqueness + link + impact = a strong, functional argument. include all of these things and clearly signpost as you go. if i don't know where you are on the flow, i won't be able to flow it!

weigh impacts and do the comparative analysis (especially in the 1NR/AR)

collapse as you go, but don't forget to extend defense!

i am not super familiar with the K process/literature, so if you are running something make sure to explain it thoroughly

i am most receptive to theory that is run against in round abuse or abusive norms, but other forms are ok. if you don't have the technical know-how, i am totally fine with lay theory.

important: do NOT ever use theory/Ks to skew your opponent out of the round. it's not cool

please take at least two POIs (tag-teaming is ok, but i won't flow what your partner says, you have to say it too). if you don't, your speaks will probably reflect it. that being said, POIs won't be flowed so use them strategically!

speed is generally fine, I'll tell you to slow down if you're going to fast (again, don't exclude your opponents)

i will not keep time. ten second grace period (no new arguments) and then feel free to call time

if you are very clearly problematic, you will be dropped regardless of the flow.

if you have any questions about my paradigm or the round, feel free to ask me before or after the round! other than that have lots of fun :)

Do not exhibit racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/discriminatory attitudes or behavior. You will be immediately dropped.

Be aggressive but do not be rude. If you are a toxic debater you will be dropped.

If you start lagging during your speaking time, I will try my best to judge you based on your performance given when your internet connection was stable.

Congress:

I value content over performance. Clearly structure your arguments so that they are understandable. Provide strong links and warrants to back up your contentions. Expand your impacts. I really do value the technicality of a bill, such as the bureaucracy behind it and the constitutionality of it. I try to be a blank-slate judge, but if you state something completely incorrect or extremely misleading, I will mark you down. If you are not the first speaker of the round, you should mention or respond to the other debaters in the round. Answer your questions clearly and ask good ones. Refrain from asking yes or no questions. Cut your competitors off if they are dodging the question. I really appreciate good cross-ex.

For performance, speak at a normal speed. Make your pronunciation and enunciation as clear and accurate as possible. Your body language should aid your performance, not distract from it. Be passionate. Try using different tones to create a better performance instead of just altering between aggressive and informative. I do value content over performance, but Congress still leans pretty heavily on the latter. If you present amazing arguments but stumble every two words and sound exactly like the rest of the chamber, I am not gonna give you a high rank.

A PO should be fast, fair, and efficient. You should make procedures understandable and maintain control of the chamber. If a debate becomes very repetitive, try to move the chamber onto the next piece of legislation. Make sure to know the procedures. If I notice that you continuously give speeches and questions to the competitors from your school, I will drop you.

Policy, LD, Public Forum, Parli:

Run whatever arguments you want. Theory, K, or anything that makes a compelling case for your side. I do not care about what kind of arguments you are running, because I judge based on flow. Provide solid warrants, tight links, and strong impacts and you will win. If you spread, you have to be extremely good at it. I expect clear enunciation and good fluency, or else just go at the normal talking pace, cause if I do not catch what you say, it will not be on my flow.

Speech:

Performances should match what is expected from the event. Be passionate about the issues you are talking about OO, and make me laugh if you are in DI. But in general, make sure you are varying between tones; do not just stay at one for 10 minutes, it will get boring and the lines you need to highlight will be lost. In your speech is argumentative/informative, then the content will be just as important. Make compelling arguments, use respectable sources and link them together well, and sprinkle in good rhetoric.

PS:

Just a pet peeve of mine, but if you are debating foreign policy, for the love of god do not cite examples from other regions as evidence that something will succeed/fail in this particular area. Respect the massive geopolitical and economic differences between each country and region, even if they are close together. Do not point to Libya and tell me a similar program is gonna succeed in West Africa, no no no, just no.

@tanishkumar@berkeley.edu

I did circuit LD, parli, and Congress in high school for Mitty and I coach there and at Athens debate now (qualled to states, nats, and was pretty highly ranked in parli), and I graduated Cal doing CS and Business (tanishkumar@berkeley.edu). I can judge any event except like platform speech at a pretty tech level, so just be yourself and have fun!!!!

I'm too lazy to write my argument preferences out, so I'm fine with anything. I'm fine with any argument (phil, Ks, theory, CPs) and any arguments against them. I'm pretty tabula rasa; in calc terms, the limit approaches infinity for how tab I am.

You do you, just don't be rude. Also, be clear and don't go like 300+ WPM, I'm probably tired.

Dear Debaters,

Some things about me: I have been judging primarily East coast style parli for about two years. I appreciate well thought-out arguments and good rhetoric. I also value weighing, especially when used with impact calculus, as well as warranting (with clear logic, please!)

Some more specific suggestions for you as you debate:

1) Please speak at a reasonable pace, one in which listeners can process and appreciate your flow and argument.

2) Please take care in raising Points of Order--they shouldn't be made excessively or unnecessarily.

3) Please avoid using progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc...)

4) Please note: Reason is more persuasive to me than competing interpretations.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.

Judging Experience – In the last several years, I have judged at numerous debate (mostly parliamentary) and IE tournaments throughout the country. I judged at a few IE tournaments prior to then.

Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.

Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.

Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.

Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.

Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”

Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.

TLDR: Speed fine, condo bad, Ks good, topical please, theory good, put me on the email chain: domlesaca@gmail.com

I competed in Parli/LD at the University of the Pacific. I am a first year out so most of my thoughts are still directly impacted by my own time in debate and my views will probably change the more I judge. I know nothing about courts so if it is a SCOTUS topic please break it into little bits that my baby brain will understand. I am annoyed by the amount of back-filling in most MOs and because of that am more willing to accept PMR arguments against MO blowups of blippy LOC tags. The most important thing to know is that I am lazy by nature so whoever gives me simplest route to the ballot will probably win.

Delivery:

I should be able to handle speed just fine so long as you remain clear, and if I have trouble following then I will call "speed" or "clear". Just make sure everyone has access to the round and you will be fine. For online tournaments please just bring down the speed a notch or two, spreading over zoom calls tends to sound like static over the line and that is just annoying.

Advantages and Disadvantages:

Be sure your tags are clear and number your arguments as much as possible as it makes it much easier to flow. That applies to all of the stuff below. DA debate is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch, especially when the scenarios are very specific to the topic and the aff. Offense is great but 100% loses to better warranted defense. I dont have a default preference for certain impacts over another but high magnitude impacts do make the the decision take less thought when teams dont do their own impact comparison.

Theory:

I always enjoyed debating theory. My threshold on T is fairly low, this means I don't need proven abuse but if you do give me proven abuse you basically have my ballot. Spec is mostly just used to waste people's time but if you have reasons why specification is key for ground on the resolution or specific plan then I am on board. Reasonability can mean a lot of things, you should tell me what it means to you so I know how to evaluate it. Any theory about reading the plan in the first X minutes will make me upset, that is a bad argument and you should feel bad for running it. In my mind the team answering theory needs some kind of counter interp, if you just read offense against T or framework without one I will just default to "the only game in town" rule.

Counter Plans:

Parli - Conditional advocacies are bad.

Other events - I am sympathetic to condo bad but have a higher threshold on the condo bad shell but you should justify why it is good/bad in the specific debate format you are in. I will vote for cheater CPs (states, consult, delay), but I am also very willing to vote on theory against them. The neg will be more likely to win these theory arguments if you show me how the CP is an important issue in the topic lit. For delay, the neg will have to win solid probability on their DA to convince me their is a net benefit to the CP. I generally think of perms as a test of competition if you want to make it an advocacy, you need to debate it out in round. In general I believe introducing a negative advocacy also flips presumption to the affirmative.

K's:

Ks are great, I just may need more explanation of what the alt actually does and will be annoyed if the neg refuses to explain the K until the MO. I dont think that Ks need frameworks to be competitive but probably still need to solve or outweigh the aff then. The Alt should provide some mechanism to solve what you are critiquing, if it is just reject I am going to need some specific framing or historical example where rejecting has been successful in fighting what you are critiquing. My wheelhouse has generally been neolib, Agamben, death denialism (not death drive), ableism, and security. Don't be afraid to go outside of those examples but be sure to explain it well for me.

K affs:

Aff Ks are fine but I still prefer you to be topical and actually affirm the resolution. If you negate or just ignore the resolution on the aff then we are gonna have some problems. You don't necessarily have to defend fiat but be sure to defend why your framework provides for equitable debate (I.E. you probably shouldn't force the neg to defend racism as their only ground). Performance Ks can be a bit confusing if not explained well so be sure to tell me how your performance solves and give me framework so I know how to evaluate it.

Evidence:

I think disclosure in evidence based debate is generally good. Please dont be stingy on sharing evidence with your opponents. I follow along with evidence read in round but I will only read it in depth if I am told to or need to resolve an issue. I dont totally disregard good analytics but evidence is generally preferred if possible.

Speaker Points:

I generally start at 29 and then rank down at a difference of about .5 points. If someone does something really interesting or funny I'll put them at a 30. I may alter the scale if you spread out a novice team.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

SiRu Liang (pronouns: she/her) East coast highschool varsity debater who mostly does parli. (Just read the bold if you're short on time. If you're reading this during prep, stop reading and go prep you fool).

1.) I do flow debates but am more of a lay judge. I'd rather vote on who wins the overarching clash and key voters instead of spending 10 minutes deciphering my hieroglyphic flow to find that one minor point your opponents dropped that you mentioned for 5.3 seconds in the PMC. Summarizing and weighing impacts in your rebuttal speech is extremely helpful to me.

2.) I am more a truth > tech judge. If a team says something absurd like "clouds are made of cotton candy," you don't have to waste your time responding as I won't weigh it heavily if at all. THOUGH, other than blatant false assertions, I try to be as non-interventionist as possible.

3.) I weigh logic over empirical evidence and stats. Even if you throw 50 examples of stats and studies at my face, they won't hold much weight unless you explain the logical connection to your claim.

4.) Some DON'Ts:

- Do NOT spread. It's a weekend. I'm tired, and I can't write/type that fast, okay? Give me a break.

- Do NOT run Ks because I'm probably either too dumb to comprehend it and/or I won't know how to weigh it. Don't waste your time.

Be respectful. Racism/sexism/homophobia/discriminatory comments will not be tolerated. Hope you have a good debate, and I will do my best to judge and give feedback :)

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

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

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

Background and Trivia

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

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

Most Important

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks + Tech

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricksy things

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

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

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

Points of Order

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

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

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

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

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

Thank you for your participation and good luck. I am a non-practicing lawyer — I am a businessperson in a highly-regulated industry. I am not a former (or current) debater. This is my second year judging parliament format debate. Few things to keep in mind:

1) I am primarily focused on the strength of the argument. Please focus on your core arguments. Make sure that the logic works.

2) This is a communication exercise. Please focus on clarity. Speaking quickly and providing a lot of facts is typically not an effective strategy with me. A slower, clearer, and focused approach is the way to go. You are leading me through your arguments and the limitations of your opponents arguments. Making one or two points really well is a lot better than trying to “machine gun” multiple points.

3) I care a lot about tone and demeanor. Again, this is a communications exercise. You are “selling” a position. Please be respectful of your opponents. No personal attacks. Watch your comportment when the other team is speaking. Think about the most effective communicators that you know or have seen. How do they engage the person or audience.

4) I am focused on the arguments. I find arguments about theory or process distracting. I also find interrupting the other side to ask a question or make a process point — other than time — to be distracting and not helpful. Please consider logging the points you would like to make, or the lack of clarity of the opponents argument/factual assertion, in your rebuttal.

Thank you and good luck. For what it is worth, while I am not a former debater, I wish I were. This is a tremendous program to build effective communications skills. Have fun.

I'm a former APDA debater from Wesleyan University.

I track the arguments and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round.

I weigh the arguments qualitatively and rely on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple less impactful ones.

I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Help me understand why your position should defeat the other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully.

Speed. I really do not care for high-speed speeches. I went to Harvard Business School where we had lively class discussions and debates where we engaged with each other rather than talking at each other. Talking faster than real world conversation makes it difficult to keep track of arguments and in my opinion is less persuasive. Facts and details are important – but anchoring in the big picture helps to be persuasive in the real world.

Style. I prefer debates where the debaters don’t seem like they are reading their speeches or trying to impart a laundry list of arguments, but are able to engage personably with each other and the audience.

Just a few things:

1. I appreciate sign-posting and off-time roadmaps
2. Please be kind to each other and use POIs selectively

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! :)

My background is Extemporaneous Speaking as well as Parliamentary Debate with experience competing in and judging LD, PF, and some limited amounts of various other events.

LD -

As per my preferences, if you throw out philosophy, cite a source. I am generally familiar with most philosophers cited in LD so please do not inaccurately portray the views of a philosopher. Furthermore, in LD, the debator with the greatest grasp of philosophy will not necessarily win. For my purposes as a judge, it's all about how you use it. Fundamentally it is a debate, not a competition to use more philosophical references than your opponent.

PF -

I like sources, and I like calling out biased sources. If someone uses the Heritage Foundation or Slate, these places have agendas that they look to fulfill. Try to cite non-biased sources, or address this biases of your sources in your speeches. That being said, do not get bogged down in a debate on a singular source. I don’t enjoy that, you don’t enjoy that, it isn't debate.

Parli -

Cite sources and feel free to look up the sources your opponents cite in the round. Sometimes people misrepresent sources, and if you can see that and call it out you definitely will look good. Ask Points of Information, have every team member ask POIs if possible. Speak well, that’s one aspect of Parli that makes it such a unique.

Debate overall -

I do flow, and you will be judged on the flow. If you drop an argument without accurately rebutting it, you will lose that point. I wholeheartedly believe in lumping together points and cross-applying arguments, so generalizing arguments on many minute points is not only allowed, its recommended

Finally, have fun. Get points of clash. I don’t care what speech kids say, a good debate is as fun as any interp event that has you repeat the same maybe kinda a little bit funny HI every single week four times a tournament. Have fun, be respectful, and crack a smile every now and then.

Hi, my name is Rebecca and my pronouns are she/her. I would appreciate the following:

1. Talk slowly and clearly

2. Signpost throughout every speech

3. Off-time roadmaps

4. Avoid jargon (permutations, kritik, and theory)

5. A few good arguments delivered slowly rather than multiple weak arguments that are delivered too quickly

6. Be kind to each other

I look forwarding to learning with you.

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

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).

I am a first-year parent lay judge. Here are some of my preferences:

Speak at a moderate speed so I can follow all your points.

Support your claims with cited evidence.

This is my first time judging debates. I appreciate folks who speak clearly, don't try to cram in more information than should fit and don't use lingo that is not known to newbies. Be respectful of each other and stay on topic.

Basics: I have experience with parli and will flow + vote off the flow. Make sure you're clear with signposting and extend your impacts.

Experience: I debated parli for all of high school at Berkeley High. I'm currently a coach for Berkeley High debate, and I've coached for SNFI.

Speed: I can handle a reasonable amount of speed but if you spread too much I won't be able to understand.

Theory: Don't'run frivolous theory just for fun, it's annoying and I won't vote for it unless it's actually necessary. That being said, if your opponents do something unfair to exclude you from the round, run it!

Kritiks: I'm not a huge fan at all but if you reallllllllyyyyyy have to, run a K. Make sure you're CLEAR with impacts and if your opponents are completely blindsided and can't clash, I will be disappointed.

- placeholder

Hi,

I am Chandan.

I am new to judging and looking forward to contribute to debate competitions.

I do not like theories though PoI and PoO are welcome!

Enjoy!

I am a parent judge who started in 2019. I have judged mostly parli bc that is my child's format, but I have been roped into LD and PoFo, so I have familiarity with those events as well. I am most comfortable judging parli. I do my best to understand and properly flow debaters’ arguments. I want to give everyone a fair chance in debate, based on the merit of their arguments and the delivery to me. I have a few requests and guidelines for you, as debaters.

Content

truth>tech

I don't really buy the whole If You Give a Mouse a Cookie string of events, like offering AP classes in HS will lead college TAs to all end their lives. (not being disrespectful or flippant regarding suicide - this is an actual argument I have heard). I have heard so many prepackaged arguments about the most benign policy leading to mass poverty, poverty is cyclical, it takes seven years off your life, etc. If it is something that a reasonable person could see would lead to everyone falling into abject poverty, I would buy it, but I don't buy the overterminalizing. Funding playgrounds will not lead to nuclear war. Adding Finland and Sweden to NATO will not lead to extinction of humanity. (One really good, intelligent debater who was in the unfortunate circumstance of finding herself on the Opp side of an Aff skewed res in octos or quarters had to actually resort to that as a last ditch effort, and while I appreciate the endeavor, I could not buy it.)

Theory

Please don't be theory-happy. Use it only if other side has made an egregiously irrelevant or extratopical argument or interpretation. I feel like teams have gotten all too eager to use this and of all the theory shells that have been run by me, I have not found a single one compelling.

Kritiks

Big risk in front of lay judge - I don’t expect that you’d try it in front of me. am not smart enough to understand these. If you choose to read one, I'll try to understand it, but you are likely wasting your time (and may fry my lay judge brain!). From what I see, people spend a lot of time working on these and just waiting for a time to bust them out rather than actually putting work into a good debate. But go for it if you feel like it.

Lying

Please don’t lie or fabricate evidence. It’s better to lose a round for a lack of evidence than to lie your way to victory. The whole point of debate is to be educational to both sides of the argument and lying voids that altogether. Lying is cheating. It can get you in trouble. If I catch you lying, I will take appropriate action. Without lying, debate is much more enjoyable and fair for all parties.

Signposting

Please signpost! Since I am new and rather inexperienced at flowing, signposting is very useful. Signposting allows me to be more organized. If you do so, I will be able to judge your debate more fairly, with more understanding of each argument.

Format

Please be clear with every aspect of your arguments, from links and impacts to delivery. This helps me understand and judge the round properly.

I understand that non-speaking partners may need to support speakers when it is not the non-speaker's turn, but I find too many interruptions, constant and audible feeding of content, and taking over for the speaker to be irritating, distraction, and signs of poor preparation and lack of professionalism. At best, I will not flow or consider any content presented by team member when it is not their turn and at worst, I may dock you for it. If you must provide your speaking partner with your thoughts, please try to do so quietly, unintrusively, and if possible, non-verbally.

My Style

I take judging seriously, but am not power trippy. I am pretty relaxed and understand that you have put hard work into this tournament and into this round and have gotten up early to do it. I appreciate that. I think it's great that young people are doing this and you have my respect and admiration. I understand that it takes guts, even for more experienced or less shy debaters. If you are new, I want to encourage you, so please do your best, but if you are struggling, I will not look down on you. Use these tournaments, especially when I am your judge, as learning opportunities to work on shedding inhibitions and becoming a stronger debater.

I write A LOT. I try to get down every word a speaker says, and thank goodness, because I have had to use my copious notes to decide whether an argument or stat was brought up previously when an opponent claims it was not! Since I am scribing away, I may not look up at you much or make eye contact. If I don't return your eye contact, please don't take it personally. I encourage you to look at the judge and at your opponents and audience since this is what is intended for a real life application of debate, such as in an actual parliamentary, political, or courtroom setting. Especially for those who are more shy or new, please take advantage of this smaller and perhaps less intimidating setting to practice making meaningful eye contact to help you in the future.

If I look at my phone during a round, I am not texting or playing 2048, as I most likely am every minute between rounds ;-) I am checking exact wording of a res, time, or something regarding the content. I take my judging duties very seriously and am always mentally present during rounds!

Other Notes

I appreciate you putting your time and energy into debate. I want to do my best as a judge to make it fair and enjoyable.

Please Don't:

Interrupt others

Run racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments

Be overly invasive or picky with POIs (one novice debater used one in her first tournament to question the speaker about his discrepant use of 72% and 74% when referring multiple times to what portion of the US's cobalt imports come from China - c'mon. In this case it didn't warrant a POI.)

Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand

Be a jerk to your opponents, even (or especially) if they are struggling and especially if you are a stronger team/debater or older or more experienced. I appreciate that it takes guts to get up there and speak. If you snicker or smirk with your teammate or send (zoom) or write (in person) each other rude messages about the other team and share derisory laughs, I will go exothermic. I will let your coach, your school, and tournament directors know.

Please Do:

Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate

Feel free to remove your mask if tournament rules allow it

Be respectful

Have fun and not be overly aggressive

Thank your opponents

Be ready on time for the debate

***Last updated 01/22/24*

4 years of Open Parli Experience, competed in NorCal/SoCal regularly. Champed a few big tourneys and octo’d toc 19.

Structuring case in the order of Uniqueness —> Links —> Internal Links —> MPX ensures it gets flowed most accurately.

My hierarchy of evaluation is Theory>Kritik>Case; convince me in-round if it should be otherwise.

Tabula Rasa

Tech>Truth

I'll accept any argument you choose to run. I flow carefully, signpost clearly and tell me what to flow and where. I won't extend drops automatically.

I have a high threshold for try or die arguments from aff, especially if there's a lot of neg offense.

Rebuttals: I don’t consider it in RFD unless it’s said in rebuttal. Extend everything you're going for. I really need terminalized and at least somewhat quantified impacts to buy impact calc.

(In rebuttals I don’t protect the flow, I don’t like shadow extensions or sandbagging but I’ll flow them unless they get POO’D). Defense from the MO is sticky in the LOR, you only need to extend offense.

The PMR has more room to respond to arguments from the block, but needs to establish offense too. Don't go for everything, it makes it harder to weigh as a judge and you're more likely to yield an unfavorable result if you make me do the work for you.

When kicking/collapsing, do it the right way, extend defense after relieving yourself of any turns or just acknowledge you're dropping it.

If you can’t Delink, Non-unique, or Turn it, outweigh it.

I default prob>reversibility>mag>TF; but idk \_['-']_/

I default neg if there's no impact to clearly vote on an aff hasn't met its burden.

Speed: Don't go above 270 wpm, I don't want to have to clear or slow you. I'm fine with anything under that!

Theory: If you're reading theory make sure to articulate violations clearly and make Apriori arguments, I can't do that work for you. I default to competing interps and I'll pull the trigger on T if you win the flow on it. I tend to give more weight to ground and predictability, but won't make the arguments for it if you don't.

Kritik: If you’re running a critical affirmative, you didn't disclose, and they run disclosure theory, that's not a position you want to be in. For Aff and Neg, when running Ks give specific links and show exactly where/how they bite. Alt solvency needs to be strong, and I'm unfamiliar with most philosopher-based Ks so I'll need a clear thesis to buy it.

Speaks: Better strategic choices = better speaks

Remember: Debate is a game, and the better you play it, the more likely you are to get my ballot. : )

I'll give you flex if you want it

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! :)

I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.

P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.

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.

Tabroom paradigm

The tldr if you are almost done with prep and just realized i have a paradigm:

East cost/BP level lay, truth> tech, do not love theory/K’s, honest and well-weighed arguments will get you very far, be kind and respectful. In general, if you are nice (+ bonus points if you weigh) I will happily and fairly judge whatever round you have!

Background on me:

• she/her

• I’ve been debating and judging competitively for 4 years. I have experience in American Parli (Exclusively east coast parli), British Parli (my fav), and World Schools.

• Debating as a freshman at Wesleyan University now!

• Particular areas of interest: government, law, courts, justice, social movements + social action, history, feminism, Jewish history + culture, IR, art

• Particular areas of disinterest: sports, econ/finance (you can run these but no jargon)

• I was an equity officer on the NYPDL board for two years and ran equity in local middle school leagues for a few years. Equity is very important to me.

• I adore debate and the debating community! If you ever want help, feedback, advice, support, don’t hesitate to reach out! + do your part to keep this community awesome. Good vibes in and out of round please! (to contact me: juliaswenja@gmailcom)

Things to know if i’m judging you:

My general philosophy: Debate is about being the most persuasive, not being the sneakiest → for this reason, clear+ intuitive arguments, polite + equitable behavior, and honest weighing are the most important things to me.

• Truth > tech but not by miles. Be reasonable and honest, and warrant and weigh.

• Equity is very important to me: treat every person in the room with respect and politeness, and treat every argument with thoughtfulness and nuance. Be aware of the position you speak from, and be conscious of how your identity informs your advantage in the debate world. Respect and kindness are non negotiable parts of being a persuasive speaker and member of this awesome community.

• Theory/K’s: I am an east coast/BP judge, so think east coast/BP level lay. I will not autodrop anyone, but I have no experience at all with theory or Ks of any kind and have a high level of skepticism about it. I wouldn’t recommend running theory in front of me: I will judge fairly whatever debate happens but will be quite grumpy with you.

• Speed: I am a good flower and can keep up with any speed east coast or BP. No spreading please!

• Signposting: signpost please!

• Content warnings: any obviously triggering content needs to be content warned. Don’t run very graphic violence in front of me please.

• Offtime roadmaps: Not my fav. You were given an amount of time by the debate gods. Use it!

• Rhetoric: I love a strategic use of rhetoric/emotion. Can be a powerful tool in persuasion!

• Rebuttals: I adore rebuttal speeches, and a strong LOR/PMR has a lot of power for me. Good round vision and weighing will make me VERY happy. I dislike dishonesty or redundancy in rebuttals.

• organization/flowing/coverage: I’m not a strict flow judge and don’t care a ton about dropped arguments. However, prioritizing and strategic coverage is important. Spend lots of time on the best arguments!

• Definitions debate: noooooooothank you

• Cases:

• Sneaky cases/Counter plans: I have a preference for straight opping and goving motions. I don’t like sneaky strategic decisions and prefer not to judge them unless there isn’t a different clear path to victory. If you run a CP, please commit to it.

• Creativity: I have no strong preference for creative cases: if they’re good arguments, run them, if not, keep it simple. Please don’t sacrifice intuitive and clear cases to creative ones. I will chuckle if you run something funny or clever but there won’t be extra points for creativity.

• Quality vs. quantity: I love dense + heavily warranted cases! Feel free to throw as many mechs as possible

• Principles: I have no strong bias for or against principled arguments. If the argument is warranted strongly and weighed well, I will happily vote on it. If not, I probably won’t.

I'm a parent judge with no experience as judge. Logics and being respectful are what I pay attention to. Please speak clearly.

I expect debaters to be courteous, which is to say I prefer 'our opponents claim of X is incorrect/flawed/incomplete because Y and Z' to 'claiming X is ridiculous', as both more civil and more persuasive. I appreciate when everyone keeps to time. Please do not resort to language that is discriminatory or disrespectful.

Debaters are free to inform me (or not) of their preferred pronouns when/as they choose.

I can follow a fast debate, but I prefer it when debaters speak at their own normal rate. I do not love speed for the sake of speed or jargon for the sake of jargon. If a team does not meaningfully slow down after being requested to do so (within reason), I will dock speaker points and be more forgiving of dropped arguments.

I have no objection to theory, but I expect the connection and relevance between the theory and the topic to be clear and convincing and in no way abusive. I generally dislike topicality arguments, unless the government's definition/framing is unreasonable. If teams introduce a weighing mechanism, I appreciate when they use it to weigh the competing arguments.

Overall, I judge each round on the cogency and strength of each side's argument as a whole rather than the quantity of evidence or arguments presented. For me the flow is to keep track of the debate, it is not the debate.

I did parli. in college and some judging then and more recently. I prefer to outline the debate to keep track of both the arguments and the structure of the debate itself.

I am currently a high-school debater in junior year at Berkeley High.

1.Rebuttals and Impacts

The single most important speech in any parli debate round from my perspective as a judge is the rebuttal, yes it is important to make well warranted arguments, clash with your opponents arguments, and refute them. However, as a judge the first thing I look at is the rebuttal, it is where you should tell me why your side should win, compare your opponents arguments and impacts to your own and explain why yours are bigger and better. I see a lot of debaters talking about specifics in their opponents arguments in rebuttals, that is not what rebuttals are for, talk about your arguments and why you win. In gov rebuttals especially, I often see people going line by line through their opponents arguments, and yes responding to the main new points brought up is important. However, you don't have to respond to every single one. Pick one or two of their most important ones, but still explain clearly why you win, not just why they lose. That being said, you need impacts that you can quantify or tie back to the standard and weigh against your opponents impacts, for example, just telling me free speech is harmed in a net benefits round is not really an impact, saying that violating free speech rights of citizens will cause riots or destabilization of US democracy which has major negative impacts like death and economic harm is a much stronger impact, and will make your arguments much clearer in the context of the round.

2. Jargon

If you are going to make an argument in the round, don't use jargon, just explain it to me in a way that anyone can understand, I won't drop you outright, but it will hurt your speaks and odds of winning

3. Theory

I will vote on theory if there is an actual problem in the debate round like a plan that doesnt affirm the resolution or a non topical counterplan. However I hate frivolous theory as it tends to be a way to skew opponents out of the round. I will probably just drop you if you run frivolous theory, that being said if you are the team frivolous theory is being run against don't worry about it too much. Just call out that it is frivolous and why it is frivolous, and move onto your case, if you find yourself spending more than a minute on a frivolous theory just move onto case, I almost certainly will not vote for the other team because of it, I just need a reason to ignore their frivolous theory (I will probably just vote against them.). Also, if you are going to run theory as I said above please refrain from using jargon

4. Kritiks

I won't vote for you unless you give me a really good reason why, and even then I might vote against you so just don't run them unless it seems abundantly necessary

5. Evidence/Reasoning

In all honesty I really don't care if you cite a source in a debate round as long as you can give me a logical chain as to why something is true or will happen, furthermore if you give a logical chain and reasoning and your opponents bring up some source or study that disputes that, unless they explain the logic behind the study or source, and why your logic is flawed, I really wont care and you will probably end up winning that argument. Also DO NOT MAKE UP EVIDENCE it really doesn't help your case, as I said above, if you give a study and cant explain the reasoning behind it, it wont help you much. If one side brings up a piece of evidence that you think is fishy or not well explained, don't be afraid to point that out to me, if it truly is a weak piece of evidence, I only need a small reason to eliminate the piece of evidence.

6. Organization

Being disorganized doesn't inherently count against you in terms of winning or losing the round. That being said I am not all powerful, if I cant tell what you are talking about I will miss many of the arguments you make and be unable to write them on my flow. The more organized you are, the more I am able to understand every point of your argument.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

Adam Stone (he/his)

About me: I have four years of experience on the Nor Cal Parli circuit for Bishop O'Dowd, I am at American University school of Foreign Service in Washington DC and major in International Relations.

Beyond the debating:

This is just a general note: don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I see this less often on overt transgressions but there are many times where the language we use can be extremely problematic and we as community need to work to fix.

to counteract this is if you feel comfortable please share how you want to be referred in the round/ pronouns I will try and ask at the beginning of rounds but I may forget. If I don't remember, please refer to your opponents as "opponents" or "they" or "them" so we don't accidentally marginalize or misgender those in our community.

Additionally, if you act rude in the round either towards your partner or your opponents, I will lower your speaker points drastically, and while I will not vote you down strictly off of your behavior I will look for a reason to vote you down.

Secondly, I generally try not to show emotion when people are reading off their arguments however, I will occasionally make weird faces, this is not me judging the quality of the arguments or delivery of them but rather, it is me thinking how they fit into the greater debate. In summary: Ignore My facial expressions

Actual Paradigm- generally tech over truth- but like I think there is a gray area in-between

-My favorite type of debate is case with critical impacts or classic case; but I will try and follow a real K but I may botch the decision due to lack of experience with critical arguments

1. speed: Because we are online please don't go that fast just in case either internet has trouble or have trouble hearing. I would say about 2x to 2.5x normal talking speed is where you should try and cap yourself in an online setting. I won't vote u down if u go fast you just risk the fact I might not hear you or your opponents run an abuse theory.

- I protect the flow but I may miss something, if it is vital to your case I would call a POI once. After that I will pay super close attention to what is being said and you don't have to repeatedly interrupt them.

Classic case debate: In summary- do impact calc and tell me why you win my ballot. This is was my bread and butter as a debater and I have the most experience evaluating these debates. You do not need the formalities of introducing yourself as the first/second speaker and etc, just give me a road map and start your case.

Aff

1. try and have a clear top of case, the funding is not super important unless there is a literature base saying that the USFG or whoever else can't afford it. Make sure you have clearly stated in your plan text what you do . Advantages with a kritical aspect to them are appreciated but general impacts that are terminalized are good too.

It is not recommended you reject the res with me as a judge but if you do I will weigh the round how I am told to; however, if there is a wash on the definitions debate/ theory of rejecting I am likely to buy the abuse of not being able to interact. I am not super comfortable judging identity based arguments but if you feel that it is essential to your ability to exist in the debate please do lots of explaining and make clear how your opponents and I can evaluate/interact with the arguments without attacking/scrutinizing your experiences.

Neg- run whatever you want CP, theory, Da- just do impact calc- also NO VAGUE Cps- a cp is a counter policy and must have at least this 1.an actor, 2. an actual plan text, 3. advantage to the cp/ reason to prefer over the perm, without you saying what it is exactly you do I will not vote off of it.

K-

I most likely don't know your lit base. Even if I do, I shouldn't be intervening, just because I know about what you are trying to argue, that's your job. I'm cool hearing Kritiks and can evaluate them so long as you do the work of impact calculus. Please interact with the Aff arguments and make arguments as to why me voting on this k right now, right here makes the difference.

Aff K- if you do go in this direction please make kritical arguments around passing the plan or have good reason why you are no longer using the state actor. Rejecting the resolution is not recommended but if you do give me a way to evaluate it along with the negation's arguments I can still evaluate it.

Theory- run frivolous theory, or real theory, I don't care- you are more likely to win on real but you don't need me to say that for you to know. I evaluate by competing interps, or give me a good reason to evaluate by reasonability.

In Parli there are often facts that are made up, placed out of context or simply have nothing to do with the case at hand. I will try my best not to intervene but if a fact is called out for being wrong and I know it to be, I will probably not buy the fact. to not put yourself in this situation explain why the fact is true rather than a statement of the truth.

ex: instead of just saying that wages are rising 2.5% say that because the general Econ is doing well there is more competition which allows wages to rise 2.5%. that way the truth of the claim isn't in the 2.5% but rather the claim that the economy is doing well.

Speaker points- I start at about 28- and if your speech is in-between these markings I will score accordingly. I use the judging philosophy of my former coach Bear Saulet in that I remove the 2 from the twenty and vote like I am giving a grade. That means my 27.8 is equivalent to a C+ and a 29.4 is an A. Most speeches will end up being between 27.9 and 29.1

TDR: do K's at your own risk, kriitical arguments are cool, case is also awesome and run as much theory as you want but know that the likelihood of winning on bad theory is low.

My experience as a judge includes exactly one tournament, so please consider me a beginner. I encourage you to moderate the rate of your speech so I can follow along and better understand your points. If you are speaking too fast, I will hold up my hand in front of my face. My daughter is 10th grade and competes in the parliamentary division.

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!

Hi yall! I'm Kevin and my pronouns are he/him/his. I coach debate at Ridge High School in New Jersey. I debated for Ridge ('20) primarily in traditional Lincoln-Douglas debate, and sometimes in Parliamentary and Extemporaneous debate.

Paradigm Summary:

I'm most comfortable evaluating traditional debate. I'm not very experienced with tech, though I'm most comfortable evaluating LARP debates if I have to. I'm happy to listen to anything as long as it is not exclusionary and is warranted. I appreciate thoroughly warranted arguments and clear overviews at the top of rebuttals. While debate is a competitive activity of persuasion and strategy, debate should be safe and accessible. Please show respect, especially if your opponent is less experienced than you. Be kind to each other :)

Preffing Guidelines: 1&2 Trad, 3 LARP, 4 Kritiks, 5 Anything else tech (Phil, Tricks, Theory, T, etc.)

Experience:

During high school, I qualified and cleared twice at NSDAs (in LD and World Schools) and qualified twice and cleared once at NCFLs (in LD). I also qualified once to Parli TOCs. I'm now a debate coach at Ridge High School, mainly focusing on Parli debate.

Trad LD Paradigm:

I have a lot of fun with evaluating traditional LD debates, and I did this the most in high school! I'm tab and flow thoroughly. Please don't be too fast. Really really love strategic frameworks and framework debates in general. In high school, I typically read util and side constraint/procedural frameworks. Warrant your arguments, weigh early, and link impacts under frameworks. As a judge, I appreciate clear overviews at the beginning a lot.

I care much for quality arguments; quantity doesn't matter as much to me, and arguments should be complete. I have a pretty high threshold for extending and warranting arguments. When you extend, please extend individual claims and warrants. Be specific and thorough. That being said, I still do value efficiency in rebuttals.

To borrow from Ishan Bhatt's paradigm, it's important to note that "arguments do not start at 100% risk—they start at whatever risk your justifications for them imply. The implications of your arguments stem from the warrant, not the claim." For example, if you say nuclear war might happen because of x and your opponent concedes that argument, that doesn't mean that nuclear war will 100% occur (just because they conceded it).

Ultimately, debate is your activity! Read arguments that you feel most comfortable with.

Tech LD Paradigm:

I am generally not good with evaluating tech debates, though I like to judge LARP debates if I have to. I am not very good with speed either, so please slow down and focus on clarity in front of me. Explain your arguments really thoroughly. At circuit tournaments in high school, I mainly did LARP (plan, counterplans, disads, etc.). I occasionally read Deleuze, but I do not have a good understanding of kritiks overall. I am least experienced with everything else (phil, tricks, theory, T, etc.). I have a pretty high threshold for theory, but if there is legitimate abuse, I am down to listen and vote off of it. I dislike having to decide the round procedurally, and I appreciate clear overviews.

Even though I prefer certain arguments and have more experience with certain arguments, I will still evaluate the entire flow (that includes things I am not comfortable with, such as theory and T). Please explain everything super clearly, as if I have never learned the basics of progressive debate. If I ultimately can't explain it to myself, I can't and won't vote for it. I will try my best to listen and understand.

Parli Paradigm:

My "Trad LD Paradigm" section covers a lot of my thinking for Parli. For miscellaneous thoughts, if you plan on tag-teaming (calling on your partner in the middle of your speech for assistance), please only do so if both teams are okay with that and please vocalize that to me before the round starts — I know for East Coast Parli, tag-teaming isn't really a thing, so it doesn't seem fair if one team does it while the other doesn't even know about it. I love seeing the Opp block (the final two, back-to-back Opp rebuttals) being used to its full potential. Use those 12 minutes strategically! I'm also okay with the second Gov and Opp speeches having a new contention, and I think it's underrated. I like seeing POIs being used frequently and clear overviews being read at the top of each rebuttal.

Speaks:

I award speaks mainly off of strategy in round. Be creative and read arguments that you are comfortable with and can explain well. I greatly appreciate clarity too (e.g. overviews, clear signposting and line-by-line rebuttals, etc.). And most importantly, being respectful and kind matters a lot to me!!

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at kevin.pa.tang@gmail.com or ask me in-person before the round starts. Good luck and have fun, yall.

Hey guys I'm Kai Teigen! I use he/him/his pronouns and I'm the captain of Berkeley High School Speech and Debate. I have a few judging preferences you should be aware of:

1. I think Theory is a cool concept but is often used unnecessarily to beat down less tech oriented debaters, so T shells are fine but unless you have genuine ground for abuse it won't make much of a difference in weighing the round. I have similar feelings towards Kritiks; I won't outright ban but I'd strongly advise you not to run them especially in Novice. Ks and other hypertechnical debate styles tend to be pretty inaccessible, and if you do end up running one please explain it clearly and succinctly. The other team must have some chance to actually debate your Kritik or I won't vote for you, regardless of how many fancy sounding words you use.

2. As a general rule I think jargon is pretty silly; use it if you'd like but keep in mind that if it doesn't seem like you actually know what you're saying I'll probably disregard it. I also think speaker points are outdated and unnecessary, so I'll give you the tournaments average speaker score unless you're being condescending or rude, in which case expect to be dropped to the lowest possible speaker score.

3. I judge Tabula Rasa, so if I flow an argument and it goes unrefuted I'll assume it to be true. If new analysis is made in rebuttals, I will expect a point of order and without a point of order that analysis will factor into my decision as if it had been made in constructives. Make sure to weigh your points if you want to influence my verdict; tell me why your contentions matter and what I should be voting on. I have seen incredible teams fall apart in rebuttals just because they failed to weigh. Please don't let this be you. If neither side weighs, I'll weigh using my own political biases (I am no longer nearly as far left as I used to be but still economically and socially progressive) Just make things easy for all of us and weigh the damn points.

4. I'm not a stickler for perfect organization (I tend to be a little all over the place myself) but please keep your speeches as neat and clear as possible. If I don't understand where you are on the flow or I find you repeating a point, I'll take my hands off the keyboard and stop flowing your points until you tell me where you are or move on to a new point.

5. I tend to prefer actual logic over facts: facts can be great kickers to back your point but they're not real warrants on their own. If you want strong links you need to extend the fact, tell me what it means, and tell me why it makes sense and supports your case. Nine times out of ten I'll vote for a team with no facts but excellent warrants over a team that just rattles off university studies and doesn't extend their points, so prioritize reasoning over citations.

6. The last thing I have to say is that debate is supposed to be fun, safe, and inclusive. Don't laugh or smirk at your opponents, don't belittle or demean them, and don't trivialize tragedy. Trust me, none of these look good. IF ANY RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC OR OTHERWISE EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IS USED, I WILL DROP YOU IMMEDIATELY. Please be respectful and kind, because in the end debate is just a game and we're all here to learn and enjoy ourselves. I'll give a verbal disclosure and some feedback at the end of the round, feel free to ask questions but respect my decision because it is final. Good luck!

Background

I'm an experienced volunteer judge with quite a fair amount of recent parliamentary debate judging experience. In college, I was the captain of the Ethics Bowl Competitive Team, which focused on debating a broad array of economic, social, political, and philosophical issues. Additionally, I was an active member of the debate team (the style used was Lincoln-Douglas debate).

In addition to debate experience, I am a bioethicist with knowledge in metaethics; normative ethics; rules, rights, and codes of ethics, including medical codes of ethics; public health ethics; research ethics; the social ethics of medicine; and implementation of ethical policies and unintended consequences.

Professionally, my focus is on health care benefits and value-based employer health care purchasing strategies.

Judging Style

I track / flow every argument in writing, and as carefully as I can, in an excel flow chart.

I judge within “the reality created in the debate round.” For instance, incorrect facts will be accepted as the “working truth” within the round unless successfully challenged by a team. Please don’t knowingly make up facts or statistics for the sake of argument, though.

I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round, and will only infer an argument to a reasonable extent.

There are many ways to win a debate and I enjoy hearing, and am open to, all types of arguments and argument styles (complex, resolution, theory, kritiks, topicality, etc.). I weigh arguments qualitatively, on the strength, logic, and rationale of the arguments made. Debaters can win in a variety of ways from my perspective, including win by flow of main arguments, strategic framework (i.e., premise based), definitions, etc. Excluding abusive cases.

I do not let my personal opinions or beliefs impact how I assess the round.

Speed / Speaking / Signposting

I have heard many different ways of speaking / debating and am not opposed to anything in particular. I do not reduce speaker points merely for what I consider to be an individual’s speaking style.

That being said, I’m not comfortable with high-speed speeches as I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world. Feel free to speak at 100mph, but consider this a fair warning that you risk me having to drop an argument because I simply could not capture it in the flow.

Signposting is preferred, but not critical.

Debater Expectations

I really enjoy hearing competitive debates where teams clearly want to win and are passionate about their arguments.

However, please keep things professional. Don’t harass or interrupt opposing teams (obviously, formal POIs and such are acceptable). Additionally, arguments should never devolve into personal attacks or rude comments.

Language that is sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. is not tolerated by me, or any tournament officials.

(For email chain: michael.christler@gmail.com)

Background: I did college LD and Parli for two years but I'd like to stress I'm still developing as a judge. I'm familiar with a fair amount of debate concepts but I'm not an expert. Just putting that out there.

I'm a flow judge. You tell me to extend, I'll extend. Tell me to cross-apply, I'll cross-apply.

Overview: I prefer the debate to be about the resolution. I think no matter what kind of argument you want to run, it's a way for all of us to at least be on the same page.

Spreading/Presentation: For LD/policy, I'm fine with y'all spreading evidence so long as I have cards to look at (prefer speechdrop but can do email chain if it's necessary) and I can follow along. Parli, not so much. Would definitely prefer you not spread for either when it comes to analytics. I won't dock speaker points for this but please keep it in mind.

What I probably will give higher speaker points for (for those who care) is good presentation: pacing, voice inflection, staging/use of the room's space, etc.

Impacts: The debate for me comes down to impact calc. Telling a powerful story with your speeches is really important to me. I.e., what does your world look like at the end of the day and why should I care about it.

T's: I'm very much a topicality guy. Not strong on other theory/procedural arguments but you can bet I'll vote on a convincing T. As an English major, I love semantics debates and reasons to prefer one definition/interpretation over another. In the debate space, you can argue whatever you please so long as you tell me why it matters.

K's: I'm fine with Kritiks but please make them understandable and accessible to everyone in the room. If I look confused, it's because I'm not following your K. Make it organized, structured, and easy to follow. Go for the Alt and Impacts, compare to the Aff. Alt solvency and strong links are really important to me. For the ROB, explain clearly why my vote has an impact within and outside the round.

(Note: I'm not a fan of Critical Affs)

Signpost well and please make the flow organized as much as you can.

A final note: Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents in round. In my year of debating I met people I was happy to debate with and people who made the activity worse for me. Please do not be like the latter.

If you have any questions, let me know before the round starts. I'm happy to answer any to the best of my ability.

Good luck.

No spreading. I do take notes and flow your arguments, please speak at a speed with which I can do so.

I do not support plan-plus-counterplan strategy.

Be very fastidious with your arguments when using PIC.

I pay attention to Point of Order in rebuttals.

I am familiar with Kritik, Theory, and Topicality.

Please be courteous with one another.

I expect the debaters to time themselves.

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!

Hello :). I am a college student and have judged a handful of times. I do not know many tech aspects of debating, however I have been called a Flay judge. I value clear presentation and good flow, as well as how many supporting facts I hear and their quality. I go into every round prepared to be convinced through facts that one side is correct over the other. I wish everybody good luck.

I am currently a student at UC Berkeley and I competed in Parli throughout high school. I really appreciate:

1. Being respectful, both in the language you use during your argument and how you treat your opponents. I will significantly drop speaker points for racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and other unacceptable behavior.
2. Signposting arguments. I do my best to flow through the round and signposting helps me a lot.
3. Minimizing spreading and jargon. In that vein, please reserve topicality and Kritiks for when they are absolutely necessary.
4. No tag teaming.
5. Weighing and impact analysis. I will not extrapolate your argument from the facts you present, so please articulate clearly why your position matters.

I’m looking forward to meeting you and judging your round!

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and do not run theory shells or kritiks.

My name is Adam, I am an experienced debater (now college student) with more than four years behind my belt. Here are some of my tips for your round with me:

1) Please be respectful and attentive throughout the entire round

2) I am not a tech judge per se but greatly appreciate proper contention/advantage structure. The more organized you are, the more likely I will be to grant you the win. I crave a carefully crafted link chain.

3) IMPACTS ARE ESSENTIAL! A debate is won over impacts - make sure to allocate proper time to them in round.

4) Theory... it's alright. I appreciate the necessity of theory to keep rounds free and fair, but would rather not see the whole round become about it. Make your argument, and move on. I don't need to see a proper theory shell but please make it make sense.

5) SET A STANDARD AND STICK TO IT. I think standards are really important so don't forget to set one or to weigh your arguments against it during the round. If your opponent sets a standard you think is unreasonable, please suggest an alternative for me to weigh your arguments with.

6) I would rather you not bombard me with tons of evidence and facts. Parli is not about how many statistics you know or mathematical wizardry, but about logic and reasoning and argument. If your argument doesn't need statistics to be believed then I don't necessarily need to see them.

7) My flowing skills are good, but don't assume I have every little point down.

8) I much prefer a clear, slow, and precise speaker to a fast one who gets more points in. Debate is not just about arguments but arguing itself - thoughtful presentation and speaking is essential.

9) Have a good time! Debate is best when everybody is really engaged with and enjoying the glorious intellectual battle that it is. Appreciate the activity.

Good afternoon

my name is Jack Wilan (pronounced Jaaaaaack Wilan) and I have about three years of parliamentary debate experience garnered from my precious time on the Berkeley High Speech and Debate team. I am really quite handsome and if you mention this at the start of your debate (the fact that I'm really quite handsome) I will be quite overjoyed and give you an instant "Jack Point" (my own currency) that won't help you win the debate but might look great on college applications.

My Specifics

Standards: I think standards are quite important in the round and will vote on whichever team's impacts and reasoning better holds up to the standard. Aff should always set one in the first speech, if they don't then Opp Is welcome to set a slightly abusive one but it might be kinder to set one that both sides can argue equally under (or just the expected one). Don't set incredibly esoteric standards (like "spears of truth") just go with ones that make sense and make sure to explain how your impacts relate to it in your last speech. 10 Jack points if you set the standard as "net benefits to Jack" (that said it's probably an abusive standard)

Theory: theory can be fun, theory can be silly, but don't make the entire debate about it. Theory should be used to make sure that it's a fair debate but I don't want to see any preprepared briefs or T shells that will invariably confuse me and your opponents. Your theory arguments don't need to be under a clear T shell and I don't want to hear ridiculous sounding jargon and cliche phrasing ("for the education of debate"). Try to cover all theory at the begging of your speech to make flowing easier and just explain it clearly and quickly so we can get on to the real debate.

Kritiks (not sure if I'm spelling that right): Don't run a kritik. They have a stupid name and kind of end up making for a pointless debate. I'll listen to what you have to say and if you're really convincing and you have good reasoning for it maybe, but don't run one just for the sake of it. 5 Jack points for telling me how to spell "kritik" before the round.

Using Statistics: In Parli your arguments shouldn't be centered around statistics but logic and reasoning. You'll probably only have like twenty minutes to prep and if you find a statistic that looks really good for your side then you should definitely include it in your case but don't make the whole thing about it. Just because one side doesn't have a direct statistic to prove something and you do, doesn't mean they can't win that point. Don't make up statistics or 'facts"; if it sounds really wrong I might just not consider it, besides that would be a pathetic thing to do and you would need to live with the horrendous knowledge that you lied to Jack for the rest of your life and would most likely never be able to sleep again.

Organization: Please use contention/advantage structure to organize your arguments and try your best to mention it when making refutations as well. I'm not the fastest at flowing and find it to be very helpful and I'm sure you and your opponents will as well. I'm not going to vote against you just because your structure was bad but try to make it good. Don't spread; I will not hear your points and you will not be able to articulate your arguments as well.

Jargon: I kind of like jargon, it's like a special debate love language, but don't use it for confusion purposes.

POIs and POOs: Not a huge fan of POIs, use them if you're actually confused about something they said and need clarification but not so much as method of offense. You can make whatever that offensive point is in your own speech. If you hear someone making a new point in a rebuttal speech then please do use a POO and they can give a little time to defend themselves for me to judge whether to strike it or not. 50 extra Jack points if you say you have "a poo" you want to make when making your point of order.

Tag teaming: I don't want you tag teaming. If you freeze when speaking or need to formulate a point better then graciously take a little bit of time to compose yourself instead of getting your teammate to help.

Being an asshole: Don't. 20 extra Jack points if you're not an asshole (the easiest way to gain Jack points)

That's all, god bless you and debate your heart out!

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

Hey guys, my name is Chris Ying (he/him). A little bit of background of myself (if you don't care you can just scroll down to the section titled paradigm): I competed all four years while I was at Lowell High School, exclusively in Parliamentary debate. I really care about this activity, and I think debate is one of the best ways to learn more about the world and how to empathize with others. I will say that because Lowell was a more traditional form of parli, I'm not very friendly to the more technical side of debate. To me, not only is it incredibly hard to listen to, I don't think it's very effective for how people in the real-world communicate with each other. That being said, here's the part you actually care about.

Paradigm

1) I judge based off two things: the actual content of your argument (2) and how you argued it (3).

2) I judge the content of your arguments by its merits. I will not give you the win based on a technicality. For example, if your opponents are like 1-2 minutes late, I won't simply put down a ballot for you. I try to be as tabula raza as possible, but if you tell me something that I know is just straight-up false I am fairly inclined to side with whatever response your opponents give. Unless your opponents also give me a really bad response which is also false in which case see number 3.

3) I like clear arguments with each point clearly labeled and taglined. Story-like introductions are fantastic. Speaking-style and clarity is extremely important to me. I want to see good presentation. Vary your speed, vary your tone, vary your volume. That being said, do not spread. If you spread, I will automatically mark you down in terms of speaker points. Speaking quickly is fine, but if you see me just stop writing that means you're going too fast and I'm not flowing anything you're saying.

4) I really do not like technical debate. This includes Ks, tshells, presumption arguments, etc. In addition, please do not use a bunch of acronyms for technical debate terms. I was taught debate in a pretty traditional parli setting (see my introduction) so I will not know what you're saying. The basic rule of thumb is: if you're just talking to some relatively well-read person on the street who has never done formal debate before, can they understand you? If they can't, then I probably can't either.

5) Humor is great. If you can make me laugh, that will go in your favor. Now, that doesn't mean that you can win the round just by making me laugh, but it does make you a lot more likable. Pop-culture references are a good starting point.

6) Please be kind and respectful. Occasional digs that are meant to tease your opponent are fine, but please keep it within reason. Please don't make me disqualify you just because you said something incredibly stupid.

Good luck! You're going to do great.

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.

Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.

In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).

I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.

Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.

I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.

Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.

I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.

Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.

In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.

In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.

Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.

Philosophy: As a judge, my primary goal is to impartially evaluate the arguments presented by both sides of the debate. I firmly believe in the importance of logical reasoning, critical thinking, and the presentation of coherent, well-supported arguments. I strive to maintain neutrality throughout the debate and base my decisions solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

Listening Approach: I approach each debate with a commitment to active listening. I will carefully consider each speaker's points, weighing their validity and relevance to the resolution. It is essential for debaters to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, allowing me to grasp the core of their positions.

Expectations: I expect debaters to adhere to the principles of logic and reason in their speeches. Arguments should be supported by evidence, logic, and sound reasoning rather than relying on emotional appeals or fallacious tactics. Clarity of thought and expression is key to persuading me of the strength of an argument.

Evaluation Criteria:

• Logic and Reasoning: I prioritize arguments that demonstrate logical coherence and are supported by relevant evidence.
• Clarity and Organization: Debaters should present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, making it easy for me to follow their line of reasoning.
• Relevance to Resolution: Arguments should directly address the resolution and contribute meaningfully to the debate's central theme.
• Respectful Conduct: I expect debaters to engage in civil discourse and respect their opponents, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

Decision-Making Process: I will carefully weigh the arguments presented by both sides, considering their strength, relevance, and persuasiveness. I may take notes during the debate to help me remember key points and evaluate the overall flow of the arguments. Ultimately, my decision will be based on which side presents the most compelling case in support of their position.

Final Thoughts: I approach each debate as an opportunity to engage with complex issues and learn from the perspectives of others. I encourage debaters to challenge themselves and each other intellectually, fostering a productive exchange of ideas that contributes to a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.