School Affiliations:

• Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Types:

• Parli

Years judging:

• 2-3 years at a variety of tournaments

• Lay judge

Speaker Points?

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

1. Things that will make you lose points

1. Unprofessional language

2. Stating false information

3. Being Disrespectful

2. Things that will make you gain points

1. Humor

2. pace(not too slow or fast)

3. Good word choice

What I vote on:

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

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

Notes Habits:

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

Evidence Preferences:

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

RWI:

• Okay with them as long as they are explained

CX:

• I will not flow

• A good chance to display argumentative skills

• Be respectful

Lay vs Flow:

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

Other:

On K's:

Don't try plz.

On Speed:

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

On Theory/Topicality:

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

On Truth Testing:

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

FW:

I enjoy util.

For Parli:

- PICS are a great part of debate.

- Don't read new evidence in the 1AR

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

As a new parent judge, it would be helpful to me if debaters can adhere to the following:

1. Please speak slowly with clarity.

2. No spreading during the tournament.

3. Please do not run Ks.

4. Only run theory if necessary with explanation.

I am a lay judge with a 4 years judging parli, as my daughter does debate. My pronouns are she/her.

I try my best to flow, but please speak slowly and clearly to make the experience easier for me. Do not spread! I will not understand you and I will not flow. Overall, please be respectful and never condescending to the other team and remember that debate is an educational platform.

Please focus on applicable argumentation rather than just theory, as that can ruin the educational aspects of debate. Use theory only when absolutely necessary to protect the debate space. Frivolous theory will not help your case. Explain all theory thuroughly and politely. This extends to arguementation as well; Make sure to thoroughly explain your arguements and their importance. Structured and impactful arguments usually win the debate for me.

Good luck and enjoy the process!

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Types: Parli

How many years have you been judging? Two years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I give points to speeches that are articulate and intelligent, and/or with good delivery and analysis. Humor always help.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

Quality of the argumentation, rhetorical skills, and wit. I leave my own biases and views behind when making decision.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

I do take notes/flow of the debate.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

Solid evidence always help with building/destroying a case.

Thoughts on real world impacts in the debate?

Real world impacts are always persuasive points

How do you judge cross examination?

No new evidence should be introduced and debaters should use this time to re-iterate their case while pointing out flaws of opponents.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

Debate skills are important for winning but more so you want to be truthful and avoid appearance of deception

This is my 2nd year as a judge. Please adhere to the following:

1. Speak with clarity. Spreading is discouraged.

2. If you run kritiks or theory, please explain thoroughly during the round.

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

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

A few tips for winning

- Introduce your argument before jumping into it

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

- Summarize your argument

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

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

I am a relatively new parent judge. Please speak slowly and enunciate.

If you run theory please explain it clearly and tell me why you are entitled to make the argument. No friv theory. Please do not use jargon, but if you feel like you have to, explain what it means.

As a parent judge, it would be helpful to me if debaters can adhere to the following:

1. Please speak slowly with clarity.

2. No spreading during the tournament.

3. Please do not run Ks.

4. Only run theory if necessary with explanation.

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.

Hi I am an experienced parent judge. I have a pretty good understanding of the world and economic systems. I value probability over magnitude for the most part but can be convinced otherwise. I do not want every debate to be about mass extinction or how one economic policy leads to nuclear war. I can understand theory but am not likely to vote on it unless clear abuse in round. No Ks. No speaking fast. I prefer logic over straight facts. Repeating your point does not mean that you responded to their point. Do not say that a team conceded an argument when they clearly did not. POIs are fine but do not ask more than 2 and do not be obnoxious while doing it will drop your speaks. It is fine if you choose to decline a POI but between the two partners, you have to accept at least one. CPs are fine even PICs but if you are running CP you have to prove that your CP solves better. I do buy mutually exclusive arguments through net benefits but you have a harder job to me proving that the aff does not just do the same by perming the CP. If you want to perm do it as a test of advocacy as that is easier to understand as a judge. All advocacy/rhetoric is binding do not try to kick anything. Try not to run new contentions in the second speech. I do not protect the flow. Try to use less jargon while actually debating. I can understand some of it but not all. Have fun.

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

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

Parent Judge, new to debate judging (0 years experience)

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

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

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

Logic-
When Judging debates and presentations, my number one criteria is logic. I appreciate art, but I prefer logic driven arguments over well-delivered ones. If your points make reasonable and logical sense, I will be inclined to side with you. To me, content and reason matter the most during a debate. Regardless of how eloquent you are, if your logic and reasoning do not flow well, I will be hard pressed to vote for your side.

Evidence-
I find it a kind of joy to be able to examine the evidence presented by both sides of a debate. The integrity and quality of the evidence both come into consideration when I cast my vote, so please be honest and thorough with your evidence. Truthful and honest arguments from both sides will make the debate more enjoyable for all parties.

Signposting-
Without being excessive, please do signpost whenever possible. When done effectively it often helps me to track your arguments, thus making it easier to see and understand the reasoning behind your points.

Have Fun!-
Prepare, but also relax and have fun! Take this as a great opportunity to work on some skills that will be useful in your life no matter what you do and be gracious!

I did two years of circuit LD at Miramonte High School and graduated in 2015. I graduated from UC Berkeley in 2019 after doing four years of NPDA parliamentary debate.

I have no desire to impose my own views upon the debate round. In deciding the round, I will strive to be as objective as possible. Some people have noted that objectivity can be difficult, but this has never seemed like a reason that judges shouldn't strive to be objective. I, overwhelmingly, prefer that you debate in the style that you are most comfortable with and believe that you are best at. I would prefer a good K or util debate to a bad theory or framework debate anyday. That's the short version--here are some specifics if you're interested.

May 28th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

1. Cards v. Spin: I tend to err that spin and analysis trump evidence quality in the abstract. Intuitively, a card is only as good as its extension. However, I will listen to framing arguments that indicate judges should prioritize debate's value as a research activity and prefer cards to spin.

GGI 2019 Parli-Specific Update:

While I will generally vote for any strategy, I would like to discuss my thoughts on some common debates. These thoughts constitute views about argument interaction that should not make a difference in most debates.

• K affs versus T: Assuming the best arguments are made, I err affirmative 60-40 in these debates (The best arguments are rarely made.) However, I tend to believe that impact turns constitute a suboptimal route to beating topicality. I differ from some judges because I believe that neg impact framing on T (procedural fairness first, debate as a question of process, not product) tends to beat aff impact framing. However, I err aff on the legitimacy of K affs because I'm skeptical of the neg's link to that framing. Does T uniquely ensure procedural fairness? Thus, to win my ballot, teams reading K affs must take care to respond to the neg's specific impact framing. They cannot merely read parallel arguments.
• Conditionality: I lean strongly that the negative gets 1 conditional advocacy. 2 is up for debate and three is pushing it. Objections to conditionality should be framed around the type of negative advocacies and the amount of aff flex. For example, perhaps 2 conditional advantage counterplans is permissible, but not 2 conditional PICs.

Past Paradigm:

Also:

• Absent weighing on any particular layer, I default to weighing based on strength of link.
• I probably won't cover everything so feel free to ask me questions.
• Taken from Ben Koh because this makes sense: "If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave."

Delivery and speaks:

• Fine with speed.
• I'm not the greatest at flowing, so try to be clear about where an argument was made.
• High speaks for good strategic choices and innovative arguments. I will say clear as much as necessary and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

Frameworks:

• I default to being epistemically conservative, but will accept arguments for epistemic modesty if they are advanced and won.
• I am willing to support any framework given that it is won on the flow.
• I'm willing to vote for permissibility or presumption triggers. However, there must be some implicit or explicit defense of a truth-testing paradigm. The argument must also be clear the first time that it is read. If the argument is advanced for the first time in the 1AR and I think that it is new, I will allow new 2NR responses.
• Many framework debates are difficult to adjudicate because debaters fail to weigh between different metastandards on the framework debate. For example, if util meets actor-specificity better, but Kantianism is derived from a superior metaethic, is the actor-specificity argument or the metaethic more important?

Theory and T:

• I default to no RVI, drop the argument on most theory and drop the debater on T, competing interpretations, and fairness and education not being voters. Most of these defaults rarely matter because debaters make arguments.
• I don't think that competing interps means anything besides a risk of offense model for the adjudication of theory. That means, for example, that debaters need to justify why their opponent must have an explicit counter-interpretation in the first speech.
• I, paradigmatically, won't vote on 2AR theory.
• I'm willing to vote on metatheory. I probably err slightly in favor of the metatheory bad arguments such as infinite regress.
• I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
• Fine with frivolous theory.

Utilz:

• I default to believing in durable fiat.
• Debaters should work on pointing out missing internal links in most extinction scenarios.
• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
• I probably err aff on issues of counter-plan competition.
• Err towards the view that uniqueness controls the direction of the link. However, I'm willing to accept arguments about why the link is more important.
• I will evaluate 1ar add-ons and 2nr counter-plans against these add-ons. This is irrelevant in most debates.

K's:

• There are many different kinds of kritikal argumentation so feel free to ask questions in round.
• I'm unsure whether I should default to role of the ballot arguments coming before ethical frameworks. I personally believe that ethical arguments engage important assumptions made by many ROB arguments. However, community consensus is that ROB's come first so I will usually stick with that assumption if no argument is made either way.
• I default to fairness impacts coming before theory, but I'm willing to evaluate arguments to the contrary.
• I don't have strong objections to non-topical positions. However, I believe debaters should probably engage in practices like disclosure that improve the theoretical legitimacy of their practices.
• Willing to vote on Kritikal RVI's/impact turns to theory.
• I'm willing to listen to arguments that there shouldn't be perms in method debates. However, I find these arguments not very persuasive.

Note for HS Parli:

Everything above applies. Except for the stuff about prep time. The only parli specific issue is that I will listen to theory arguments that it is permissible to split the block. Feel free to ask me any questions

I have been judging high school debate for several years, but I'm not super experienced in fancy debate terms so please articulate your arguments in a way I can understand.

(she/her)

I debated high school parli for two years so I am familiar with jargon and basic arguments but it has been a long time since I’ve debated/listened to a debate. Please speak clearly (and minimize spreading) otherwise I will probably miss your arguments. On that note, emphasize your most important points or I might miss them.

Please be polite to each other (and to me of course). Not big on K’s, open to theory arguments; bottom line, I’ll listen to and flow whatever argument you make, but I’d prefer a substantive debate about the resolution.

I love impacts and they are a major winning factor for me… make sure your impacts aren’t super ridiculous and please have clear, warranted links.

Obviously no sexism, racism, or bigotry of any kind will be tolerated.

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my fourth year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. If you run a counterplan, make sure you effectively argue why it's better than affirming the resolution, or going for the status quo. If you run a PIC, you have to make it very clear why the PIC is more net beneficial than the AFF's plan.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win.

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley Lay Judge

How many years have you been judging?

I've been judging for 2 years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not flow. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.

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

Provide me with your roadmap and guide me through your arguments.

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

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

Support your claims with cited evidence.

Maintain composure during heated moments.

Enjoy the experience!

I am a parent judge, so please explain everything clearly and sound. NPDI (at the time I am writing this, Nov 9, 2020) is the first tournament I'm judging, so be mindful of my experience. Things such as theory/perms are fine as long as you explain them as well as possible. Please explain everything clearly, speak slowly, and don't use jargon without explaining it first.

I am a new parent judge. Please talk clearly and slowly. Have fun and enjoy the round!

I can be contacted at captaincfcs@gmail.com

Background info

Student at Binghamton University- friends with a policy debater.

I know how to flow, please don't spread and we'll be good. K-leaning (cap, security, disability, queer theory, a little bit of DnG) but down for cp/da debates.

Not a debater, so theory/topicality are a harder sell.

I am a first year parent judge for Parli debates. I consider effective communication and the art of persuasion as essential life skills and I'm honored to take on the role of a judge. I particularly enjoy Parli debates as participants need to think on their feet without the benefit of extensive prep.

I prefer a roadmap at the beginning as well as signposting throughout so I can follow along. Please speak clearly, respectfully, and at a speed at which I can understand - if I can’t understand your argument, then I cannot award points for it. Focus on the strength of the position you decide to take and how you formulate your arguments in favor of it. If your opponent introduces new arguments in rebuttal speeches, I expect you to let me know by raising a POO. If it is a close debate, the quality of speech delivery will decide the winning team.

Good luck and have fun!

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.

I'm a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly and explain very thoroughly. When asking "POIS" give a maximum of two per speaker.

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

Content

truth>tech

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

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Lying

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

Signposting

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

Format

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

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

My Style

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

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

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

Other Notes

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

Please Don't:

Interrupt others

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

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

Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand

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

Please Do:

Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate

Feel free to remove your mask if tournament rules allow it

Be respectful

Have fun and not be overly aggressive

Thank your opponents

Be ready on time for the debate

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 prefer a slower rate of speech so no spreading will be tolerated. If you do I will give you no higher than a 27 in speaks. If your opponents say clear or slow make sure you listen to them so everyone can hear. Remember, it doesn’t matter what you say if nobody in the round can hear.

Puns and jokes are allowed and encouraged as long as they have pertinence to the round.

I will only flow through your argument as long as you can reason it well. Ex. I can’t flow through an impact of 10 million jobs unless you tell me why so many jobs are being lost. But even if it is a really far fetched argument I have to flow it through unless the opposition can rebut it well.

As to summary and final focus for pf I cannot extend your arguments unless I hear the argument in your summary and final focus.

For a counterplan in policy and Lincoln Douglas you have to be able to tell me what your counterplan is with evidence and reasoning, why the opponents’ plan cannot be used, and why yours is preferable.

I will Side with the weighing mechanism that proves that theirs is more preferable in the context of the round.

Hi, I'm Michael!

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

Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently becomes heavily racialized and gendered, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still very confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? Perhaps I am massively misunderstanding how 'truth' paradigms function (if I am, I would love an explanation about how this paradigm functions).

[3] I think speaker points are bad. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). I have heard some judges saying that we should use speaker points to reward "good strategic decisions," but I feel like I already do that with the ballot. So, I will give 29.9 speaks to the winners of the round, and 29.5 speaks to the losers of the round. However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to try reading theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks and phil, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

- I really enjoy phil debates and wish I got to evaluate them more. They're not common enough in parli for me to write a whole section about them (truly sad), so I'll include my thoughts here: I evaluate phil as a burden structure other than competing worlds -- if you read phil, make sure to tell me exactly what the burden of each side is and why this is preferable. Since I don't use competing worlds in phil, that means I don't care much about competition, advocacies, etc. I'm very comfortable with most foundational phil (Kant, Hume, Social Contracts, virtue ethics, etc), and I am particularly fond of Hegel and Spinoza. Even though phil debates are fascinating, I think the K frameout is the best answer to phil positions -- it's probably true that concepts like 'logic,' 'reason,' 'progress,' 'truth,' and 'freedom' are rooted in antiBlack european metaphysics that were exported to the rest of the world via settler colonialism.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think that 'tech' debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a 'tech' debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. That means a) 'tech' is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why 'tech' is bad or inaccessible.

- Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

- I have an extremely high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me.

- As a debater, I tend to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (60-40), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the impacts of the K. If you can do this, you will win my ballot.

- If it's relevant, the Ks I'm most familiar with include Bataille, Baudrillard/other semiocap positions, DnG, Queer Theory and subcategories within, OOO (Barad specifically), Sett Col, and Buddhism.

- I have no disposition in terms of structuralism/poststructuralism, optimism/futurism vs pessimism, micro vs macropolitical action, etc. I'm familiar with all of the generic advantages/disadvantages for each of these positions.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. That means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, and a reason why it's try or die to vote for your alt, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads an advocacy, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this.

- (Parli) The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

Hi! I'm Keerthana Routhu and I'm a fourth year studying Computer Science and Computational Math at UC Santa Cruz. I went to Irvington High School and have competed in a couple of Parliamentary Debates. When speaking, speed is fine, just make sure that it is reasonable enough for your opponents and me to understand your arguments. I like seeing roadmaps (off-time is okay), evidence, and well-structured impacts. Finally, please be polite and respectful to everyone involved in making these debate tournaments possible. Good luck!

I am a former high school parliamentary debater who is currently in college. I will vote for any argument as long as you give me a good enough reason to do so. Just make sure you understand the arguments you read because if you don't I won't be as convinced. You can speak as fast as you'd like. Be respectful to your opponents (that should go without a saying). Default to K > T > case unless you tell me otherwise. Weigh impacts and layers of the round.

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

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my third year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. I'm fine with CP's as long as it has solvency. PIC's are a great strat. Don't run conditional cps. TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. Don't read K's. Not a big fan of theory either but I default to reasonability. On framework, I enjoy util.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real-world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic, and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win. Please weigh in your last speeches.

I'm a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years, but here are some of my preferences for the debate round.

- Please speak slowly and try to be as clear as possible so I can better comprehend what you are trying to say during your speech.

- Refrain from using acronyms and abbreviations during your speech

- Avoid running Ks

- Theory is fine but heads up I am not very familiar with it, so in the scenario, you run it makes sure you tell me why it is important in the round to avoid using the tech terms in the process for me to understand.

I will most likely give the vote to whichever side efficiently presents its case with logical arguments.

I'm a parent judge. I know most of the basics (uniqueness; links; impacts etc.).

I'm focused on the merits of each argument and find it distracting when teammates comment on other's performance. I prefer logical arguments that have connection back to the topic. If you are interested in running theory, I prefer theory shells that are necessary for regulating the debate; not superfluous rules.

I look forward to hearing your case. Good luck!

Brief overview-

just a quick intro and some preferences because I really have to get an essay done and procrastinated so it won't be a fully fleshed out paradigm(sorry). To start off with an intro, I am a former Campolindo debater and current broke college student, that's about all you need to know. On to the preferences, I will drop a team if they are causing harm in the round, try not to be bigoted ples. I protect the flow but if you want to POI that's all good as well, also with that if you want to spread I can flow. I love theory, especially T's I have never heard, so if you have em run em(don't take that literally, proven abuse is necessary). K's are fine just make sure you tagline and keep it neat, don't run a K just to run a K. Case is most of what I'll likely see so the biggest thing you can do is have good impacts and know what point to collapse on, keep it simple give me squo(neg ples no squo bad) have warranted links and impacts(magnitude, probability, and timeframe). I try my best not to intervene, lay things out for me because unless you explicitly state it I can't vote on it. Try your best to make the round inclusive and don't worry about speaks i default 30 speaks for everyone because speaker points are big dum dum.

School Affiliation: Torrey Pines High School

Experience: I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging PF

In Round

I try to have average speaks be around 27.5-28. I will drop you if you are rude, racist, sexist, etc.

Please speak clearly at a moderate speed, and please don’t use too much jargon. You can also look at my face to see if I am confused or lost so that you can slow down or explain a little more.

I won’t have as much knowledge about the topic like debaters will, so please explain everything well.

I will be take notes but I will be trying to listen more to the arguments to understand them better.

I am a parent of a student at Bishop O'Dowd.

This is my second year judging high school debate. I am not a fan of frivolous theory or kritik debate. Just a little about me, I am the Chief Administrative Officer for the Cardiovascular Research Institute at UCSF. I did my undergrad studies at UCLA.

Please speak clearly, explain all terms, be mindful of time, and be respectful of others.

Hello, I am a parent judge, so please:

Don't speak fast!

Don't run theory!

Don't run Ks!

Don't run abusive Cps or plan texts - no theory response necessary!

Don't use jargon!

Otherwise, be nice, have warrants w/ analysis, and have fun!!

P.S. My son helped me write this so I don't really know what most of this means! But I do know to BE NICE!

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

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

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

Evaluation Criteria:

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

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

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