I am a parent judged with a couple of tournaments completed in the past. I look for an overall respectful debate, good organization of arguments with a consistent approach throughout, impacts and sources.

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

TLDR

Theory>K>Case. I am not a K debater so be careful with what you run. Mag>Prob>Timeframe. I vote on offense defense paradigm: Offense = win condition for you. Defense = argument is not a win condition for your opponents both are needed but offense wins you the round. Don’t be mean please. Tech>Truth for most part. Have fun :)

Case

• Please warrant your claims (Internal links, Impacts, etc.) as it makes it easier for me to weigh. It adds a layer or probability/ solvency to your plan/impact

• Any type of CP is cool aside from timeframe CP

• CP should not have its own advantage and instead should just show me how it solves for the aff’s UQ without tripping the disad

• Disads that say squo bad without solvency makes it easy for me to vote aff on try or die

• Love to vote on tix DA but they have to be written well if they are run

• Try to make everything un-conditional especially aff neg condo is fine but my threshold on condo bad is pretty low

• Please sign post

• Call out POOs and shadow extensions I protect flow but want to make sure you caught it

• Perms

• I think mutual exclusivity can come through funding, political reasons etc. This is because I tend to view CPs as opportunity costs over advocacies.

• You need to give me warranted reasons on why it is competitive however

• I will vote for perm as a test of comp as a voter issue for fairness but it needs to be run in the proper way and just blipping it will not get you my ballot.

• Allow CP mutually exclusivity via net ben if you can prove why you are not being abusive/extra topical

• Always have anti-perm blocks when reading cp

• Extensions

• Extend UQ point 2 and links 2 and 3 from the first disad (C+)

• Extend UQ point 2 as it shows how the USFG is a bad actor and extend the second and third links as they show how by using the USFG we create a cycle of dependency and neocolonialism tendencies (A)

• Both pass one just is better

• From David Gomez Siu

• read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

• I like links more than UQ and often have more than links than UQ points in my own case

• Read good links= win

• Take 1-2 POIs

Theory

• Competing interps > reasonability unless its a speed T or a similar debate space inaccessible T. However if you do say reasonability you need to give me bright line

• Default to no RVI unless it is friv T

• Will vote on friv T but the responding team has more leverage than if the T was not friv

• Don't vote on disclo as a T or anything else out of round

K's

• I am not a very good K debater so only run it if you feel it is the best possible thing for you to run

• Don’t run a K unless you understand it

• Don’t run a K to exclude easiest way to lose a round

• Will not vote on identity as I do not feel comfortable and it forces outing

• Aff K is fine but I do think you have to be prepared to take a ton of POIs and are not allowed to reject any because the neg had no way to prep for the K

Miscellaneous

• Speaks start at 27 and go up depending on content.

• Tech over truth explanations

• I default to tech over truth but I am open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams

• For case debate, I don't Google evidence or verify any of your claims but I probably have some clue about the topic at hand so do not outright bs. I also don't accept unwarranted or unexplained claims as 100% true even if it is conceded

• Tag teaming is fine by me but flow only what speaker says

If there are any questions shoot me a pm on messenger/facebook or email me at vivekgarg2004@gmail.com

Live and have fun :)

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

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.

Cathy Kenderski

Background:

current berkeley freshman. i don't compete in debate here, but was ranked 2nd nationally in high school, top speaker at 2021 TOC, competed for campo

Case:

Warrant your links please

Have uniqueness in the right direction, especially on neg. no linear disads!

If you guys don't weigh (please do), I default to probability>magnitude>time frame.

Theory

If you win it, I'll vote on it. will vote on rvis if articulated well

Potential abuse > proven abuse, theory is about the model of debate you justify

While I'll vote on friv t, I dislike friv t debates and would rather not have to evaluate them.

meta theory > theory > kritik > case

Kritik:

I am most familiar with Marx, Mao, Deleuze, and Guattari. I like articulation of what your world looks like post alt. If you think it's something I'll be unfamiliar with, include a thesis.

Speed:

i haven't debated in a while so nothing too crazy but i was generally a fast debater so i should be fine

Miscellaneous

I protect the flow

My baseline for speaks is a 28

If the tournament permits, I will disclose my decision

Be nice to each other

i think the debate space is quickly becoming an echo chamber, which is pretty antithetical to what i think debate is for. i want you to know that i genuinely enter this round with no biases as to what you run. i will evaluate you based on strength of argument alone, irrespective of whether or not i agree with you. this should not have to be said, but you'd be surprised at the number of judges who think the debate space is an extension of their own political project.

This is easier said than done but try to have fun. If you have any questions post-round, my email is cathykenderski@berkeley.edu

Hello,

I am a flowish judge. I’ll definitely flow. I did varsity parliamentary debate for 4 years TOC 2 times, and went to SJDI for LD. I have limited experience in PF and Congress also. I have run all the arguments you can think of, truth testing, friv theory, Daoism, util blipstorm, etc. that being said I’m heavily inclined to believe Kritiks are cheating, as is spreading but I’m tabula rasa so idc what you run. Just have clear links and explain the lit well, I don’t want to judge a debate on D&G without an explanation precluding the alt. That being said I prefer case debate, however enjoy good theory. I think speaker points are dumb and will probably give you decent speaking points unless you say something offensive. Defaults: Net benefits, Neg on presumption, Probably a policy round, theory is a priori with competing interps. All are subject to change if you just say otherwise. Will disclose if you want. Don't try and read my facial expressions, because they don't mean anything.

if you can't spread don't try to spread. I'll call slow, if you're just too fast for me, but I won't call clear, because that's you're job as a speaker, instead, I will just stop flowing.

have fun

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!

Background

My name is Rishabh Meswani, a former high school debater, and a UC Berkeley alum.

*Generally prefer less theory type debate*

Kritks: I am most likely not going to vote on Kritiks. I understand how they work, and you are free to run one, but I would much prefer a debate focused on the topic, using evidence, and reasoning. You would have to be extremely convincing to win on a Kritik.

Speaking: Speed is fine, but be reasonable. It is in your best interest if I am able to understand and write down all your arguments properly.

Other than that, off-time roadmaps are great, focus on terminalizing impacts, have clear and powerful voter issues, utilize evidence, and be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to some great debates :)

Let me know if you have any questions - you can reach me at rishabh@fremontdebateacademy.org.

I'm also the CEO & Co-Founder of a non-profit called Fremont Debate Academy, and have been running it with my team for the past 7 years.
Here is a quick description of the non-profit:

Fremont Debate Academy (FDA) is an international 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to create a debate & civics program in every school and every district across the world. Over the past ~7 years, our team of over 200+ has impacted ~5000 students, has programs scheduled in 19 states & 8 countries for this fall, and is training teachers from Teach For America and Broward County (Florida)! Our volunteer team has aggregated 20,000+ volunteer hours, and FDA is a certifying organization for the Presidential Volunteer Service Award (PVSA).

If you're interested in a leadership opportunity as a high schooler or college student, please reach out! Would love to discuss more or answer any questions.

Background

My name is Rishabh Meswani, a former high school debater, and a UC Berkeley alum.

*Generally prefer less theory type debate*

Kritks: I am most likely not going to vote on Kritiks. I understand how they work, and you are free to run one, but I would much prefer a debate focused on the topic, using evidence, and reasoning. You would have to be extremely convincing to win on a Kritik.

Speaking: Speed is fine, but be reasonable. It is in your best interest if I am able to understand and write down all your arguments properly.

Other than that, off-time roadmaps are great, focus on terminalizing impacts, have clear and powerful voter issues, utilize evidence, and be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to some great debates :)

Let me know if you have any questions - you can reach me at rishabh@fremontdebateacademy.org.

I'm also the CEO & Co-Founder of a non-profit called Fremont Debate Academy, and have been running it with my team for the past 7 years.
Here is a quick description of the non-profit:

Fremont Debate Academy (FDA) is an international 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to create a debate & civics program in every school and every district across the world. Over the past ~7 years, our team of over 200+ has impacted ~5000 students, has programs scheduled in 19 states & 8 countries for this fall, and is training teachers from Teach For America and Broward County (Florida)! Our volunteer team has aggregated 20,000+ volunteer hours, and FDA is a certifying organization for the Presidential Volunteer Service Award (PVSA).

If you're interested in a leadership opportunity as a high schooler or college student, please reach out! Would love to discuss more or answer any questions.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

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

Short Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

I am a relatively new judge and have judged one tourney which was for parliamentary debate. When presenting warrants explain thoroughly. I do not like to see spreading but would appreciate it if you are clear and concise in your speech. I like to see weighing in debate and would love to see pmt in the final speeches as well as a two world analysis. Good luck!

“The debate round is your oyster, do with it what you wish”

I am an experienced college parliamentary debater (APDA and BP) — additionally, I competed on the Asians and Worlds debate circuit extensively in High School. I used to debate APDA for Columbia, and now I debate for UPenn.

Please warrant and weigh well. Unexplained cards and evidence are not warrants. Examples and anecdotes are not independent warrants. Please weigh, don't make me do it for you.

If there is no weighing in the round, I will default to the most reasonable analysis possible (this will probably be some form of util depending on argumentation). Expect me not to believe dropped arguments if they aren't warranted well.

I will approach any theory with the following mentality: you are engaging in theory in order to gain an unfair advantage in the round; if you wish to use theory, please convince me otherwise. This is a high bar. Theory does not have a place in parli.

For more details, read the paradigm for my usual debate partner and teammate, Rodda John, which I entirely agree with and embody.

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!

Judge Paradigm

TL;DR: Impact clearly to win, Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe, Tabula rasa (as much as I can be)

Background:

I’ve participated in debate for five years, parli for four. I usually run case arguments, but you can run anything you want as long as you understand it and can explain it.

Case:

I love a flow case round, but make sure to be clear with your structure. Try to number all your harms and have clear link chains that I can flow. Make sure to weigh all impacts especially in the last speech but ideally throughout, and make a choice on your collapse at the end. If you run a complicated argument please explain it as clearly as you can, and if I cannot understand what you are saying because of speech or lack of clarity, I will stop flowing. Also, please refute every level of the arguments.

Theory:

I see theory as a way to check back against real abuse in round, and as a result, I tend to have a very high threshold for friv theory.

K:

I’ve hit a decent amount of Ks so I understand the common ones. Even then, for every K please understand and explain the literature/thesis clearly and have everything structured. Please have specific links to the other sides case, and I have a higher threshold for aff Ks. Be clear in your explanations and do not try to go too fast, it is in your best interest that I understand your speech.

Weighing:

Regardless of which kind of arguments you run, make sure to have good impact framing in the last speech. I want to be able to make the decision as easy as possible without bringing my own biases into the round, and the best way to help me do that is by giving me a clear way to vote. I default to magnitude over probability but you are completely free to tell me to vote in other ways, such as on timeframe or probability or reversibility.

Have fun, be respectful! If you have any questions or want more feedback, shoot me a message on FB Messenger or email me at darshsinghania123@gmail.com.

Sidenote: if you are sexist, racist, or otherwise dehumanizing I will drop you.

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

1. Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Kindly Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Please Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round. All the Best!

I am a parent judge, so please explain everything clearly and don't speak too fast. This is my first tournament judging, so please don't run anything too complicated. Things such as theory or perms are fine as long as you explain them very, very well. Make sure to emphasize your impacts and links.

Basically, please explain everything clearly, speak slowly, and don't use jargon without explaining it first.

IF YOU OR A TEAMMATE GETS NEHA RAVIKUMAR OR APRIL MAO AS YOUR JUDGE, COMPLIMENT THEIR LARGE FOREHEAD AND TELL ME THAT IT HAPPENED.

Hi, I'm Jake Young (He/Him)

TL;DR ... I am a debater @Campo, I have been doing Parli for 3 years, Open to any arguments.

Some specifics: I flow (It sucks that this needs to be specified) and I'm fine with any arguments. Don't be afraid to swear in front of me. I don't care if you take POIs; it is your decision how you use your speech time, do what benefits you.

Tech > Truth [which is to say I won't intervene]

I normally disclose. You can always also check in with me and ask me to disclose if for whatever bizarre reason, it looked like I wasn't going to.

Speaks: tell me what to give you in your first speech and I will give it to you

***My elitist friends tell me to disclose the fact that I am not actually that great with Ks. I don't expect to have to judge any in Novice. This isn't to say that you can't (or even shouldn't) run them...I will do my best to evaluate them. I know the structure, I am familiar with some of the literature. If you read them, I would encourage you to be as accessible as possible with them, mainly because it would suck if you read an incredible K, won completely on the flow, but I couldn't vote on it because you spread it and I couldn't follow it. But do what you want to do, I will try my best.

Other important stuff: I will vote you down if you're racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc. I think most people are debating in good faith but if your opponents are making the space hostile, it is your right to make that clear.

I like it whenever people make the round funny, any sort of humor is appreciated. Debate is super intense but there is no reason that should be mutually exclusive with being enjoyable. Other than the aforementioned -isms (you know, racism, etc.), I am not going to punish you for anything that you say in the round, be witty and profane and whatever you want to be. Also, hmu on chess.com (you can ask me for details after RFD)

Case: Collapsing is good, makes it easier for me. Weigh impacts and terminalize. magnitude/probability/timeframe (I hope you know the drill)

Have uniqueness, links, and impacts. I love line by line refutations, clear warranting and link chains. Stats aren't the end all, be all. I know a lot of teams make them up anyways.

Theory: I generally default to competing interps>reasonability. That said, I will be tabula rosa and listen to any args.

Jargon is good, use it

If you "would like to thank the judge for making this education experience possible" I will consider dropping you

I don't really protect the flow so POO

I try my absolute best to be tabula rosa. Still nobody is perfect so if you want to interrogate me before the round for any background information that may help you know where I am more likely to understand or believe you subconsciously, feel free.

Don't feel pressured to dress in any way during rounds (I mean preferably you are dressed, but you know, you do you). Dress codes are silly. Also if you don't feel comfortable with your camera on or you have technological dificulties, you don't need to ask permission to turn it off but it is cool to see faces.

Other Philosophical stuff: Judges serve you, the debater and not the other way around. My job is to arbitrate as fairly as possible and that means working hard to flow and actively listen. I have wished so many times that I could yell at a Judge to stop sitting back with their arms across their chest and flow. I don't plan on giving you any reason to want to do that, but if you have a problem with what I am doing, it is my job to make it better for you. Let me know please.

howtodebate.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXL35sdvW1Y