There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

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

about me:

- 4 years of highschool parli for Irvington HS

- primarily a case and T debater

.

what i like:

- strong link chains

- simplicity and strength of logic

- strong impact calculus in rebuttal speeches

- concise speeches

.

what i don't like:

- over-impacting (i know that nuclear war is bad, you don't need to spend half your first constructive speech explaining that to me)

- friv T or Ks

- critical arguments just to throw the other team off (you need strong links to the case/res in order for me to weigh K over case or T)

- potential abuse as a voter

- weighing impact over probability

.

random notes:

- i am tabula rasa

- Ks should only be run where they apply

- play fair

Hi! I'm Edward. I debated parli at Evergreen Valley High School for 4 years & currently debate APDA at Yale. I want to keep this paradigm short, so I'll just give a general overview of my experience & how I evaluate arguments.

I did a lot of lay and flow HS parli. I qualled to TOC twice & was in finals at NPDI 2019. I prefer flow debate, but I'm a little bit out of touch with it since I left the west coast. I'll evaluate lay debate on the flow; "quality" of speaking doesn't matter to me. If your opponents aren't familiar with non case arguments, explain them. I have low tolerance for exploiting progressive arguments to win rounds. Don't spread opponents out if they can't handle speed. I will tank your speaks and depending on severity (don't test it) I will drop you. If you make problematic arguments (exclusionary to other debaters) I will drop you. I'm not too great myself with speed, but I can usually follow. Moderate speed is okay, but it's probably best not to spread. I might drop some args if you're too fast and I might call slow or clear.

I evaluate case by comparing contentions (also turns) and their impacts. I'll ask myself if you get access to your impacts with reasoning/links, if defensive arguments mitigate your impacts, and how your impacts compare against your opponents' impacts. I default to a utilitarian analysis and don't have too much experience debating other ethical frameworks.

I flow T with an interpretation, violation, standards, voters, and underview. I'll ask myself three questions about the argument. What did your opponents do wrong? Why should I care? How should I treat it in context of other arguments? If you answer those three questions, I'll have a good idea about how to evaluate it. If you don't specify, I'll treat T as an A priori voting issue, but I won't know how to evaluate it: your opponents might wiggle out.

I really liked kritikal debate. I didn't really run anything but Cap (lol), but I'll listen to other stuff. Just explain it really well. Try to link your framework back to actual material impacts: I don't really know how to evaluate stuff that doesn't link back to real things.

I said this'd be short but I don't know if it is. Hopefully it wasn't too much of a read! Have fun and good luck!

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.

In a debate round, I like to see unique arguments that have solid logic and links to impacts, as well as organized presentation. Please explain clearly if you'd like to run technical arguments or counters. You'll get higher speaker points (my average ranges from 27-28) if you give clear and persuasive arguments and go over the flow. Most importantly, have fun!

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 did high school parliamentary debate four years, so I have quite a bit of experience and knowledge of the activity. Personally, I prefer case over theory, but I can understand theory and understand that sometimes it is necessary in round. I have a little bit of K knowledge, but so if you do run a K, please try and make it as clear as possible for me and the other team what your links are. I'm also Tabula Rasa as much as possible so if your opponent brings something up, try not to leave it unrefuted! I was a second speaker in parli, so sign-posting is a huge thing I look for.

Other than that, I care if you speak clearly and use logical arguments. Ultimately, speaking style does not really matter to me.

I am a flay judge.

I look for clear statement of the topics, understand the flow you will take for the debate.
No critics please.

Make sure to have good impacts and solid evidence.

Don’t drop any refutes or contentions.

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 lay judge with little judging experience. I am quite a logical person and would appreciate if your points were laid out clearly in a structured manner so I can clearly follow your line of reasoning. I would prefer if you had warrants to back up all of your points and flesh everything out as much as you can.

No spreading please. You can speak quickly, but it may be hard for me to keep up.

I will not vote on T's or K's as I have very little experience in that realm as well. However, if there is abuse in the round, you can just point it out to me without running a T.

Other than that, I hope that we can all have a fun debate and I look forward to judging you!

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! :)

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.

I am a parent judge (my son tells me I am a flay judge - experienced lay judge), and I'm in my fourth year of judging. I appreciate clear sign posts and logical arguments: tell me what you're going to say (roadmaps are nice), then say it, and finally remind me what you've said. I also appreciate debaters who do not speak so quickly that I cannot absorb their arguments or understand their individual words. I believe that clear, well-paced speaking communicates the debater's confidence in their argument.

I can tolerate theory but not unless you use it judiciously. If I feel like you're using trivial theory shells for strategic purposes, rather than to do what theory is meant for (encourage a fair and educational debate), I will count it against you. If you do run theory, explain it well so I understand.

POOs are allowed and I will discern whether it's reasonable. I expect POIs to be used fairly, and not just to disrupt the flow of your opponent.

No K's, be civil, good luck!

For parliamentary debate, I prefer clear, organized argumentation and reasoning over speed and jargon. I can follow a spread (my background was in policy debate) but parliamentary debate is a whole different event.

I flow, and use the flow in my decision, but not all arguments are created equal. You can win 4 points, your opponent only one, but they can still win the round if they convince me that their one point outweighs all others. Tie your arguments to the resolution, and show how they tie into your judging criteria. Speaking style matters in my decision too - a smooth, organized, persuasive speaker will have the edge over disorganized and choppy presentation.

On the subject of organization, I appreciate the 5 seconds spent to tell me whether you are starting with their case, or your own contentions.

No strong opinion on POIs. Nice to take one, but if you really are short on time I won't be offended if you don't take any.

I leave my opinions and knowledge at the door of the round. I am willing to follow most arguments if you can make them stick.

However, I am really REALLY sick of overly clever debate tactics in lieu of actual debating. I am particularly tired of kritiks. They are a technique used by lazy debaters to avoid having to actually listen, reason, and create counterarguments. Rather than pay attention and use their brains, they pull out a precanned K and spend their time on that, instead of actually debating. I expect to hear reasoning, analysis, and argumentation on the actual resolution - not endless whining about how abusive the other team is. Basically I want to see a debate.

I also hate tag-teaming. I believe that each speaker should do their own speech, answer any POIs, and generally do their part. I don't mind if you pass your partner a note while they are speaking, but that’s about it. I will only write down arguments advanced by the actual speaker.

In the end, the most important thing is to have a respectful debate with plenty of clash. Listen to each other, analyze what the other speaker said, and respond appropriately. And remember that this is supposed to be fun.

Hello,

I am a fairly new judge to parliamentary debate. Please go slow and clearly. Thanks

I am a parent.

Do not shake my hand.

Keep a distance from me.

Hi I'm Marco Zepeda (he/him/his), I competed in high school parli for 4 years and I'm currently coaching, both for Bishop O'Dowd :)

Give content warnings for before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permits. LMK if you're not game :).

Theory: I'm open to "friv" t, I think it often leads to important conversations about how we should construct our debate space. I try to evaluate only what is on the flow, meaning I want you to do the work for me. Make sure to engage in the standards debates and talk about fairness and education.

Case: Impacts please! Impact weighing!! I like cp debates, you can get tricksy with them. My biggest, biggest pet peeve with case debates is when people go "our claim is this, we know that because of XY major publication or Professor Name at Z School says so." And then they don't elaborate any more than that! Evidence is great and all, but you really need to elaborate on that warrant with some analysis of the evidence itself, or your own logic as to why its true. Also please do lots of clear sign posting throughout your case, it goes a super long way for me.

Ks: I was a critical media studies major in college and feel like I have a pretty solid understanding of the basics of critical theory. I'm down for k's! But please explain everything well, I don't want anyone to be excluded from the round. There's no honor (or fun) in winning a round because your parents paid for you to go to camp and your opponents' didn't (this is also very true of theory rounds). Please don't read a k on something you're not well versed in, I feel like it defeats the whole purpose of even having the k debate. There must be a clear alt and role of the ballot.

Speed - I probably can flow your speed, I'll call slow if I can't.

I am a parent judge with a limited amount of judging experience – don't go too fast and weigh your impacts for me.

I am a lay judge (parent judge) and have very little judging experience. I am looking for well laid out arguments, clearly presented, relevant to the topic and to the other side’s argument. I value logical and coherent arguments that can persuade a rational mind.

Please don’t talk faster than an average person can understand. If you speak so fast that it sounds like the “fine points” at the end of a commercial, I will presume that speech is meant to be ignored.

I know very little about debate jargon. If you use any, please explain to me clearly.

I am a lay judge.

Please do not spread. I find it distracting and unproductive.

I appreciate sign posting.

I don't enjoy theory, but if you're going to run an argument, make sure you are very clear.

Manners and respect matter; attack the argument, not the individual.