Background

I am a current parli debater at Trinity and have been debating since my freshman year of high school.

Make the round fun and I will try to boost your speaks as much as possible.

General

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible - will not insert my own opinion or knowledge into the round, so please correct your opponents if they are factually incorrect.

I am capable of flowing fast debate as long as you are not spreading in an attempt to overwhelm your opponents. If the only purpose of speaking quickly is to make the debate inaccessible to your opponents, I will not hesitate to drop you on that point. Especially if you are speaking very quickly, please make sure to sign post carefully so I can flow.

Against tag teaming.

I am a non-interventionist judge; I will not protect against new arguments in the PMR or LOR unless a POO is called.

NEED to be given a framework to judge the debate under and must be weighed in the final speech under that framework. Otherwise there is inherently no value to your arguments and I will likely default to net benefits.

Evidence is not a sufficient warrant for your point. It can help strengthen your side, but additional warranting is necessary to explain how and why it proves your point. Need a claim, warrant, and reasoning for every contention.

Theory

I am open to hearing theory arguments, but I am not very familiar with them. If you are using any theory shell, please slow down and explain why it matters and why I should judge the round on that point.

Strongly opposed to frivolous theory solely for the point of winning - debate is meant to be an educational activity, and this goes against that. Open to RVIs on that issue.

In the case of abusive definitions by the gov. side or severe equity violations, feel free to make a theory argument about that point and I will be open to giving the round on that.

Do not like K debates unless it falls under one of the parameters I have already mentioned. If you feel the need to run one, please slow down and explain it in depth as well as why it is necessary.

How I Judge

I will only look at arguments that have tangible impacts and that have been weighed in the two final speeches of the round. Any arguments that are not strong enough to be voted on are thrown out.

Except for the case of a default opp, arguments need to have some offense in order to get me to vote on that issue. I see defensive arguments as just mitigating the other side's impacts - it helps, but is not a reason to win the round.

If only one side weighs during their final speech, I will judge the round under the framework provided and argued under in that. The PMR and LOR should essentially read out my ballot to me: tell me the issues you win on, the ones you lose on, and why yours are more important.

Speaker Points

While judging at East Coast tournaments, I will try to keep speaks between 23-28. Will occasionally give speaks higher or lower than that, but would need to be blown away or shown blatant disrespect.

Presentation will not be a large factor in the speaker scores I give out. I will take it into account, but the main factors will be the quality of your arguments and strategy throughout the speech.

Separately, I tend to flow online in Google Sheets. If you want a copy of the flow, feel free to ask me after the round and I can share it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Hi, I'm the former Captain of the Stuyvesant Parliamentary Team. I've been debating Parli since Freshmen year so I'm pretty familiar with the ins and outs of the format, but here are some notes on my judging that might differ from others:

- If a definition is abusive, it must be explicitly stated ( I want to literally hear, "we believe this definition is abusive" ) and I view abusive calls the same as other arguments, you have to properly warrant it out and tell me why exactly it's abusive.

- Even if a definition is called abusive, both sides must continue to debate under the "abusive" definition. I do not believe you can change your definitions in the middle of the debate.

- Examples are not warranting. If the only reason I should believe that X is true is that it happened somewhere, sometime in the past, it's not as convincing as giving me actual analysis on why X occurs or why X must be true.

- I'm usually somewhat confident in picking out which arguments are new in the last two speeches, but I definitely advise using POOs in case I just blank out - It'll usually never hurt to call a POO on something you genuinely believe is a new argument.

- No Theory ( Besides Abusive Calls ), I'm very much in the east coast line of thought that kinda hates Theory and Ks. If those terms don't mean anything to you, then don't worry about it.

- I like weighing. I think its a really complicated and hard skill to consistently use in rounds, but it's usually what determines rounds for me. If both sides have some relatively good impacts, then I side with the team that can argue their impacts are better in their last speech rather than regurgitating the arguments I already heard in the constructive speeches.

- I like creative cases that are done well. If you want to argue that it's actually better for America to turn into an Authoritarian - Communist paradise, then warrant out why it's good. If you are against a "creative case", don't just tell me it's ridiculous, or they're not being serious, give me reasons why I shouldn't believe what they're saying. Obviously, stay within the bounds of equity, prejudice is probably not where you want to go creatively, but everything else I'm okay with.

Other than these, I don't think I'm too different from any other judges, meaning things like being respectful, being organized, don't talk TOO fast which applies to basically anyone also applies to me.

I am a lay judge who has judged tournaments for almost 5 years.

Kritiks: Please don't run them.

Speed: Don't spread.

Theory: Don't run friv t. Topicality is okay if you explain it well.

Speaks: Speak with clarity, passion, and respect. Structure is very important so make sure to sign post.

POI's: It looks better if you take POI's and answer them well. Try to take and ask at least a few per speech.

POO's: Call them out, but make sure you clearly explain what is new and why it matters. When responding, clearly show me where you said it.

Tag Teaming: Play to your strengths. If you understand something and your partner doesn't or you just want to help them, by all means tag team. Just make sure it's in the spirit of teamwork, not because you don't trust your partner.

Weighing: I value strong last speeches and debaters who can clearly write my ballot for me. Always link back to the criterion.

Be respectful and have fun. Debate is a competition, but make sure you don't take yourself too seriously. Mistakes are okay!

Good luck!

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

I'm a typical flow judge/high school debater. Make sure to signpost, and try not to spread. I don't like theory, so don't run it unless it's absolutely necessary. For PF - make sure that you explain your evidence and tell me why it matters. Warrant!

Be funny, but don't be mean. Ask me before the round if you have any questions!

If you need to contact me for any reason: Ariel.kirman22@trinityschoolnyc.org

I am a senior at Trinity High School in New York City, and I have been doing parliamentary debate since freshman year.

Before you read my paradigm: If you make the round fun or funny to watch/judge/debate while still keeping it reasonable and having actual arguments, I will give you high speaks. Also, do not spread because I will not able to flow what you say.

Qualifications:

I have debated over 100 rounds of parli (so I understand your perspective as a debater well), and qualified for the NPDL Tournament of Champions sophomore and junior year.

I have judged ~15 rounds of parli, and helped write the New York Parliamentary Debate League (NYPDL) judging guide

General:

Be nice and don't be rude, debate should be a friendly competition.

Introduce yourself at the beginning of your first speech and give me a quick road map of what you plan to do in your speech (no off-time roadmaps please).

You can speak decently fast and I will be able to understand you, but do not spread in an attempt to overwhelm me or your opponents. No matter how slow/fast you speak, make sure you try to speak clearly, signpost, and tell me which part of which contention you are talking about or responding to, so I can mark it on the flow.

Please do not tag team POIs, I will not flow the response if it is tag teamed, the person whose speech it is should be the one speaking and answering POIs.

I will try to be as much of a tabula rusa judge as possible, so I will not use personal opinions or knowledge to judge rounds, unless there is an extreme lack of warranting or reasoning from both sides.

You should impact, warrant, and weigh, I should not have to make extensions on your behalf.

I need a framework to judge the round based off of, but if none is provided I will default to utilitarianism/net benefits.

Evidence does not necessarily equal a warrant. If you provide a piece of evidence or a statistic, you should also analyze it and explain how it fits into the context of your argument and helps you prove your point.

Counterplans:

Unless the motion is badly written, there is almost always enough ground for opp to argue against Gov's proposed plan. Because of this, counterplans are rarely necessary, and I usually look more favorably upon Opp if they simply argue against the motion. That said, if you are on side opp and want to introduce a counterplan, the following 2 things are absolutely necessary:

1. That it is introduced in the LOC (ideally at the beginning). Trying to introduce a counterplan in the MOC, when Gov has only one speech to reply to it, is unfair.

2. That it is mutually exclusive. Do not run a counterplan that is similar to what gov is advocating for, plus an added bonus, because in that case, even if I agree with you, I will still give Gov the round because your plan involves passing Gov's plan.

POIs:

I think POIs are a great way to expose contradictions in your opponents case and trip them up. Asking smart POIs and explaining their significance in your speeches will help you (both in terms of winning the round and speaks), and so will taking POIs and responding to them well.

Theory/Kritiks:

The only kind of theory that should be present in the round is regarding abusive definitions, or equity violations. Don't run frivolous or useless theory, (it lowers the educational quality of debate and makes the round less interesting) or I will ignore it and likely drop you.

LOR and PMR:

When I debate I like to discuss 2-3 voter issues in my last speech, so if you use that structure it will make a lot of sense to me. Comparing your world with your opponents world is a solid way to compare your cases as well. The one structure I don't really like is going through the flow and continuing to restate what has been said for every speech. The last speech should provide me with some overview of the round and why you deserve to win, and you should be writing your last speech to look a lot like what my ballot/reason for decision will be.

Side note: I will likely be flowing the round in Google Sheets, so feel free to ask me for extra feedback or ask me to share the sheet with you so you can more clearly see my reasoning after the round.

On side Opp, do not give me underdeveloped contentions in the LOC and then backfill warrants and opp block dump in the MOC and the LOR

Do not POO random stuff that has been in the flow to throw off your opponents

During either the opp block or the PMR (especially the PMR), if you realize you are losing on the flow, do not change your case to focus on something that you mentioned once in the first constructive speech. I know it is not a POO because it has been mentioned before, but giving me 2-3 minutes of analysis on an idea you have mentioned for 10 seconds in a previous speech signals to me that you know you are losing on the flow and is a great way to lose the round.

Conflicts: Trinity School

I have been a Parliamentary debater since high school I am heavily involved in public speaking. I want to see a clear frame from the start (for both sides) and see a strong impact on every contention. Always warrant and warrant well. I really need the summary speeches to show me where the clash is in the round and tell me why I'm siding with your team under the frame. Everything should be extremely well signposted, I will write something if I know what it is responding to so please be clear in your arguments.

Some things that I will do (credit to Ryan Lafferty):

“Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech

If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of

If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

I am the advisor for Parli at Dalton School, in New York City and have been since 2015 when the New York Parliamentary Debate League was founded. I welcome arguments of various sorts, but would appreciate that any teams from the West Coast understand that the majority of my experience is with the tournaments and debaters on the East Coast. I would also ask that all debaters avoid explaining the rules to me. I do, in fact, know the rules.

I am not a former debater. I'm a debate parent, coach, and Middle School Debate League administrator. I've been judging for around 10 years. For me to flow you well, don't spread or speak too quickly. Of course I try to be a blank slate and I won't tell you what arguments I think you should have run. I appreciate examples and illustrations, including hypothetical ones. I'm not a fan of repetition. I am a fan of clear definitions, plans, frameworks, models. I award speaker points based on clash, not style, but of course your delivery will make your clash more or less effective.

Hi o/

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

General Debate Notes

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

Kritiks & Theory

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

Speaking

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

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

glhf

Hi Guys-

I have been debating Public Forum for 8 years, and I've been debating Parliamentary for 4 years.

When judging a PF round I am looking for clear arguments, and I need to be able to see actual interaction with your opponents case and responses; don't just read me a bunch of prepared one-offs and not explain any of them. There needs to be weighing in summary, and that weighing needs to be referenced again in FF. If you want to start weighing in second rebuttal thats no problem, just be sure you can do it well. Also make sure that all evidence is legit- I will call cards myself if there is a lot of clash surrounding them.

For Parli, I want to see a clear line of argumentation, good responses and frontlines, (similar to PF) and I definitely want to see weighing. Basically just attack your opponents and defend your own case well and then tell me that you did that. I should be able to see a clean way to the ballot based on the flow. Be sure to signpost.

Hello! I'm a lay judge but have judged speech and one or two policy debate rounds. Please make sure to enunciate and be nice in round. I've open to any arguments -- tabula rasa.