Parent judge here so please steer away from theory unless you really think the other team is being abusive (so that means you should not be running frivolous theory in a round where I am the judge) and you'll have to explain it super clearly-- so don't use jargon in terms of theory. I'm also not super familiar with kritiks so don't run those!

Basically: don't run super techy arguments. keep it simple. stick to case debate if you can. if you veer off case debate there should be a REALLY good reason why.

I'm also not too comfortable with speed, so please be clear when speaking and DO NOT SPREAD.

Most importantly, have a fun debate! Don't be mean or bigoted or else I definitely won't vote for you :D

Have a great debate!

-Ana

Have judged Parli for 5 years, also some policy and LD rounds.

No preference to speak rate.

I am a lay parent judge.

I evaluate arguments based on logic (tech > truth).

I prefer that participants speak at a conversational rate rather than spreading. It is important for me to understand the arguments and all the finer points should be highlighted so that my flow reflects that.

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

Things I Don't Like:

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

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

Things I Do Like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey all!

I use she/they pronouns and I competed on the Oregon circuit in high school. I did PF my freshman year, then parli for the other three years. In speech, I did impromptu, ADS, informative, and radio primarily, but also competed in prose and oratory a few times! Currently, I'm president of the parli team at NYU. (ask me about college debate!)

Preferences

1) SIGN-POSTING. If I can't figure out where you are on the flow, I won't flow it.

2) Make sure you get me to your impacts. Don't just say something is bad. Explain why.

3) I'm really not a fan of Ks or heavy theory, but if you give me a good reason that you're running it, I might vote for it.

4) If you're neg on a policy resolution, I'd really like to see a counterplan. (PICs are fine if you can prove them)

5) TELL ME what to vote on in your last speeches. You shouldn't just be listing points in voters, you should be telling me why the points you won matter more than the points the other side won (because, really, unless you're a god you did not win every point).

6) Off-time roadmaps and speed are fine. I will signal if I can't understand you.

7) Give your pronouns and name at the beginning of your speech if you are comfortable!

TL;DR. Love sign-posting, impacts, weighing, and counter-plans. Not a big fan of Ks or theory, but I won't strike you for doing it.

If the topic is complicated and less in news, it is OK to spend a few moments educating the audience/me (judge). If providing context helps you build foundation for your arguments, go for it.

Quickly listing your position/arguments during the debate a few times is a good strategy. Ability to list, at a high level, your arguments and what you have covered helps the judge and you. It also reflects a methodical approach on your part.

If you have limited number of arguments, it is OK. You can explain why your argument(s) have the weight and why your argument(s) matter more than the number of arguments that the other side may be making.

If you notice that the other team introduced a new argument late in the debate and/or cited a source, when sources are not to be given credit for (say, in late rounds), I would notice that too. You are free to point out. I would prefer that you make your point quickly, and move to discussing substance. Also, you are free to tell me what arguments "flow" and what do not. As I am listening, I am making up my mind and such suggestions form the speaker do not generally make a difference in how I perceive the debate.

Above everything else, I look for:

* how you assign weight to your arguments,

* how critically you think about the impact of both side

* do you acknowledge obvious weaknesses and weigh them against the benefits

* how well you address what your opponents bring up

Many times, I do not know immediately at the end of the round who the winner is going to be. I take notes aggressively during each round. I review my notes after the round, some times agonize, and then decide. Regardless, of when I make up my mind, I do not prefer to share the results immediately after the round with the teams.

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers (feel free to share yours in round!)

School Affiliation: I attended and competed at Claremont High School from 2016-2020. I am now a senior at Chapman University with a double major in Psychology and Sociology and a minor in the Honors Program.

I participated in speech and debate for 9 years during elementary, middle, and high school and have experience in a few events. I competed on both the California state and national circuit for Congress throughout high school, but off and on I participated in Parli, PuFo, and Policy. I also competed in other debate events like World Schools and Big Questions. For IE's I mostly did spontaneous events (Impromptu and International Extemp), but I have done a few prepared original speeches and have experiencing judging all types of speech.

With that being said, I don't enjoy most theory, spreading, or K's. I can follow some speed and understand basic theory (i.e. Topicality arguments), but please use that all sparingly with me. Evidence is important to a debate, but so is clash! I would like to emphasize that being rude to your opponent will never be tolerated and speaker points will be docked if you're blatantly bullying others in round (I hope I don't have to remind y'all of this, but homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will not be tolerated in round!!).

If there's an e-mail chain - add me to it! Just let me know at the start of the round and I'd be more than happy to provide my e-mail. If your case is going to involve sensitive topics that could be triggering to others, trigger warnings will always be encouraged and accepted in any round I judge. I also encourage and appreciate people sharing their pronouns in order to create an inclusive environment for all.

Regarding speaker points, I enjoy when speakers are clear and persuasive. There's not much to say there, just do your best! In the end, I hope we are all ready to create a fun, safe, and overall educational round.

I am a brand new judge and this is my very first tournament to judge.so please avoid running theory or kritiks. I can follow a chain of reasoning but it must be explained in non-jargony ways. Please do not spread, speak clearly. I would like for you to have an off-time road map as well as to keep your own time. Also please explain CPs clearly if running them. Good luck!

Please speak SLOWLY so that I can understand you better and give you the very due credit :)

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

1. No spreading (speak slowly)

2. Be articulate and speak clearly and loudly

3. Off-time road mapping is preferred

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

Background: 7 years parliamentary at New Roads. Graduated last year and haven’t debated since.

Speed: If you spread you will probably lose.

Theory: My issue with theory is mostly with how people structure it. If an argument is unfair just say that and why. I’ll lose track of what you’re saying once you try putting it into a jargon heavy structure.

Kritics: I have very little experience with kritiks. If you run them please do so without the tech jargon. Otherwise, I won’t understand it.

Tabula Rasa: I’m tabula rasa to a point. If you say the sky is purple or Hillary is president I’ll believe it if uncontested. However, if you say something blatantly false I will require the bare minimum refutation to ignore it. EX: If Aff says the sky is purple and Opp says it’s not even if they provide no reason I will side with them.

Organization: Signpost super clearly or I will lose track.

Jargon: Nothing super technical.

Tip: Your argument probably does not actually lead to nuclear war.

Any questions feel free to ask me before round.

This is my fourth year judging parliamentary debate. I'm a flay judge, and I'm tab so I'll probably vote on anything if it's explained well enough. I've been judging for a hot minute so I know my way around structure. Slow down (especially during online tournaments) and let me write the arguments down on my flow, and don't use debate jargon that a regular person wouldn't know. It's your job to explain things to me, so if I don't catch something that's on you. Please give me background about topics and explain your link chain arguments. I will evaluate t shells but I don't know the jargon/structure so please explain fairness arguments well. Do not run kritiks, I do not know what they are and I am not familiar with the philosophy, so you will probably lose if you run them. Perms are fine, I think everything's fine just explain everything. Make my job easy as a judge, don't be rude, and have a fun debate!

Hello all! I am going to start with a brief description of who I am and my background. I am a current third year student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo majoring in History. I did three years of Parli debate at Grover Cleveland HS in Los Angeles. I am currently competing in the college YODL BP Circuit. I love debate as an institution, I think it was probably the most important thing I did in High School, the critical thinking and just overall breadth of knowledge you gain from it are unmatched. I use he/him/his pronouns.

tldr: do impact calculus, compare arguments, try to be nice, write my RFD for me throughout the round, make your warrants and impact weighing obvious. Good chance I won't understand your speed reading. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speed and Structure: Please do not spread, you can talk fast, but there is a line you cross when you spread that I cannot understand. Please use points and subpoints when presenting arguments, it makes it much easier to flow. Try and go from one side of the flow to the other, Gov to Opp (or vice versa). If you notice your judge's paradigm below, it's because I constantly commandeer bits of other judges' paradigms to improve my own.

Theory and Kritik: I prefer case debate, I think that it is just more fun and interesting. If running theory, please make it obvious the abusive actions of your opponents. I will vote on theory based on exclusion. For Kritik debate, if it is genuine and has a clear connection to the round I will vote on it. Have a solid alternative, that is not just for me. Assume myself and your opponents know nothing about complex philosophical ideas and know no rhetoric. I am by no means an expert in Ts and Ks. Like I said before, I much prefer case debate, unless it is absolutely necessary and you warrant as such, stick to the resolution.

Congress: Everything for speed and structure should apply, speak clearly and prounounce your words. Follow the Rules of Order and listen to the PO. Impact well!

If you say or do anything bigoted I will drop you. You will also get the lowest possible speaker points.

Ask me if you have a question about my paradigm or a brief summary in the round.

PARLI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD/PUFO:

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

POLICY DEBATE

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

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

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentary Debate

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

Overview

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

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

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

General Paradigm

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird Aside on Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun and good luck!

Hey there, I’m a former 7 year competitor at the high school and university levels from John Swett HS, Diablo Valley College, and Sacramento State. I am a former national champion in Extemporaneous Speaking at the university level, and have a strong background of LD, Parli, IPDA, Imp, and a functioning knowledge of everything else.

In the debate realm, I allow all theory arguments to be made, however you will have to show me how your shell is tied into the current resolution very clearly if you want to win. I don’t want to hear a Capitalism or Climate Catastrophe K when you don’t actually know how it ties into the res, it’s vague and your opponent has an automatic leg up if you don’t do that work. One thing to keep in mind, is that I will almost never vote on a criterion of "morality". Everyone in the world has their own subjective morality, and for you to impart your own as a voting issue is not convincing. Of course, if your opponent is being clearly racist or something like that, call it out and we'll deal with it, but I would refrain from using it as a voting issue. I can keep up with moderately fast spreading, but i may ask you to slow down. If i do, please do so, I’m a kindergarten teacher now and my spreading ears are a bit rusty, haha. For the 2AR, 1NR, PMR, and all applicable ending speeches, I love collapse and am well persuaded by a snipe shot of 1 or 2 voting issues rather than a shotgun approach, but I am particularly hawkish on dropped arguments, especially if your opponent puts significant work into them. Do your best to link it into your turns or inherency at the end without breaking the new argument rules. Use cross-X wisely, I don’t respond well to sarcasm or arrogance in cross, be respectful and ask relevant questions. I’m not afraid to give out under 25 speaks if you’re going to act out of turn. In general, be clear, concise, and respectful.

In the speech realm, much less to go over. In LP I’ll give 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 30 second, and countdown from 10 seconds hand signals. If you need to time yourself, please ask me first. I like short intros and conclusions, your time should be spent in the main points, and the more relevant sources, the better.

Please remember to have fun. This is an incredible activity, and I’m not handling out college scholarships. Do your best, I’ll give you relevant feedback, and we’ll all hopefully have a great time.

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck and make your school proud!

Tldr; I vote largely on the flow. Please impact to the criteria, CP kicking is fine, weigh in the rebuttals so I don't have to. I dislike theory, but will vote on it given a compelling reason.

Background

I've been involved with parliamentary debate for 10 years. I started by competing for Windsor High School under Coach Bryan St. Amant. After graduating I went on to work at the Stanford National Forensics Institute before coming to Berkeley, where I majored in Philosophy. I also debated for the Debate Society of Berkeley (APDA circuit), and was the Varsity Coach for Berkeley High School for 3 years.

Basics

What my background means is I know debate, and can listen to/flow just about anything you care to argue. I love debates with strong clash and great impacts (who doesn't?). If you give me arguments with strong link stories and believable impacts, which you weigh in the rebuttal, winning my ballot shouldn't be terribly hard. I'll do my best not to intervene, and I think most debates can have a winner without intervention. That being said, I will do intuitive weighing if neither team does it for me (this means you should absolutely do weighing in your rebuttals to make me not do this). Also something to note: if the round boils down to a factual dispute with no clear winner on the evidence presented, I may google it.

I don't take issue with round strategy, as long as you still uphold your side of the motion. Have a CP or don't, kick it or don't, I don't really care--just be clear about what you're arguing for.

Above all, make sure you tell me why things matter by the end of the round, utilizing the criteria and weighing against opposing impacts. The criteria isn't there for decoration, and I'm thoroughly convinced that the best high schools rounds are the ones where the debaters focus their argumentation on winning the criteria. The team that's convinced me they've won the criteria is the team that will most likely win the round.

Theory

I can most accurately be described as an "old school judge." I'm not a huge fan of theory, so run it at your own risk. Like I said earlier, however, I flow. So, if your opponents run theory and you don't respond successfully I will vote on theory despite my personal distaste for it. I have a functional understanding of how most theory works, but not an in-depth understanding of K literature or rarer theory. If you do wish to run theory, be clear and try not to spread too much. This means for a K, don't just say the name of some old dead philosopher and expect me to know what you're arguing--if you're going to talk about Foucault then explain his argument. If you run T, make sure you demonstrate the abuse. If you run a K or any more outlandish theory, you should and must warrant for me why it belongs in the round and in debate.

*Overt racism, sexism, ableism, xenophobia, queerphobia, or transphobia in rounds will result in a loss and a huge reduction in speaker points from me, whether or not your opponents run a full K on it. Do not do this. Ever.*

Speaking Preferences

Don't spread out your opposing team. Ever. Seriously. There's a format of debate where that kind of strategy is welcome, and it isn't this one. If your opponents call clear or ask you to slow down, do so. Also, be sure not to use excessive levels of jargon if your opponents clearly aren't keeping up. It muddles the round for no good reason. Finally, please don't heckle/tagteam. It's annoying and interrupts your partner's speech.

I highly appreciate clarity in the round. That means, wherever possible, you shouldn't be jumping around on the flow. Try to keep your responses linear and precise (don't repeat yourself over and over). If the round has unintuitive framework, take the time to explain it to avoid having a bad round. Roadmaps are great, but be sure you actually stick to them.

I place a relatively high level of value on eloquence. I believe debate is as much a rhetorical activity as it is a critical analysis/strategy-based one, so even though I'll vote for you on the flow, my speaker points are meant to reward clarity and style. Also, don't be a jerk please! You're all wonderful people and its beneath you to misbehave in round.

POIs/POOs/RVIs

Take POIs, especially if you're running theory. Try to take at least one, but no more than five/six--I want to listen to your content, not only your answers to questions. If there's a new argument in the rebuttal, it is the responsibility of the debaters to point it out. If a Point of Order is called (assuming it's valid) I won't consider the argument at all, and I will look to my own flow to check. Unlike many other judges on this circuit, I won't discount RVIs on face. I don't think its productive to exclude entire arguments when they utilize the same standards most theory runs on (education, fairness, etc.). That said, I don't have a particular preference for them either, so, like any other argument, give me a strong link, demonstrate abuse, and finish with a good impact.

Best of luck in your rounds--I look forward to some good debates!

Important points:

Please respect your opponents, keep the language civilized.

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

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

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

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

Deep breath and relax.

Good luck!

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

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

Short Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

Have been judging speech and debate for the last 4 years. Iam pretty current on the national and international events. What Iam looking from the debaters are - No spreading, Kritiks, or Theory. Make sure to refute all the important points raised by your opponent. I have my own opinions but i dont go by them when judging a debate, i go with whoever is able to convince me better.

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.

I have been judging for the past four years as Parli and CX. I have an analytical background working with technology and numbers.

I value truth over tech.

If you want to tech with me explain it throughly and only run as dire last resort.

I want to hear voter points and impact calculus in final speech, this will make the bulk of my decision.

I also value specificity in policy.

My preferences are no spreading and no tag teaming , but I am okay with off time road maps.

1. Please make sure you signpost your contentions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

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

I am a parent judge. 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 arguments + warrants to back it up!

-Enjoy and Have Fun during the tournaments !

I have experience as a policy/CX debater in high school and I have been judging parli for just over three years. I have experience as a public speaker from many conferences, as well as corporate events and meetings.

I'll flow your arguments, but I need to be able to hear and understand them enough to write notes.

Don't expect me to know any theory that you don't explain clearly. Make sure that any theory (or any arguments at all) clearly relate to the debate you're in and the topic at hand.

Your speaking style and ability are important, but its not uncommon for me to award low-point wins. If you dont signpost well, not only can I not follow you, but you aren't delivering well.

Your summations should clearly tell me how to decide my vote.

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

I am a parent judge.

-Speak slowly.

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Judging Style

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

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

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

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

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

Speed / Speaking / Signposting

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

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

Signposting is preferred, but not critical.

Debater Expectations

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge with experience judging tournaments (parli, public forum, LD). When debating, please state your paramount value and contentions clearly, provide logical arguments with clear facts, and speak at a natural pace. I flow when I judge and can only type so fast. If I ask you to speak slower, please speak slower.

I have little to no experience with tech (kritik, theory shells), so if you want to succeed, I recommend staying away from it. PICs are okay but not preferred, I like good clash and case debate.

When judging, I try to be tabula rasa, so make good arguments! QUALITY over QUANTITY.

I take time to mull over who wins, so any feedback provided will be found in the ballots, not verbally. I will give direct feedback on the ballot if requested after the round.

Debate is a fun and educational experience, so refrain from being rude to your opponents and be sure to use respectful and inclusive language. Racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia, etc. will not be tolerated.

And once again: NO SPREADING!

Clear and fair debate

An argument can be unpersuasive even if not addressed by your opponents.

I value quality of arguments over quantity.

Your speech should be a leisurely stroll, not a furious sprint.

Evidence is nothing without logic.

If you're discussing evidence in the final focus, you're not finally focusing.

Don't worry about calling for cards---I won't.

I find debate jargon tedious.

Civility in discourse is a crucial life skill.

***

Judging experience: 14 years

Debating experience: 9 years

Events, in descending order of experience: PF, WUDC, World Schools, Moot Court, NPDA, CUSID, APDA, Policy, LD, Extemp, Congress

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

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