Okay a quick background on me. I debated (in parli) at Cleveland High School for 4 years, 2 of which I was coaching my team as a captain. I broke at almost all the big tournaments and qualified for NPDL TOC that got canceled :(. Anyway enough about myself.

TLDR

I, to the best of my ability, am tab rasa; I won't extend or refute anything for you. Similarly, run whatever you would like but if you are running something other than case, please read my prefs below. Make your links as air-tight as possible because relying on me to buy something fishy is not a strategy I would recommend. Terminalize your impacts so I can have something concrete to weigh at the end of the day. Also, I strive to keep debate as accessible as possible. That includes using correct pronouns (please put your pronouns in tab. Mine are he/him/his), not running something your opponent clearly doesn't understand, and above all making debate an equitable space for all people. If you have any other general questions or something that isn't answered below, email me at jaredadelmanriley@gmail.com.

Norms (Primarily for Parli but can really be applied across all debate events)

A few key pieces of etiquette that I enjoy:

- Take at least one POI per speech.

- If I clearly clasp my hands and drop my pen for more than 10 seconds that means I've stopped flowing because you've gone over your grace period.

- Please give me a short off-time roadmap before your speech

- PLEASE PLEASE signpost your arguments especially if both sides are running a good amount of things. Saying "the DA" isn't as helpful as having a specified signpost.

- You can tag team but I really don't like it. Once per speech as recovery is fine but more than that and your speaks will drop (see more on that below)

- As for POOs, I will protect the flow so no need to call them. I have found that calling POOs is more often than not used as a flustering tactic than something to keep the round honest. If I see something blatantly new in the LOR or PMR, I simply won't flow it.

- Parli is notorious for evidence marring and I for one had benefited from it. That said, if something sounds reasonable or is honestly misquoted, play through it. If the abuse is clear and round-determining, I will google it after round and factor that into my decision. While I love Tab for all they do, I find that having someone like that try to post-hoc analyze the importance of that piece of evidence in a round is less effective than the judge making a judgment call right before rfd.

-Speaking of RFDs, I will disclose after round so long as the tournament allows me to do so. I am happy to justify anything I saw during RFD and you are allowed to ask me any questions or for advice. That said, remember the debate is over by that point so trying to enhance an argument of yours is futile.

CP/PIC

As a case-first debater, I find CPs to be underused or poorly run given the potential they have. A good CP will allow me to weigh solvency between two plans with ease and a good DA alongside it is a sure-fire strategy for the NEG. Furthermore, I think PICs are gold and not abusive when done correctly. Debate is a game and a PIC is an OP play in my book. That said, be prepared for a T-shell in response and as I describe below, I also love those. For perms, the AFF needs to explain well why mutual exclusivity is missing; for things like delay PICs, I find that they aren't inherently exclusive but honestly its a case by case. Also, I will buy severability perms and only keep the mutually exclusive elements. Additionally, even if NEG is permed and can show why they are competitive through NB, I'll vote on that. Lastly, I live for 0.01% solvency arguments and presumption. Run those well and you may be picking up the ballot.

Speaks and Speed

Ok first for speed. Really go as fast as you like so long as it isn't true spreading (which I frankly haven't seen in parli). However, if someone including myself says slow or clear, slow down. As I said earlier, debate needs to be accessible and spreading is so wildly abusive to newer teams that I will drop you if you don't slow after a few calls for it. Now for speaks:

30: My god you're insane like please win this tournament

28-29.5: Very solid speaking. Most experienced teams will score somewhere in here.

27-28: Average. Could work on something small like clarity or was just flustered at points

26-27: Need some work. Usually I'll explain to you after the round or during RFD what could be improved upon

Below 26: You were abusive in one way or another. Whether that be ignoring times outright, language or something else in that ballpark you were also likely dropped for it. I'll have a convo with you for sure if I score you this low.

Theory.

I honestly love theory so long as you don't use it as a time suck. Simply throwing on an underview that forces a useless response wastes my time. Also, if you are going to run a T-shell please make sure it is in fact a T-shell. Too often I have a half-baked topicality-esque argument that I don't know how to weigh. I'm here for counter-interps (please hit all parts of the T-shell). I know most if not all the basic theory out there but please explain it to me as if I have never done debate before. Lastly, flush out your fairness and education voters and explain why your T-shell is a priori to any case. Also, I won't buy RVIs unless it's clear that the T-shell doesn't address a substantive violation but that's so rare that honestly forget RVIs. In general, the better explained the more likely I am to buy it.

Kritiks

Ok I'll be honest here, I didn't really run K's in HS. I'm totally familiar with all the big ones (cap K, anti blackness, femme, etc) but I find that they aren't winners 90% of the time. For me, K's need to be structured nearly impeccably and explained thoroughly; even if I am aware of the lit you are using, explain it to me like I am a lay judge. Second and most importantly, if your alt is simply "drop my opponents", that's not going to do it for me. The beauty of Ks is that they transcend the debate space and their solutions ought to as well. Debate is a game and while I won't reward abuse (K or not), acting within that game is self-defeating. So in short, come up with a solid alt and then I'm all ears for any K you might have. (I also love Baudrillard Ks for that reason so bonus if you run it correctly)

Sorry this so so long but it's because I love debate and want to give you the best picture of what I'm like as a judge before round starts. Let me know if you have questions on anything!

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

School Affiliations:

• Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Types:

• Parli

Years judging:

• 2-3 years at a variety of tournaments

• Lay judge

Speaker Points?

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

1. Things that will make you lose points

1. Unprofessional language

2. Stating false information

3. Being Disrespectful

2. Things that will make you gain points

1. Humor

2. pace(not too slow or fast)

3. Good word choice

What I vote on:

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

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

Notes Habits:

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

Evidence Preferences:

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

RWI:

• Okay with them as long as they are explained

CX:

• I will not flow

• A good chance to display argumentative skills

• Be respectful

Lay vs Flow:

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

Other:

On K's:

Don't try plz.

On Speed:

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

On Theory/Topicality:

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

On Truth Testing:

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

FW:

I enjoy util.

For Parli:

- PICS are a great part of debate.

- Don't read new evidence in the 1AR

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

I am a former high school and college debater. I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate in high school and CEDA debate in college (1990 - 1995 as CEDA was becoming more policy oriented). I coached college debate teams at Saint Louis University and the University of Missouri at Saint Louis. I am currently a teacher of art history and philosophy at Cleveland High School's Humanities Magnet in Reseda, CA. I have been coaching high school debate for over 15 years and have sent at least one team to the quarter-finals of the CA state debate tournament for the last seven years.

What I like to see in debate rounds.

I can handle a moderate speed policy round and a full spread Parli or LD round. I have lost hearing in my left ear and wear hearing aides, so I simply cannot flow a full speed policy debate round, but have had no problems in LD or Parli. I prefer plan versus counterplan and disad debate. I try to be a tabula rasa judge, but I admit that I am not a fan of performance debate and find most kritik debate to be too esoteric to vote on in most rounds. I will vote on critical theory, but it needs to clearly articulated, providing a specific alternative and weighing mechanism versus the plan or case offered by the affirmative. Reject the aff is not a persuasive alternative for me. I also do not like most plan inclusive counterplans (PIC's). I find them abusive because the negative is basically affirming the plan/resolution in order to negate. I automatically sever any topical portions of the PIC and just evaluate the non-topical portions versus plan benefits. I rarely, if ever, vote on PICs. I also despise rude debate. You can be assertive without being aggressive and rude. I will deduct speaker points for debaters who are overtly rude, abusive, or have offensive body language (rolling eyes or laughing at opponents - even if you are trying to be discrete).

Bottom Line

Be smart, be courteous, debate well, and tell me why you win the round (write my ballot for me in the final speech), and you are likely to win the round and get high speaker points in the process.

Most important: No spreading. Be respectful to your opponents.

I am not a former debater or a technical judge. As such, if you use technical terms of debate, please briefly define them. I have two years experience judging high school debate.

Regarding my background, I am a marriage and family therapist. Before that I worked as an editor at a legal magazine. Prior to that I got my doctorate in English literature. All of this is to say I have spent my life listening to and analyzing language and argument/story structure. I will base my decision on how coherent your argument is, how well you support it, and how well counter your opponent's arguments. I take careful notes during each speaker's speech and pay attention to flow and dropped arguments.

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.

(she/her)

I'm a recent Berkeley grad. I'm experienced in judging lay debate - I've judged parli and LD and have watched multiple rounds outside of my own hires (my partner is a debate coach).

Please warrant your arguments. While I will evaluate arguments as objectively as possible, I will not be particularly impressed if you give me a high magnitude impact without any explanation. Please do not run theory arguments in front of me unless it's absolutely necessary. If your opponent has made the round unsafe for you, I will be on your side - just tell me how I should sign the ballot.

As a general rule of thumb, please be respectful to each other. Add me to the email chain: cchen16@berkeley.edu

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

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

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

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

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

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

And because I cannot stress this enough..

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

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

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

_______________________________

Background

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

General

Tabula rasa

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

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

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

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

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

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I judge rounds

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

Case

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

CPs

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

Theory

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

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

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

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

Hello Parli debaters,

I’m a parent (lay) judge. I’ve been judging for a few years.

Please speak clearly and not too fast. I can only write so fast.

Please be mindful of the time allotted for your speech in order to keep the rounds on time. I’ll give you a 15 second grace period, but after that I’ll stop flowing.

I prefer straight up case debate, and like good clash. Reasonable counterplans are fine. I like facts, scientific data, and logic. I may fact check and it will factor into my round decision.

One of my pet peeves is raising POIs in the protected time. Please be mindful of debate rules.

Call POOs but not for frivolous purposes. The person calling a POO will have 15 seconds to explain why it was raised, and the other person will have 15 seconds to respond. Assume my decision is “point well taken under consideration” and move on. I’ll go back to my flow later to determine if it’s indeed a new argument, and will discard the new argument or consider the argument in my decision if I deem it not new.

I will need time to deliberate and will only disclose my decision in the elimination round as required.

Looking forward to hearing some interesting debates.

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

August 2020

Here is my paradigm from 2017, with only slight modifications. Everything I said below applies, with the caveat that I haven’t really debated or even judged in the intervening three years, and am therefore likely to be rusty.

November 2017

Nutshell: I debated circuit parli for 4 years in high school, with (very) brief forays of LD. Open to hearing any argument as long as it’s impacted clearly and you tell me how to evaluate it. I mostly went for case debate and theory, but I’ve read the K and I’m very open to hearing it as a judge.

LD-SPECIFIC: Everything below applies, especially RE topicality, the K, etc.

Speed — I should be able to handle most things, but a really fast LD spread might outpace my flowing — if it does, I won’t hesitate to call clear.

Framework — Coming from parli, I’m most familiar with util-based frameworks but I have passing familiarity with most things and I’m happy to evaluate meta-ethical debates. That said, all frameworks (but especially non-consequentalist ones) need to clearly explain how I should evaluate the debate.

Theory — If the interp doesn’t have labeled, distinct standards when initially read, I give the other side a lot of latitude to make later responses. That said, if the standards are labeled and not terribly developed, a drop is still a drop.

Policy-style debating — I’ll probably have a hard time penalizing someone for running a plan, but I’m certainly happy to evaluate the argument.

GENERAL:

SPEED:

Shouldn’t be an issue in parli — I can flow as fast as anyone is going to be talking. If this is policy, go maybe 80% and you should be OK — I’ll call slow or clear as necessary.

I’ll never stop trying to flow, but if I have to call clear too many times it probably means I’m not getting very much.

DISADS / CASE:

Yes please. Highly specific and warranted arguments will get you high speaks. Generics make me less happy, but I like to see them debated well and I’m happy to vote on them. Either way, a clean collapse and clear strategy are your friend.

Please do weighing. A couple specific notes here:

• The best kind of weighing is an explanation for why you are ahead on the substantive questions of the debate and your specific impacts need to be prioritized. The worst kind of weighing is “always prefer x,” where x is magnitude, probability, or timeframe. That doesn’t mean that magnitude, probability, and timeframe shouldn’t enter into your analysis, but you should be contextualizing what you say to the arguments made in the round, rather than claiming that one particular criterion always wins out.

• Impacts aren’t inherently improbable. If you want me to vote against (e.g.) a nuclear war impact for being improbable, it should be because you have link defense against it, however generic.

• Weighing (in the above sense of explaining argument interactions) is allowed in the last speech. However, new argumentation still isn’t. If you are going for a higher magnitude impact on the aff, you can’t get up in the PMR and make the uncontested claim that the judge should always prefer magnitude. If you want to make such an argument I’ll evaluate it, but I won’t adopt it uncritically unless it’s made in an earlier speech and conceded.

• If forced to, I’ll default to magnitude as a tiebreaker. However, this is only if I see no other way to evaluate the debate, and you shouldn’t expect this to happen. More likely, if no one tells me what to think, I’ll form my own opinion about what the most important impacts in the round are, and then vote on those. Thus, if your impact is higher magnitude but you conceded terminal link defense, I’ll still vote against you in the absence of explicit weighing from either side.

TOPICALITY / THEORY:

When well-executed, topicality especially is a personal favorite argument for me. If you’re going for T, collapse to it in the block and don’t go for anything else. Impact out your standards. Internal link turn the other side’s standards. Be as clear as you can about interps — to the extent that I can, I’m evaluating what you said and not what you meant, so say what you mean.

Default to competing interpretations — I’m happy to vote on reasonability, but you definitely need a bright line and should tell me how your version of reasonability functions.

I have no particular objection to "frivolous theory" as long as it meets the standard set out in the debate (competing interps, reasonability, etc.).

COUNTERPLANS:

Run them. I especially enjoy thoughtful uniqueness and advantage CPs, but I’m down to hear anything. Make sure to clearly articulate your competition and net benefits, and keep your text stable.

I tend to think one conditional advocacy is reasonable and maybe even good, but I’m highly open to hearing theory otherwise, or for you to read five and justify it. However, I'll never sever arguments, so any claims you make on the CP debate can be used against you even if you kick the counterplan.

Specific counterplans: delay, conditions, etc. are probably cheating, and consult might be. Open to hearing arguments on PICs, alternative actor etc. These are all defaults so feel free to do whatever you can justify.

THE K:

Happy to hear it, although it wasn’t my personal focus. By default, I’ll tend to think about the K debate as a comparison of methods against that of the aff. If you want me to do something else, I will — just make sure to justify it.

Don’t try to confuse your opponents out of the round. That’s bad debating. Especially if your K is confusing, take a bunch of questions and explain what the other side asks you to.

Make sure your alternative solvency gets well explained, and that it resolves your links. This is probably how you’ll lose if I vote aff.

If your framework arguments deny the aff access to the debate I won’t be happy, but I will evaluate them. On the aff, please answer those arguments and leverage your offense within both frameworks.

I may or may not have heard of your author, but either way your threshold for explaining the argument should be the same.

K AFFS:

If they’re your thing, go ahead. I tend to feel like the aff should affirm the topic at least in some form, which means I’m probably more open to framework than some. But debate it out.

I don’t feel comfortable voting on disclosure theory unless you can show me proof there wasn’t any after the round — as in, a text message refusing to disclose. If there’s proof, I don’t have an issue.

TRICKS:

Skep, presumption, and arguments of a "similar flavor" (this includes variants of "vote neg because the resolution is nonsensical): I don't have any particular issue with this strategy, but I'm likely to evaluate it in a fairly all-or-nothing way; for instance, if you want me to vote neg because the resolution is meaningless, I will be reasonably willing to evaluate aff responses as takeouts.

GENERAL:

Don’t be offensive or horrible — impact turning racism, insulting your opponents, etc.

You should really give the other side a text when they ask, and take at least one question per speech. But it’s not a reason you’ll lose unless someone reads (and wins) theory.

For parli: I’ll protect against blatantly new arguments in the rebuttal, but if it’s borderline I’ll let it through absent a challenge from the other side. You should call a point of order on anything you think is new.

Hello debaters. Though I've had a few rounds of judging under my belt, I'm still very much a lay judge. Jargon will lose you the round.

Things I Don't Like:

Spreading, theory shells that rely heavily on structure, kritics, arguments that rely heavily on philosophical ideologies, assuming that I know what you're talking about (because chances are I don't!), being rude to your opponents, unclear speaking, monotone speaking.

I'm pretty tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean you can falsify information and get away with it. I don't vote on POOs or POIs unless something said in them was really abusive. No frivolous theory, if you run it, stick with it. Same goes for conditional CPs. Don't drop your arguments halfway through the round just because it's not working out.

Things I Do Like:

Well explained arguments -- not just in terms of logic, but explaining the argument in a way that the average, non-debate experienced person would understand. Be aggressive, have good clash, but don't overstep your boundary as opponents. I also like emphasis in speech and confidence. Crack a joke, lighten the mood. Nothing is worse than a tense, boring, hour-long debate that makes me want to yawn at the end. If you can golden turn in your last speech, I'm going to vote on it -- but this doesn't mean that you can let that argument slip through the cracks until the end of the round.

Give me an interesting round, but stick to the basics. You'll lose me with the complicated stuff. This paradigm was written by my daughter :)

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

Relatively new to judging debate, definitely a lay-judge. Speak slowly and clearly, absolutely do not spread. I will take notes on the debate and make my decision after the round concludes, so if I don't write one of your arguments, it didn't happen.

Mostly been judging Parli, so I am slightly familiar with how the different resolutions are debated, but do not assume I will understand jargon (general and much less event-specific). I will consider interfering in my decisions if I feel an argument is blatantly untrue or if a side is rude and unprofessional.

I am not familiar with theory; if you make a theoretical argument you must tell me what it is before you expect me to vote on it. This includes topicality - I have considered arguments like that before but am not quick to vote on them.

On that point, your first priority should be to have a debate. If you are going out of your way to be non-inclusive or display a clear lack of sportsmanship, do not expect a favorable result in my ballot.

Although I have judged multiple tournaments, I have never debated or actively coached or taught debate. I prefer you explain everything clearly and to the point. Prefer debaters write the resolution on the whiteboard (if available ) and their names who is in affirmation and who is in opposition along with order pf speakers.

1. No spreading (speak slowly)

2. Be articulate and speak clearly and loudly

3. Off-time road mapping is preferred

4. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time.

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello debaters,

My name is Nitin (he/him) and I am a "lay" or parent judge who knows the basic format of parliamentary debate. I will do my best to pick the team that argues most efficiently and effortlessly in the round.

A couple of personal preferences for the debaters:

- Please signpost.

- I would appreciate it if when speaking, not to speak super fast so a regular person couldn't understand what was being said. I am unfamiliar with most debate jargon and would prefer it if someone explained terms and definitions to me in a simple way.

- I am a fan of persuasive speaking. If you can break down a complex argument in basic understanding, it will be a lot easier to work on.

- As for theory, I am not experienced when it comes to matters of debating about the debate itself. If you happen to want to run theory, prepare to explain it in great detail, as there is a risk of my misunderstanding.

- Please be respectful during the debate. Don't be mean or disrespectful in language/behavior throughout the round, or it may result in lower speaker points.

Above all, the debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun!

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

I am a second-year judge, and I am not experienced with all the technical debate points. Please explain your arguments very clearly while providing logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! Good luck!

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

1. please signpost

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

3. Be courteous - no profanity

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

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

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

*Updated for TOC 2023:

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

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

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

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

Be accessible or I won't be against intervening

Some other notes:

General:

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

Signpost, slow on tags, repeat interps.

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

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

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

Case:

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

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

Case turns only would be interesting to watch.

Theory:

Down for theory debates

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

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

Will default competing interpretations

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

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

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

Ks:

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

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

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

Assume I haven’t heard of your lit.

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

I like clear and concise arguments. I am a very VERY lay judge. I strictly abide by case debate and look down upon theory and kritiks. If you absolutely must run theory for fairness issues, please don't use the jargon. Try to phrase it under something the average person can understand. I will note vote for friv T. If you run a kritik, I will not be able to understand anything and will vote for the other team. Please speak slowly with fluidity so that I can understand. I have a basic understanding of CPs and perms, but please generalize the argument and again, no jargon please. In addition, do not spread or speak fast or else I will not understand and will doc speaker points.

Please call POO's, but do not overdo it. After 3, just tell me to protect the flow. I will try my best to protect the flow even if you don't call a POO in the case of a new argument, but I might make mistakes, so it's still better for you to call the POO.

If you are experiencing internet issues, that is completely understandable. I will allow for time to be paused momentarily until you can regain a stable connection.

Most importantly, please be respectful within the debate space. I cannot stress this enough. A good debate cannot happen without proper mannerisms. And please, have fun!

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

**UPDATE FOR ONLINE**

1. Try not to spread because of Wifi connectivity problems and lagging. If you spread, try and go 70% of your in person speed and make sure you clear/slow if the opponents ask you to

2. Record your own speech in case your wifi drops or someone gets disconnected. I will not use the recording unless I miss a large chunk of your speech because of wifi issues.

Background

Evergreen Valley/East Valley/Eight Valley/East High School/Friendship Academy '18

Case: will default net ben but you should warrant it, try and read ULI formatted ADs/DAs, if there is no weighing will default probability > time frame > magnitude (please weigh)

Theory: repeat your interp twice, try and clarify violations to avoid bad theory positions, open to hearing RVIs, will default competing interps > reasonability

Kritiks: explain thesis clearly, read specific links, most familiar with cap, try not to drop case

Miscellaneous: ok with 1 POI off time if a team did not take it during their speech

**If you have any more questions feel free to ask before the round**

As a parent judge, new to debate, my goal is to take copious notes, refer back to them and look for tipping points. In general, among the debates I have judged, I have found that most teams are comparable and the decision is often close. I believe the mere fact that you are at a debate tournament means both teams are already winners. So, regardless of my decision, please know that the decision is not intended to declare a loser. Instead, you all have won and one team, in my lay opinion won slightly more

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'm a first-year parent judge. I prefer no theory or kritiks. Strong preference to debaters who provide an well-organized and structured argument, where it is easy for the judge to follow key points. I enjoy a lively debate, but also one where the participants/opponents are respectful of each other.

1. Please make sure you signpost your contentions.

2. I like to follow logical and clearly structured arguments.

3. I expect to see good engagement and effective rebuttal of your opponent’s arguments.

4. I’m open to Kritik- take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. But, as I mentioned earlier, my decisions are based exclusively on the arguments and counter arguments presented with strongly backed-up concrete facts or examples.

5. No Spreading, be respectful of your allotted time, your audience and have fun!!

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Hi, I'm Michael!

I am a completely lay (but not lame) judge, but I have a basic understanding of parli debate.

Preferences:

1. I weigh your arguments on how persuasive you are. Throwing in debate jargon will not win you any points with me (I won't understand it anyway).

2. You MAY run theory if your opponent is being clearly abusive in the round. Please EXPLAIN the theory shell clearly to me and describe what each aspect means along with why the team is clearly pushing you out of the debate space. DON'T waste my time on frivolous theory.

3. I am open to Kritiks and other non-traditional arguments, but you must make it clear to me that your argument is relevant to the topic

4. Please TALK SLOWLY and ENUNCIATE. I cannot think and write very quickly at the same time.

5. I will disclose if it is permissible at the tournament.

6. Use REAL warrants. I know a lot about politics and current events, so you have been warned.

7. I appreciate respectful and polite opponents. Please DO NOT be condescending.

8. If you raise P.O.I. make sure it is clarifying the argument, not just being a smart a*s.

9. DON'T STRESS! Debate is a fun activity and I enjoy judging a lively round with a lot of clash. It's about LEARNING not winning!

I am a parent judge (my son tells me I am a flay judge - experienced lay judge), and I'm in my fourth year of judging. I appreciate clear sign posts and logical arguments: tell me what you're going to say (roadmaps are nice), then say it, and finally remind me what you've said. I also appreciate debaters who do not speak so quickly that I cannot absorb their arguments or understand their individual words. I believe that clear, well-paced speaking communicates the debater's confidence in their argument.

I can tolerate theory but not unless you use it judiciously. If I feel like you're using trivial theory shells for strategic purposes, rather than to do what theory is meant for (encourage a fair and educational debate), I will count it against you. If you do run theory, explain it well so I understand.

POOs are allowed and I will discern whether it's reasonable. I expect POIs to be used fairly, and not just to disrupt the flow of your opponent.

No K's, be civil, good luck!

I am a parent judge so don't use technical arguments like theory or kritiks. Stick with case debate only. Good luck:)

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

Parent judge. Speak in a slow, clear and organized manner. I am not familiar with technical arguments, so refrain from reading these.

I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and explain your arguments thoroughly.

I am a parent judge.

-Speak slowly.

-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms.

-Make sure to signpost, and both sides should have offense as well as defense (if your case just has defense then I will prefer the opponent's case)

-Explain links clearly and include warrants to back it up!

-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguments.

Lastly... make sure to have fun! (I don't mind a joke or two!)

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.

Clear and fair debate

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

Updated September 2021

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

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

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

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

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