35th Annual Stanford Invitational
2021 — Classrooms.Cloud, CA/US
Parli - Open Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Congress judging paradigm
No canned speeches, please.
Provide evidence/citations for key assertions.
Clash is a good thing, re-hash not so much.
Interesting or novel arguments are always appreciated, especially if they show you've done solid research.
FAQ and Pet Peeves:
You can call me Judge or Ms. Adint.
I have about 2 years of judging experience thanks to my child having been into speech and debate just like you.
Please don’t shake my hand. "Hello, judge", will do to greet me.
On the big question of framework, I vote either way often.
All arguments are winnable, just provide me ample evidences with logical countering.
politeness is a plus.
Speed is good.
I value reliable evidences and authenticity of each debater’s argument. I am open to any kind of strategy that will help you win, but round voice will not change my vote. Countering is the beauty of debate, so please counter your opponent with evidences and critical thinking skills. I will end the debate in favor of one proposition resolved only by the argument in the round. I want debaters speak their mind the way they see fit.
Email chains and questions: email@example.com
About Me - Gunn High School '20 WUSTL '25 He/Him
General - Do what you want, Tech > Truth. Mostly judge policy but I've coached LD/judged Parli and PF.
Ks (on the neg) - Like em. Don't like long overviews, like line-by-line. Impact calc and turns case are essential if you're not going for FW. Perms should be explained past the tagline. Your framework interp should be very explicit. Case debate is super important. I default to judge kicking the alt.
T - Like good T debates. In-round abuse is irrelevant. You need a caselist. You need to extend a C/I to win reasonability on the aff. I default to competing interps.
DA - Yes. Don't waste 30 seconds on the top reexplaining the 1NC. Both 0 risk and 100% risk exist.
CP - Double yes. Nothing's off the table until the aff reads theory. Condo is probably good. I default to judge kick.
Case - Do it. Impact D is your friend and case turns are viable 2NR options.
K Affs - Go for it. Counterinterps > impact turning everything. On the neg, case is underrated and can be your 2NR. I will vote on framework.
Theory - Needs to be well-developed and explained. 95% of violations have no real reason to reject the team and should be answered as such. RVIs don't exist.
Impact Turns - Like em. Don't read disgusting turns like "sexism good" or "racism good". For borderline stuff like wipeout and death good, unless it makes the other team uncomfy I'm OK with it.
Speaks - Average around 28.7 for a good debate. Below 28 there should be something specific for you to reevaluate.
Misc. - No inserted rehighlightings BUT yes inserting perm texts. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round. If you still have questions after a debate, email me.
I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.
Add me on the Email doc: firstname.lastname@example.org
Here's my view on certain arguments:
T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.
Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.
D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.
K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.
K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.
Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, i'm always ready for your speech and i'll give a reaction in zoom if i'm not.
Update for Jean Ward: I know this is a thing but please understand the time structures prior engaging within the round. I will try to intervene as little as possible.
I would like to be on the email chain, my email is email@example.com
In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.
High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity.
I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.
Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.
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 etc.
I debated in high school at Northstar for 4 years (2015-2019). I am in my 2nd year of policy debate at the University of Louisville. I’m a K debater so I understand a fair amount of critical literature but please be clear and and don’t presume I understand anything. I don’t judge a lot but when I do I try to be unbiased. Have fun and run what you feel comfortable explaining and always be respectful. :)
I am a parent judge with previous experience judging Stoa events in Team Policy, Parli and LD.
I value clarity and persuasive arguments. The quantity of what you say is less important than the quality of what you say. I would rather vote for a few convincing points than a spread of lots of not very convincing points.
For Parli, the text of the resolution is key. if you misunderstand, miscontrue or frame badly the resolution, you will not likely win my ballot.
Parli should be fun so some levity is acceptable and welcomed. Likewise, I weigh cited evidence less than logic, rhetoric, and basic common sense in Parli rounds. Parli should not be about who can do the fastest research in prep time.
I believe that in Parli, the job of the GOV team is to affirm the resolution. As such, the burden of proof is on the GOV team. It is not the burden of the OPP team to affirm anything (e.g. the negation of the resolution).
Profanity is not persuasive.
Have judged Parli for 5 years, also some policy and LD rounds.
No preference to speak rate.
Be respectful of your opponents
Organize your thought before speaking and clearly articulate your arguments in normal speed of speech
Keep your position without deploying your opponents' plan with slight modification
Teams who manage to defend more key contentions will get more points
From a Technology Sales and Marketing background, what I look for in debaters is articulation by:
1) View points highlighted first and detailed afterwards.
2) I am not a flow judge, please help me with highlighting the view points with logic/emotion/voice
3) Please try to address all what came from opponent side succinctly , missing POI insufficient responses
4) I will try my best to stay on debate line but will appreciate the actual facts you use to make a realistic argument
5) A good battle of wits, facts, opinions, and healthy competition is what I look forward to, emotion is important but should not overtake logic
I debated for four years in policy debate at McQueen high school and qualified to the TOC (if that even matters). I currently debate for CSU Long Beach qualified to the NDT twice. Currently, I am a speech and debate coach for ModernBrain which means that at times I have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. even though I judge policy more. For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.
Here's my email - please put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate whether you're policy or kritikal and am open to vote on anything.
Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto vote framework. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on framework. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? Literally, the fact that I coach some K debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage is so sad to me. So, for the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.
Some specific stuff:
T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. The China QPQ T and the Education Curriculum T allowed for some great conversations that were in-depth and allowed both sides to have good reasons for their model of debate. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). In high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) spending a ton of time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level of the debate. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the CJR topic, so make sure T is clear... I have seen 'reform isn't abolition' which I found to be pretty persuasive, but not necessarily unwinnable for the aff.
DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the aff and neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the aff rather than a super generic one (unless the aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.
CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible. With that being said, I don't auto judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: If you don't buy the CP kick it for us. Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.
K - I mainly go for the K, but that doesn't mean I'm a "k hack" by any means. I would mainly go for the k in high school, so I enjoy these debates. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth, HOWEVER, please try your best to explain k as well as possible. Just because I do read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alt.
FW - I think that engaging the aff is something the negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that you want to engage with the aff. The aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I go for FW against K affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a k against a k aff. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of affs that I see don't necessarily need to be untopical, so I feel that the neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)
K affs - I love a good k aff that is engaging. The aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I think the FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community about it. The big problem I've noticed with people running k affs is that they don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. Like I said above, I understand all types of theories and am open for any type of k aff. Against k's, you have to have a competing theory of power that solves for their impacts or avoids their impacts.
Policy affs - Not too much to say here. If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins.
Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate because a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. Debate for me has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me an advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC. It's a place where you can activate your agency. #AbolishTheCoachesPoll
Don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Some literature I enjoy/read in debate - cap, queer theory, settler colonialism, critiques of resiliency, academy stuff, security, psychoanalysis etc. My favorite authors at the moment are Deleuze and Guattari!
I am a lay judge. I generally take notes on my computer while you are speaking. I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments that are well supported by citations to evidence. I don't find spreading to be helpful to the speaker.
I am a parent/lay judge with a few years of experience. I do not recommend spreading or using kritiks, and I appreciate when speeches are well organized and clearly defended.
I debated for four years in high school.
For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.
I'm not amazing with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you. If you don't slow for me, I don't really care but I probably won't get your argument.
I will protect against egregiously new arguments but call the POO. If I am unsure of whether an argument has been read before and no POO is called, I will allow it.
I will give speaks between 28.5-29.5 on average.
Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech. If both teams are okay with it, I'm also down for flex.
Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.
I don't really like IVIs, however, I will vote for them if there is a clear explanation on why it is a priori and it has a developed in-round impact.
I will intervene against explicit OR intentional rhetorical violence. Do not misgender your opponents.
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.
If you tell me to cross-apply/extend something, you need to specify what you want me to extend or how exactly your original argument cross-applies.
I'm cool with most CPs (pics, states, actor, etc) and also cool with CP theory. I will not vote for consult or delay CPs. Perms are a test of competition.
I prefer policy rounds and will vote on plans in fact and value rounds.
Theory is my favorite type of argument. I love a good theory debate. I have a decently low bar as to what I consider frivolous, but I will no longer vote for the following theory shells:
1. Questions (I am okay with 1 question being asked off-time, so there's no need).
2. Disclosure (unverifiable and not in-round).
3. Must-read CP, must not read CP, or must-read K (self-explanatory).
4. Must pass text (I require teams to do this, so there's no need).
5. I will ABSOLUTELY not vote for theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters.
I really enjoy "frivolous" theory that's creative and well-constructed. I don't enjoy frivolous theory that is so ridiculous and poorly constructed that there are 15 intuitive responses to it and it relies on your opponents not knowing how to handle theory. I will vote on it unless it is one of the 5 types I described above, but I will be upset about it.
Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready.
I default to competing interpretations. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable.
I have a high threshold for voting on potential abuse. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I default to drop the argument.
I am neutral on RVIs. It really depends on how well you develop and leverage it.
If there are multiple shells or metatheory, you NEED to layer and tell me which one to prefer and evaluate first. I dislike generic arguments such as "prefer LO theory over MG theory bc xyz" without it being contextualized to the specific shells in competition.
I am good with up to 3 conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.
I am most familiar with Marx and Orientalism, also familiar with setcol, ableism, ecofem/fem, imperialism, militarism. I am not opposed to performance-based Ks, but I am not familiar with them. I would prefer that your K had a clear thesis as free as possible of jargon regardless of what you're reading.
I am neutral on rejecting the resolution, K Affs in general, and framework theory. I think that if you are rejecting the resolution, you should have a good, developed reason why.
From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."
Tech v. Truth
I default to tech over truth but I am 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 am 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.
For case debate, I don't Google evidence or verify any of your claims. I don't vote on unwarranted or unexplained claims. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.
I try to be non-expressive, but I'm really bad at it. Please don't take notice of my facial expressions.
Good luck :^)
I am a parent judge who has been judging for two years. I prefer truth over tech. Please speak clearly and avoid spreading.
I am a lay judge; this is my first time judging.
Don't spread or speak too fast as I will be flowing on paper.
Provide clear explanations to your contentions; if I don't understand something, I won't vote on it.
You need to convince me that your arguments prove the resolution right or wrong better than your opponent.
Have fun, and good luck!
I will choose from among the arguments presented to me. I pay close attention and keep an accurate flow of the debate. Both are important to me. Cross examination exchanges are important as well in shaping how I view arguments and debates. Consequently, I usually have thoughts about who won the debate immediately after its conclusion. Then my decision making process goes something like this: (1) who do I think won and why? (2) does that team think they won for this reason? (3) why does this team team think they won? (4) Are they correct? (5) why does the other team think they won? Are they correct? (6) who has the better claim to victory? (7) Decide. (8) what will be the losing teams complaint and what will I say? (9) Vote. 10. Deliver.
I vote for plans, counterplans, interpretations, performances, alternatives, permutations and presumption. You should be clear about what you are asking me to vote for. Know your plan, interpretation, etc. Know the other team's interpretation, permutation, etc. I usually start with a very narrow question to resolve a debate and they center around these issues. I usually ignore role of the ballot arguments except and unless it helps me resolve an otherwise irresolvable debate. I will usually just dismiss these arguments.
As a judge in a competitve academic activity I find that maintaining fairness is a paramount concern. Deciding these issues usually take precenden over other issues because as ther judge I am the only protection that eitther team has against unfair practices and these matters must be resolved immediately, in the round. Education is an important but secondary concern for me in my role as judge. It's a primary concern of mine as coach. You will notice that my decisions focus exclusively on who I voted for and why and rarely on what I think either team could do better or where either team or debaters came up short. I will talk about these things if asked, but I am primarly concerned with delivering a correct decision that resonably honors both team's expectations. A decision that is fair.
Card clipping: I have been convinced that this is an important thing. If you are caught card clipping in any debate that I am judging I will vote againtst you and give you 0 speaker points and ensure that you receive any and all of the proper punishment. However, anyone who accuses another debater of card clipping in any ddebate that I am judging will be held to an incredibly high burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence. That's something less than beyond a resonable doubt, but should still effectively deter anyone from making any weak accusations. I would much rather not have to decide this debate. Also, it would help me and you significantly if you included a materiality argument when making such an accusation. I.e. the other team clipped cards AND it's materially impacting the outcome of this debate. This is the equivalent of an in round abuse requirement.
Lastly, I do not vote for critiques of performances in front of white audiences. I am not a white audience. You must take note of this when you debate. Even if there are white people around, they don't matter to me as a judge (even on a panel).
LD - I vote for the best asserted and achieved value. Debaters should be prepared to present their value, its significance, and how their side of the resolution upholds their Value and maximizes their VC.
Public Forums - I vote based on which side is better able to provide an evidence based justification for their victory. Debaters should offer a judging mechanism (moral, economic, on balance, etc) and show impacts that prove the superiority of their voter issue.
I only judge the round based on arguments presented in the round (tabula rada) and I can handle spreading. I judge on weight of arguments, however, not the volume.
Congress - speeches are assigned a point total of 1 to 10. Good questions (those that add to the debate and make the speaker evaluate their arguments and position) and answers are worth 1/3 of a point. Points for your BEST speech and questions are then added for a round score.
If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"
Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and have been involved in the debate community for over 10 years. Have extensive experience with policy, parli, and LD debate.
Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.
Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.
Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation
Online Debate Adaptions
Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.
1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.
2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.
3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.
4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain
General Argument Thoughts:
Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.
DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.
Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative.
Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure you're clearly articulating your arguments while leveraging your evidence. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.
Did three years of parli debate in high school.
Don't spread too fast or I'll stop flowing.
Make sure not to drop arguments.
My email is email@example.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF
On general argumentation:
I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.
Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.
Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.
If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.
I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.
I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.
The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.
I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.
If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.
For carded debate:
Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about
I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.
Please speak clearly and concisely. I'm not a fan of spreading.
I am a parent judge
-avoid runing theory or Ks. If you choose 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 opononets case)
-Explain links clearly and include warrants to back it up!
I will vote on ehichever side provides the best logical arguments.
Lastly...make sure to have fun!
From the origin of my debate career, I have been a parent judge. Therefore, I really like it when you stand up straight, look me in the eye, and pay attention to the other speakers and your partner. If you think those things don't matter, you may be surprised in the future. I absolutely believe that debate, and especially Parliamentary Debate, is a fantastic endeavor. I will honor that and I will expect you to as well.
My experience spans about 13 years as I squired my two youths to as many tournaments as we all could attend and judged many rounds. Those two are coaches now and I have remained active because I believe in what the community is doing. So show me what you, and they, have gotten from this activity, such as:
· Critical thinking about the arguments you propose from great use of prep time
· The ability to cogently rebut your opponents case
· Eloquent communication of those arguments
· Tactical elements of argumentation
Speed: It’s fine if you can continue to enunciate appropriately so your opponents and I can hear your arguments. If a case is made but we don't hear it, then it doesn’t exist. If this judge doesn’t hear it it's a sure bet the case does not exist.
Pet peeve: Most plans cost money. It will be beneficial if you have a relatively good idea of how much is needed and where you intend to get it.
Tactics: K’s, Perms and Theory arguments are clever when done well and lose when done badly. Plan Inclusive Counterplans almost always work against you. If an opponent makes an argument that is unfair, you still have to call them out for it. Otherwise, like unchallenged contentions, it will flow through.
There has been quite a bit of change in the debate community and improvement in tournament activity. You should be proud of your participation. Everyone is in the room because they respect the activity of debate. We can demonstrate that and show our respect for each other. I will listen intently and try to deliver a lucid decision. Sometimes RFD’s delivered quickly can sound abrupt. Please don’t be offended. You are great competitors and often significant academic achievers. Getting better requires understanding why votes go against you, not how wonderful you are. I want to walk away better for hearing your arguments. Good luck and thanks for the opportunity.
I debated parli for four years in high school for both Livermore High School and Mountain View/Los Altos. For two of these years I was active on the NorCal high school circuit. I am continuing debate with Santa Clara University. I am a Computer Science and Engineering student so please don't lie about tech.
Approach to judging
I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I am not going to do work for you or throw out arguments I do not like. Simply I am more likely to buy certain arguments and less likely to buy others.
I come to debate seeing some of the split in the community as a competitor. I believe that debate is both a game and an educational activity. Debate does not occur in a vacuum, and as public speakers or future policy makers, debaters have a responsibility to not use rhetoric upholding racist, sexist, etc ideologies. I will average speaker points based on the tournament average, but will save 30s for exceptional speeches.
Counterplans: Counterplans are great, but the neg should explain how it competes coming out of the 1NC. Permutations are legitimate, but they are a test of the advocacy, if the aff advocates for the perm, I view that as severance. Kicking CPs is fine as are multiple CPs or advocacies, although I am open to the theory arguments against them as well.
Evaluation order/methods: Framework and arguments may change my evaluation order, but this is the default.. In a tie, I vote neg unless the neg has a CP or other advocacy flowed through at the end of the round, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, and default to net benefits for both..
Impacts: Have impacts and terminalize them. Don’t worry about getting to nuke war unless you have a good linkstory. Dehumanization is important, and discussion of systemic impacts is encouraged. I also like the environment and technology, so impacts based around that may earn you higher speaker points.
Kritiks: I am happy to listen to most kritiks, aff or neg. Kritiks requiring spreading your opponents out of the round are difficult for me to accept and I am more likely to vote on speed theory than many judges in the circuit. If your opponents call slow or clear, slow and/or clear, DO NOT just ignore it. If you are going run a K, make sure you clearly explain how it functions and the literature. I am not conversant at a high level in most literature, and even if I am, it will make the round clearer and more educational for everyone involved. Signpost your K and keep it clear and organized. Also be prepared to give your opponents a copy of the alt text if they ask. I tend to evaluate prefiat arguments first on framework, but I am willing to weigh discursive implications of the postfiat arguments/case against them. I do expect that those facing a K will put in good effort to engage with the K, even if they are looking for me to vote other places on the flow, so argue more than just framework or theory (unless you’re being spread out, in which case that is more acceptable). I am also more willing to weigh generic arguments against the K, but make sure to explain how they interact with this K in particular.
Also stealing something from Julie Herman in how I deal with K alts to encourage more variety and better Ks:
I am trying something new here. I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does.
Theory/Topicality: If you want me to vote for theory, you need to make sure to give it impacts/voters. If you want it to do something else in the round, explain how it should function in the round. I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but please don’t use theory just to beat a less technically skilled debater. Theory has a place both as a strategy and to maintain fairness, but don’t overuse it. I err towards voting to maintain fairness and education, and default to competing interpretations on theory. I will vote on RVIs but not commonly, so make sure you have good reasons for it (ie critical turns or clear times skew).
Formatting: I can follow any formatting, but I prefer advantage/disadvantage for policy rounds. I can follow best if you signpost and have a clear structure. Impact calculus and an overview in the final round make my job the easiest.
Tag-teaming: I am fine with tag-teaming, though I will only flow what the current speaker says. If it takes over, it may impact speaker points.
Questions: Points of information are good. Use them strategically to either get the opponents onto another topic or clarify the case or debate. Points of Order stop time, with the side calling the point of order gettting to make their case, then the side defending getting to respond. There shouldn’t be back and forth in this time. I will make a ruling and then time will start again.
Respectfulness: Be respectful! Rhetoric is important and I am very open to voting on issues about speech in round if one side is hostile/offensive towards an oppressed group. I will buy rhetoric turns and rhetoric can undermine your case. I will penalize speaker points for hostile or offensive speech acts regardless of your opponent's’ responses.
Speed: I can follow moderate speeds, but may penalize speaker points if your speed interferes with comprehension. Be respectful of your opponent. If they have a high level of difficulty following your speed and make an impacted argument about it in round, I am open to voting on it. You can decrease the chance of me doing this by slowing/clearing if they yell SLOW or CLEAR. If you repeatedly ignore these requests, I will punish your speaker points. I will call slow or clear if I cannot understand you, but will do this a maximum of 3 times, after that I will just put my pen down and stop flowing if you’re going too fast.
Other: I expect you to provide a written copy of a plan/CP/K thesis/K alt/Interpretation to the opponent if asked, you may want to write it out ahead of time. Any team should be able to call “text” during your speech and you should get them a copy by their speech, but preferably asap. Please read these parts or your speech twice and slow down a little if you are going at any sort of speed.
If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.
I am a reasonably experienced parent judge, having judged LD, Parli, and PF at local, regional, and national level tournaments. I have also judged all types of speech events. I am an attorney and a former law school professor. I am looking for clearly articulated contentions, well-structured arguments, coherency, and strong analytical and rhetorical skills.
Racist, sexist, and other discriminatory comments and conduct will not be tolerated. Be polite and respectful both to your opponents and to me as judge. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If your opponents have identified pronouns to be used in addressing them, be respectful and use them.
I tend to prefer fairly traditional arguments. No spreading please. I am reasonably well-versed in theory, but I find that debaters often don't have the background knowledge to pull it off. If I cannot follow the argument, it won't help you. At the end of the round, I should know why you used it.
On a standard 30-point scale, 30 means I think you should win the tournament. 25 means you might want to rethink some basic aspects of your debate.
I have been judging Parli rounds for 2 years and enjoy the diverse topics I hear during the tournaments and how students bring their viewpoint to convince me to give their arguments maximum weightage.
I have been impressed by data driven arguments as that gives evidence versus just empty statements made to prove your opponents wrong. Sometimes these evidences are the winning factor for events I have judged without any bias in my decision.
Good eye contact, voice modulation to stress important points and body movement can help to justify the points as needed. You don't have to have a shouting match to win an argument but rather prove it based on evidence stats. I don't prefer theory or K arguments, although I will acknowledge any valid points given.
Good luck to all participants and continue to keep learning and improving as you debate your peer students.
My name is Shantanu (he/him/his), feel free to call me by my whitewashed name - Shaun. I judge: LD/PARLI/POFO/I.E./POLICY
A little context about me:
I am a sophomore at USC studying a bunch of interdisciplinary studies. I am a veteran debater, recently just moved to college. I debated for about 8 years in Los Angeles, with experience with lay debate and with circuit debate. Our team was small and underfunded, so I got to see all types of things in the debate community. My experience in debate started with speech. I continued speech throughout my debate career but then meshed PoFo to start an actual debate. I did POFO for 2 years but didn't enjoy the partner structure of debate - my partner was highkey an idiot - so I then moved to Lincoln Douglas and continued that through middle/HS for 5 years. My team was almost completely PARLI and POFO, so I had a lot of experience coaching and judging that as well. I am currently in the debate community as a judge for hire, as well as a drop in coach. I competed a little bit in college but didn't enjoy my time in British PARLI or Policy as much as I did in HS. Regardless, I am here to listen to you and hope to learn from you as well as contribute to your debate careers.
Spreading/Speeding: Im completely fine with it, no matter what the speed is; however, I will say that if you are not clear. and articulate, you will lose speaks. If you decide to spread, please make sure to have a case drop accessible for me to follow along and flow.
THEORY/K/OFF-CASE: I love creative argumentation, so I am totally game for this. make sure you explain your arguments well, but don't spend too much time on off-case. Get the argument in and move on, I do not need to know EVERY impact and little, however, I do need you to drive it home well. I expect you to be able to run your T/K/CP/whatever, but still argue the resolution and way above your opponent
IMPACTS MATTER: this is obv. however, don't spend too much time on the BS impacts that are extrapolations in a world that doesn't exist. If you are weighing your impacts as terminal impacts that really don't EXIST in this world, I have little care for them. Ask me to explain this more in the round if you would like.
VOTERS: Coming from an LD background, I like it when debaters bring their argument back to a weighing mech (i.e. Value/VC, a voter, a weigh, an observation, etc). I WON'T FLOW THINGS OR CONNECT THINGS I DO NOT HEAR YOU MENTION; however, I do not believe in abusive flowing. If you have a subpoint that is so small but your opponent doesn't say anything against it, I will not be giving you the points for that entire contention. I respect meaningful clash, and meaningful argumentation, so I won't let you get so nitty-gritty with your flow. At the same time though, I do value silence as a concession in the debate, so if you do not argue against an observation/contention/theory/weighing mech, I will probably continue to flow it.
JOKES: I love it when debaters through jokes / puns into the debate. I will def raise your speaks if you can do this effectively. Can't say I will max you out, but it will help
DONT BE AN A$$: Debate is about learning. I am totally for you being aggressive during XC and during POs, but as soon as something disrespectful/accusatory is said, I will def be taking it up with TAB. Respect your opponents, their pronouns, and their time.
LANGUAGE: If your cards site language other than English, it is fine as long as the majority of your impact and evidence can be translated for the judge and your opponent in English. Im all for bringing cultural context into the debate, however, don't be disrespectful.
I am a parent judge and I have mostly judged Parli rounds at these tournaments. I prefer that debaters speak slowly and clearly so that I can follow the arguments and flow.
I competed in Parliamentary Debate and Impromptu for four years in high school and this is my second year judging both speech and debate tournaments, I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.
About me: I am a parent judge with a daughter who does Varsity Original Oratory and Parliamentary Debate. I am no stranger to speech techniques as I mostly judge for speech.
Duration of Judging: 3-4 years (the judging record won't reflect this)
Below is the outline for how I will judge for speech:
I will rank competitors based on:
Complexity of Topic
Please be present and respectful during rounds.
I have been judging high school debate for several years, but I'm not super experienced in fancy debate terms so please articulate your arguments in a way I can understand.
I'm a game debater and what that means for you is I'll judge any argument, any speed, run whatever, go nuts. I'll judge a round with spread debate, I'll also listen to a speed procedural.
I like structured debate. Be careful of the line between aggressive debate and being rude to your opponents because at the least it will lose you speaker points fast. When it comes to the win I'll be tab so go for whatever position you want. When it comes to speaker points I look for structure, good line by line, and people not being jerks. I'm not looking for you to be overly formal and courteous, I'm just not gonna award high speaks to people that are condescending.
Three pieces of advice:
1) Quality over quantity. A few strong, thoughtful points is better than many peripheral positions.
2) Listen to the other perspective. Your position and argument will be stronger if you understand the nuances of the opposing point of view.
3) Have fun. I have such respect for all of you, your creativity, and your resilience.
You all will be better communicators, citizens, and problem solvers having committed to debate!
Thank you for creating opportunity for judges.
I look for the following in speech events in general...persuasiveness of your speech, structure of speech, clear conclusion, your interpretations of quotes or statistics, and clarity of thought process. Based on the specific event I usually look for additional elements in your speech.
I am looking for the following in debate events...persuasiveness of your speech, structure of your speech, clearly support your arguments, clarity of rebuttals, and strong conclusion.
Your video/audio quality, speaking style, spreading/speaking fast does not affect my judging. But, speaking at regular pace and clearly will help me in understanding your arguments better.
I did circuit LD, parli, and Congress in high school for Mitty and I coach there now (qualled to states, nats, and was pretty highly ranked in parli), and I'm a freshman at Cal doing CS and Business (firstname.lastname@example.org). 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 yeah I'm fine with anything. I'm fine with any type of argument (phil, Ks, theory, CPs) and any arguments against them. I'm pretty tabula rasa, like the limit approaches infinity for how tab I am.
You do you, just don't be a meanie. Also, be clear and dont go like 300+ WPM, I'm probably tired.
Dougherty Valley Lay Judge
How many years have you been judging?
I've been judging for 2 years.
How will you award speaker points to the debaters?
I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.
What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?
I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude.
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?
I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not flow. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.
Preferences on the use of evidence?
I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.
How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?
I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.
I am a parent judge with some experience judging parlimentary debates in the last five of years. Starting with a road map is helpful for me to follow your round. I value clarify over speed. I appreciate strong reasoning and data/facts-supported analysis to make it clear for me to decide who wins the round. It is also important for me to see you are respectful to your opponents.
I am a parent judge for parliamentary debate. I am still new and learning. Generally I shall try to judge tabula rasa. Please make good arguments and follow the rules and showcase your debating skills.
POI: Please do take and ask POI's . However please do not get excessive
Tag Teaming: Very short tag teaming for important points are ok
Speed: slightly faster is Ok but no spreading
Please be respectful to each other.
Please ask if you have questions.
Good luck and have fun!
I prefer a slower debate. I would rather that you thoughtfully discuss your strongest arguments instead of rushing through a list of points that are not effectively developed.
I do not have any experience as a competitor in debate. I have judged in two debate competitions.
I like a natural presentation style. I am not concerned about technical flaws, but I find that overly casual presentations detract from the argument.
tldr: Treat me as you would any other lay judge.
A little bit of background information: I have been judging parliamentary debate for about 7 years. I prefer arguments that are simple and well reasoned.
Homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc. will not be tolerated and you will be dropped and receive low speaker points if you exclude anyone from the round.
⁃ Numbered arguments are easier to follow
⁃ Quality over quantity when it comes to the number of arguments
⁃ I would prefer if you didn’t spend too much time debating things on the top of case unless it has a significant impact on the rest of your round
⁃ Impact out your arguments and tell me why you outweigh the other side
⁃ If there are any specific abuses in the round, please tell me slowly and clearly what rule they broke and why they should be dropped, and I will consider it
I'm a sophomore at Cal Poly SLO. I did parli in high school as well as several speech events. Framework! Make sure you have a weighing mechanism. I would prefer it to be specific, but net benefits works too. I like CP's a lot but be sure it is mutually exclusive. I'll have a detailed flow of the round. I'm fine with theory but give me a compelling, education-based reason to vote on it. In final focus, make sure you collapse on the most important voting issues. Lastly please take at least one POI and preferably 2 (assuming they are asked).
Please ask me before the round if you have any questions! I am also happy to stay and review the round after, assuming there's time.
This is my second year of judging and my first time for Parli. Also I am lay judge.
When Judging debates and presentations, my number one criteria is logic. I prefer logic driven arguments over well-delivered ones. If your points make reasonable and logical sense, I will be inclined to side with you. To me, content and reason matter the most during a debate. Regardless of how eloquent you are, if your logic and reasoning do not flow well, I will be hard pressed to vote for your side.
I find it a kind of joy to be able to examine the evidence presented by both sides of a debate. The integrity and quality of the evidence both come into consideration when I cast my vote, so please be honest and thorough with your evidence. Truthful and honest arguments from both sides will make the debate more enjoyable for all parties.
Prepare, speak slowly, but also relax and have fun! Take this as a great opportunity to work on some skills that will be useful in your life no matter what you do and be gracious!
Good luck participants!
I am a parent judge who is not very familiar with tech. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to other debaters especially during POIs. Ask questions that are thought provoking.
I'm a parent judge.
I value a well prepared and well delivered case.
I want you to speak slowly and clearly. If I cannot understand what you say, you didn't say it! Don't spread, please.
I like effective rebuttals with clear impacts.
Please respect your opponents, keep the language civilized.
Speak clearly and don't race through your contentions. No spreading.
No K's. Minimal use of theory, only if absolutely necessary.
Please give brief background context to the resolution, including why it is important.
Specify contentions (usually identified by number) and sub-arguments (usually identified by letters) clearly and consistantly throughout the round.
Deep breath and relax.
This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.
I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.
I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.
That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.
In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.
I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.
And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.
So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.
I am very inexperienced, and new, to debate and judging tournaments. Criteria I will use to judge will be how well the debaters are able to present their cases and if their evidence and reasoning tie back to their main ideas/points. All though it is a tournament and things get stressful or frustrating at time, I encourage all debaters to mainly just try their best and have fun!
This is my second season as a parent judge, so I’m a layperson but learning. Don’t assume I know the jargon, and even if I do, I still want you to explain things in plain English.
I can follow rapid speaking, but I appreciate organization, clarity, and carefully worded arguments. You will do better with me if you take your time and go for clarity. I look for the points that are most important or should have the most weight, so help me understand what part of your argument you think really matters.
Light theory is ok, but be prepared to carefully spell out why it applies and why I should use your theory argument in my evaluation.
This is supposed to be fun, so humor is welcome. I look forward to a great round!
This is my third year judging high school speech and debate as a parent judge. I enjoy judging debate rounds.
Some things that you might want to take into consideration in your rounds:
· I would prefer you avoid spreading and avoid technical arguments (Theory, Ks, etc). Stick with the substance of the debate.
· Being aggressive is fine but be respectful
· While I am not a flow judge, I'll do my best to follow you, you can help by signposting and highlighting the key points
· I value a strong understanding of the topic, arguments supported by reasoning/evidence/facts and like a great Cross-Ex or POIs
· Provide clarity and summarize the round in your final speech, explaining why your side should prevail on the key issues
· Speaker Points: I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there
Have fun, it's your debate.
General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I have multiple years of college debate as a competitor and judge so I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.
Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.
Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.
If a team includes triggering language in a round without giving a sufficient content warning (one that allows people to opt out of listening to that triggering language) I am willing to vote on a theory that calls that out. Debate should be able to provide a safe space where we can all engage without having to relive trauma.
Also in regards to content warnings - when talking about possibly triggering issues using general terms, instead of specific or detailed examples, and including the term you will use in the speech in your content warning is a good way to better engage with other debaters and me as a judge.
Kritik: I’m not a huge fan of the kritik. You need to make sure the arguments are accessible to everyone in the round. I don't have extensive experience with kritik's and would not recommend running it in front of me but if you are clear, make valid arguments that everyone can follow, and win on the flow I can vote for it.
Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.
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.
Stanford University (Stanford Debate Society) '24.
4 years of varsity speech and debate at BASIS Independent Silicon Valley - Coast Forensic League. Did LD at NCFL Nationals, Extemp at TOC, NCFL Nationals, and NSDA, World Schools at NSDA.
I value arguments rooted in logic, evidence, and reason, as well as clarity and organization in speeches. Showing solid, nuanced understanding and analysis of the topic will also be rewarded.
Make good use of cross-examination and rebuttals to identify flaws in and explicitly refute your opponent's case. Please weigh arguments and impacts, and have good clash.
***Update for NPTE 2021***
Online debating often comes with harsher audio quality and this makes it harder for me to understand you, plus it is harder for me to call clear or slow while navigating between the numerous tabs open for me to even judge online debates. It is imperative that you taper your top speed in order to
(1) clearly differentiate between the number of argument you are reading (e.g., "the first response is..."), your tags, and your warrants,
(2) accurately and clearly signpost, and
(3) give me "pen time".
This is no longer a request but rather a necessity for me to flow the entire debate and ensure an accurate decision; basically, if I said you were too fast at NPDA, you should adjust to this or you will likely be unhappy with my decisions. Also, proven abuse > potential abuse.
I am hard of hearing and will lose args if you speak too fast or unclear - please slow down on basically anything that isn't carded text (think about 85% your top speed). I competed in policy, NDPA parli, and NFA LD reading virtually every type and style of argument. Have the debate you want to have, and I'll adjudicate as best I can. I'm not the best judge for theory outside of topicality/CP theory/spec. Line by line analysis is important, and I prefer the final rebuttals to construct a story detailing how arguments interact with one another - I want to do as little work as possible deciding the round. Engage your opponents in good faith. I prefer explicit clash over embedded clash. Include me on the email chain - email@example.com - or start a Speechdrop.
Parli - Repeat all texts/advocacies/theory interps twice (or put them in the chat for online debate) and slower than you read your other args. Organization is necessary, and perhaps more important in parli than any other format, so make sure to number your tags and subpoint your warrants or they will likely get misplaced. Finally, most parli speed is fine but not when it trades off with clarity - you are much better served going slower in front of me so that your warrants are intelligible - I'm not afraid to tell you I didn't vote on something because I didn't hear it or wasn't able to get it on my flow.
Affs - Don't be condo. Read links, internal links, and impacts. I would prefer if you have a stable advocacy of some kind; despite this preference, I think performance affs are cool and important so long as I'm told how I ought evaluate them. I prefer framework read at the top of the aff rather than at the bottom.
DAs - Love them, read them, tell me how they complicate/short circuit the aff especially during impact weighing. The aff should read offense against them. Not a fan of one card disads because link level analysis is often shoddy or even non-existent.
CPs - I assume CPs are conditional. No solid opinion on multi-plank CPs at this point in time; could be persuaded that they're good/bad. Big fan of PICs and advantage CPs. Perms are just a test of competition. Abusive CPs could justify abusive perms. I prefer one comprehensive counterplan over multiple smaller positions.
Ks - I spent most of my career reading the one off K; more knowledgeable on social justice oriented Ks compared to modernist & postmodernist Ks, but don't assume I'll backfill warrants you don't read. Methods debate make for interesting perm debates - tell me why you do/don't get a perm. Links are necessary, alternatives/advocacies are necessary. Framework should be established sooner rather than later. No opinion on floating PIKs. Your K should be longer than one card.
Theory - Competing interpretations seems best for evaluating theory, because I'm not sure how to conceptualize reasonability absent debaters telling me otherwise. Fairness and education are voters, and standards should be internal links to them. Not a fan of paragraph theory/nail bomb affs, but read them if you like them. Tell me explicitly why the aff is extra topical or effectually topical to ensure that I understand the arguments.
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- I was a Parliamentary Debater, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse.
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
I am a second year parent judge, and have judged about 5 tournaments. No confusing theory, try to stray away from using K's. You can spread, but spread reasonably so I can understand everything you are saying. Make your arguments and contentions clear so I can write down what you are saying, and articulate to me why your side won and why I should vote for you.
My name is Marion Santo. I've been an active member of the Stanford Debate Society for almost half a year, competing in various BP and APDA tournaments.
I will vote on anything, but it's impossible to be completely Tabula Rasa.
I like interesting logic and dislike generic arguments. I will try to filter for these biases but you should be aware of them.
Please read all plans, counter-plans, alternatives, other advocacies, and roles of the ballot twice and slowly.
I believe that I have to personally believe real-world impacts are good or non-existent to vote for them (more on this below).
I assign speaker points based on persuasiveness.
Call the POO, I don't protect the flow.
I default to competing interpretations, but am very open to reasonability arguments.
Please don't shake my hand.
I competed in middle school MSPSD for three years, high school policy for one year, and high school (California) Parli for three years. I went to TOC, did well at invitationals, etc. I am currently in my third year of APDA/BP at Stanford, and I coach at Sequoia High School. I am an economics major.
Case was my bread and butter as a competitor. I don't have any particularly hot takes about it. Structure is useful. I find generic arguments a bit tedious, though I acknowledge their strategic utility.
I generally dislike the generic way people use kritiks to gain competitive edge. That being said, I will still vote for one if you win it, and if you have a relevant Kritik, please deploy it just as you would any other argument. I only ran one kritik ever in high school debate, and it was an argument of my teammate's and my own creation, so I am not familiar with any of the lit bases. (I also think completely original Ks are interesting.) If I don't understand your argument, I will have a hard time voting for it.
My partner and I almost exclusively ran theory when our opponents were actually abusive. That being said, I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it. I default to competing interpretations, but am less anti-reasonability than most judges. I don't believe you absolutely must give me a specific set of criteria that define reasonability, and I think that the debate doesn't have to end when one team says "reasonability leads to judge intervention." (If it does end there, though, I will vote on that argument.) I think potential for abuse is a real thing, though of course you have to warrant it in round like anything else. I don't care if you're condo unless the other team does.
I'm fine with speed up to a point, and will shout "clear" or "slow" if you're unclear or too fast. I am willing to vote on speed theory, just like any other argument. Please also shout "clear" or "slow" during your opponents' speeches if you need to.
Points of Order/Protecting the flow:
I don't protect the flow (meaning I won't discount new arguments in the rebuttals unless you call a Point of Order). Please call as many POOs as you think necessary. There were several times as a competitor when I didn't call POOs because I was worried about the judge getting annoyed, and I don't want you to feel that way. If you think they're making a new point, let me know. I will rule on every POO as "well-taken," "not well-taken," or "under consideration." After maybe the 5th well-taken POO, I will just ask you to stop calling them and announce that I am going to start protecting the flow for that speech, in order to save time. The exception is on panels, in which case I will not rule verbally on POOs.
I am absolutely willing to hear a non-technical round, as long as this doesn't mean it's an unorganized round. I don't want you to feel like I will be biased against you if you don't have technical debate experience. If you are a non-technical debater and feel intimidated by theory, kritiks, and spreading, I encourage you to watch this round in which a team of non-technical debaters beat a team spreading and running a kritik, just with logic and good argumentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoQ9kiCi1ho
If you win any real-world impacts in the round, one of two things has to happen for me to vote on them. Tl;dr at the bottom.
1. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, and I believe personally that voting for you will affect the real world, then I have to personally believe your impacts are good to vote for them. This is because if I believe that voting for you will actually affect the world in a negative way, the result of the round matters less than the negative effects that voting for you creates. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I believe that is true, I will vote against you because I personally think a Marxist revolution would be bad, and I can't let my ballot increase the chances of that, even if you win the argument in round. Just as you would argue that actual good done to the outside world comes before in-round or in-debate impacts, actual bad done to the outside world comes before in-round and in-debate impacts, and I have to do what I believe is best for the world first.
2. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, but I don't personally believe that voting for you will affect the real world, then I will just vote on the flow, because there's no moral imperative for me to affect the real world if I don't actually think voting for you will affect the real world. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I don't believe that's true, but you win that it's true in-round, I will vote for you even though I think a Marxist revolution would be bad, since I don't actually think that voting for you will cause one.
Tl;dr: So basically, if you want to win a real-world impact argument, you need to either:
1. convince me personally that you have real-world solvency and convince me personally that your impacts are good, or...
2. Win real-world solvency in round, but fail to convince me personally that you affect the real world.
I highly value viewpoint diversity. I think that there's a lot more room in debate for politically diverse arguments than we usually hear. I encourage you to make arguments from political perspectives different than your own.
Non-verbals in round:
I'm a somewhat reactive judge. If I'm nodding when you're talking, you're doing well. If I look confused, please explain further until I nod or otherwise indicate that I understand you. If you talk really fast, I will have to sacrifice some or all reactiveness to focus on flowing. I will also be less reactive when I'm on a panel.
I assign speaker points based on persuasive speaking abilities. This doesn't mean don't spread, I've seen many people maintain persuasiveness while speaking fast, but if spreading causes a detriment to your persuasiveness, then it will be reflected in your speaker points. What is persuasiveness? Hard to define, but it includes smart argumentation and the effective delivery of that argumentation. I know this is subjective, but I don't know how it's any more fuzzy than whatever standards most flow judges use. If I'm nodding my head a lot while you speak, you're probably doing a good job. Major points for humor.
I won't intentionally doc you speaker points or the win for making racist, sexist, etc. arguments unless the other team gives me a reason to...I think it's pretty weird that this is a norm since it is clearly judge intervention. I will, however, doc speaker points for being rude or demeaning to your opponents in round.
If you speak exclusively in double and triple negatives, I will give you a 30 and personally seek out your other judges for the rest of the tournament and encourage them to give you 30s as well.
I am a parent judge with only a little experience in debate. Here are my preferences for the round.
-Avoid technical terms (like the TULI format). Instead, just guide me through your case and explain the points.
-Speak slowly. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow what you are saying and I will just end up ignoring what you said.
-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms. Perms are 100% okay, but still explain without the technical terms.
-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguements + warrants to back it up!
Debated BP debate in college
I am a lay judge.
I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my third year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.
I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. I'm fine with CP's as long as it has solvency. PIC's are a great strat. Don't run conditional cps. TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. Don't read K's. Not a big fan of theory either but I default to reasonability. On framework, I enjoy util.
I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.
Real-world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.
I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic, and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win. Please weigh in your last speeches.
I have been judging Parli tournaments for 2 years now and I love the energy that the students bring into the debate.
I am a logical person and like to see figures and statistics to back up your claims. I don't like speakers who speak at breakneck speed because it's hard for me or their opponents to understand what they are trying to convince us about. Eight minutes are enough to make your point.
I am not a fan of theory but I will honor any valid points around theory, given that you explain each point. Sometimes it's unavoidable but don't run theory just to distract your opponents or eat into their time. You don't have to take all POIs, but I would suggest you take at least one. You are not obligated to take it right away, you can say you will take it in a bit, that's fine.
Speak at a normal pace, make good use of hand gestures and body language. Make eye contact, don't just bury your head into your notes. Be respectful of your opponents even though you are "fighting" them.
Good luck, and don't forget to enjoy your time!
I'm Daniel Sorial.
I debated in High School for the Academy of Information Technology and Engineering (AITE for short) for three years, the latter two heavily in parliamentary. I'm now a freshman at Yale.
When it comes to judging, I heavily value weighing. I believe the final speeches on both sides should go off the flow and get very philosophical. Why does any of this matter? What are the future implications of passing or not passing this motion?
I'm fine with spreading within reason. Speaking faster than conversational pace is perfectly fine - but no one can understand you if you're talking faster than a jet engine. As long as you effectively sign post, speak as fast as you'd like.
I'm alright with accidental spiking, but not purposeful. By this I mean: if you genuinely can't offer your entire case in your first speech (which, for the opposition, shouldn't even be a thing because you should also be responding to the government), you can give more arguments in the second speech. If you think up a new argument you can of course offer that up too. I'm not a fan of the opening speech starting by saying "I will give two contentions, my partner will give the third" and then lots of repetition that makes it obvious you are simply trying to spike and actually had more than enough time to offer your entire case.
Also, be civil, but not overly civil. Treat this like a Senator was in the room, but trying too hard to be nice is just awkward.
Ks and T-Shells are fine, explain them well just incase your opponent doesn't know what they are.
Take at least 1 POI, it shows you have control over your speech. Offer several on your opponents.
I debated Parli in the DANEIS league for four years in high school, and I debate British Parliamentary very sporadically in college. I’m particularly impressed by debates which cut to the main points of contention without getting lost in minutae or tangential details of the case. Good organization and signposting also goes a long way. I’m used to hearing debates at a reasonable speed (not flowing) but am open to a fairly wide range. And of course, please be respectful of everyone else in the room.
I'm a parent judge for Dougherty Valley High School. This is my first time judging.
Please speak slowly and clearly. If I don't understand your points I won't use them to evaluate the round.
Don't run any K's, I will drop you. If you run theory, make sure to completely explain it so I understand.
I award speaker points on clarity, persuasiveness, good rhetoric, etc.
If you present a clear path to the ballot, that helps me make a decision for your side.
I will take notes.
I look for good use of statistics, empirical examples, etc.
I also look for real world impacts.
I value debate skill over truth.
I am a parent judge.
-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!)
Archbishop Mitty '19
Claremont McKenna College '23
Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I did Parli, PF, and Congress pretty competitively during my four years competing for Archbishop Mitty High School, where I've been an Assistant Debate Coach the past two years as well.
In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org or shoot me a message on Facebook messenger!
Parli Paradigm (last updated 1/30/21):
The debate space is yours. Run as slow or fast, lay or tech of a round as you want.
- If on a panel and you punt the lay judge, I won't intervene but I will be very sad.
I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. I do, however, reserve the right to intervene and drop teams if I witness something morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic.
I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it probably doesn't matter that much. Just don't throw out unwarranted claims and expect that to automatically be offense for you.
Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.
Collapsing is really important. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.
Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending turns made in the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions. Your partner's speech wasn't for nothing.
- Probably a lower threshold than most for like phil and tricks 'n stuff.
I think it's strategic to specify particular net benefits that your dis/advantages fall under. My partner and I always identified specific types of benefits (economy, environment, quality of life of xyz population) that the judge should be prioritizing.
If the 1AC doesn't define stuff but the 1NC does, I find myself pretty skeptical of 2ACs that try to backfill the framework layer.
- Down for all kinds of trichotomy arguments (i.e. feel free to run policy rounds on value/fact/metaphor topics if you want to justify it to me)
I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory.
- Still don't know how I feel about CPs that compete through net bens, but my views on debate are pretty flexible.
Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. I do have a knack for flowery language and compelling one-liners but as a general rule: substance > style.
The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanation of warrants, collapsing, weighing, etc!
- My current speaks average across both Parli & PF is a 28.8 [H/L = 30/27]
Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic that typically circumvents the normative policymaking that is expected. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!
Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.
When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.
I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments must exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly.
I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that are used to check back against abusive norms in debate.
I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.
- I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is frivolous as my judging career progresses but at the same time try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.
Points of Information/Order
PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.
Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.
- Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.
Ultimately, I don't want anyone to ever feel uncomfortable after a debate round so feel free to post round with me as much as you want (if time permits, although I won't change my vote after a round) because I am here to educate and help others in the activity that has given me everything :)
PF Paradigm (last updated 1/19/21)
- Every argument requires a warrant for me to evaluate it—it's not enough to say "extend xyz author/statistic" without the warrant! Please extend warrants in both summary and final focus.
- Weighing is also SUPER IMPORTANT. Start doing this in summary. This also goes beyond just impacts—do link-level weighing and collapse!
- I honestly don't flow crossfire at all. Use it to better understand your opponents case and try not to "extend" arguments made in it.
- First Summary doesn't need to extend defense unless they frontline args in second rebuttal.
- If it's in final focus, it has to be in the summary.
- It's probably strategic for second rebuttal to answer first rebuttal but not super necessary with me.
- Impacts should be terminalized. Prefer numbers to scalar impacts which should always be contextualized within the evidence.
- Open to any sort of theory or K, I'm mostly a Parli debater ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- I won't call for the card unless you tell me to OR if the card was consistently disputed in the round.
- I am reserving the right to drop debaters for behavior that is explicitly xenophobic and oppressive; if it's implicit or you're just rude/aggressive in general i will simply drop your speaks.
- My ear is probably a little rusty for speed and videoconferencing also makes this hard, would love to be sent speech docs.
- Signpost clearly, especially in summary and final focus!
- Fun stuff :
- If we skip grand cross, I'll bump everyone 0.5 speaks
- High speaks if your case isn't contingent on talking about the developing world in a disparaging way
Make it fun and interesting
Fine with fast talking but not full on spreading, at the end of the day debate is an oral event, don't just share your case and speak incomprehensibly and force me to skim through a bunch of text. TLDR if I can't hear it I won't flow it, sorry about your magnificent philosophical treatise, but I'm not reading it
Good reasoning > Evidence spam
Give a rly good closing speech, I like "world comparison" stuff and impact weighing and voter issues etc
I like theory and topicality, but I've forgotten some of the jargon so just like use good reasoning and explain well
If you're gonna run a K don't do some boring or generic one, don't have something dumb and minimal for the role of the ballot - the death K is an example of a K that I like
Parli - Feel free to cite like movies and stuff as evidence, it's really quality argumentation and logic and reasoning over having the most "official" or the greatest quantity of evidence
Parli is the only debate event which doesn't have mandatory questioning. That said, I really value debaters who ask and answer questions! (+ speaker points)
Bringing up new arguments in the MOC (second neg speech) is technically allowed but I'm not a fan (- speaker spoints). PMR (last aff speech) may respond to new arguments in the MOC. I will ignore any new arguments or rebuttals brought up in the last 2 speeches, except aff responses to new arguments in the MOC. This is explained in CHSSA's rules. Stanford says nothing about new arguments in rebuttals in parli, which is why I specify that.
Congress - Congress is a debate event judged like an IE, ask good questions and refute your opponents' points
Hello, I am a parent judge. I want to see as little theory as possible. I don’t want to see any K’s or spreading. If you feel that you must run theory, please explain every step to me and put it into understandable terms.
I will be judging the round based on strength of arguments and their delivery. I’m looking forward to your round. Have fun!
I am a parent judge with no debating experience and may not be familiar with certain jargon that you use, so where necessary please clarify. Please don't speak too fast.
I take notes throughout the round and like logical, reasoned and well-developed arguments and normally vote heavily on impacts. So let me know why your points matter.
I'm a parent judge. I've judged a few rounds, but very much a novice. Please speak at a speed at which I can understand well and keep your jargons to a minimum
My criteria for judging are:
- I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments
- support with data and other evidences
- I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. If I see any of these, I will give you a loss.
Please be articulate and make informed arguments.
I am a parent judge, and make my decisions based on what I end up with on my flow. I prefer that debaters speak slowly and clearly and connect their arguments to previous speakers' points. Tag clearly so your key points will be on my flow.
**I know I'm judging NPTE this weekend-I'll be updating my paradigm Wednesday night, but if you're doing prefs before then, please hit me up on Facebook Messenger.
This is my first year out of debate and I'm trying to take my paradigm seriously, especially with debate being online and not being able to ask judges questions pre-round. With that being said, I'm relatively inexperienced with online debate, so even though I was decent with speed in-person, I might have to ask y'all to be a little clearer or a little slower to accommodate.
I'm Sarah, I use they/them pronouns, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I know NPTE is this weekend and I'm in the process of writing my paradigm (I will eventually have the detailed and organized paradigm that I dream of).
I have a higher threshold on theory than some, but I follow the flow, so if you want to go for it, go for it.
I spent the last year running nontopical affs, and K's on the neg. I like that type of debate, but also if counterplans and DA's are what you tend towards, run the arguments that you feel comfortable running, that's what makes debates the best.
*this is still a work in progress*
I debated parli for around two years in high school for Los Altos and am now part of the UCLA Parli team. As I continue debate into college, I figured judging would be helpful.
Speed: Don't worry about being too fast; you just need to be clear and coherent. I have attention span issues, so if you're going too slow, I might not understand your argument completely.
Organization: I prefer off-time road maps; I think they're a good way of helping both the judge and the debaters visualize the direction of cases.
Arguments: Any seemingly problematic arguments will be noted. These include any of the "-isms." I don't like Ks. Not because they're bad or anything, I just don't know what they are. :)
Things I value in the round: clarity, volume, and lots of sources. If you provide no warrants for a central claim you make, I won't write it in my flow and you'll risk low speaker points. If you have many warrants for many claims, high speaker points. Try not to be combative or patronizing with your opponents. Debate is fun, and the goal isn't solely to win but to be a better debater. If I see sportsmanship, I'll think about it when deciding speaker points. :)
I'm a lay judge who has judged at three tournaments now. Speaking will have to be slow for me to take it down and the arguments need to be explained in clear terms. email@example.com
This is my second year of judging. Please do not speak quickly or use jargon. I look for clear logic in the arguments and sensible links. For major impact arguments, I would like to see clear evidences for that. I prefer a few well articulated points than many superficial points.
Judging Parli for nearly 3 years - 1 yr JV and 2 yr Open
- run theory
- signpost contentions and rebuttals
- weigh impacts
- be respectful to everyone in the room
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.
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.
I am a parent judge.
Here is how I judge:
Don't speak too fast. Normal speed is preferred.
I look for clear arguments that are supported with facts, data, examples, etc.
If you can respond to all the arguments, that would be great!
1 -15 points Don't give anyone points this low.
16 - 20 points The speech was downright offensive.
21 - 22 points The speech was really, really bad.
22 - 23 points The speech was bad.
24 points The speech was decent.
24 - 25 points The speech was good. THIS IS THE AVERAGE SCORE.
26 points The speech was very good.
27 points The speech was truly excellent.
28 points The speech was outstanding, in the top 2 or 3% of the tournament.
29 points The speech changed your life forever.
30 points Don’t give anyone this score.
No spreading, theory, or kritiks please.