Email chains and questions: evanalexis[at]gmail.com

About Me - He/Him Gunn High School '20 WUSTL '25. Debated college policy @ WashU. Judged every format, coach policy and LD.

General - Tech > Truth. Do your thing. Be kind to each other!

K vs. Policy Affs - Yes. Overviews should be kept to what you really need. Aff perms should be explained past the tagline. I default to judge kicking the alt.

K Affs - Go for it. Voted every possible way on T. On the neg, case is underrated and can be your 2NR. Presumption is underrated. There may or may not be perms in a method debate.

T - Big fan. You need a caselist. Reasonability is a question of the counterinterp, not the AFF. I default to competing interps.

DA - Both 0 risk and 100% risk exist.

CP - Nothing's off the table until the aff reads theory. Condo is probably good. I default to judge kick. Presumption defaults the way of least change from the status quo.

Case - Underdebated. Case turns are viable 2NR options.

Theory - I will vote on disclosure, ASPEC, etc. Need warrants to win reject the team.

Speaks - Average around 28.3 for varsity policy. Good debate around 28.7. Below 28 there should be something specific for you to reevaluate.

Misc. - Justify inserting rehighlightings. I don't want a card doc unless I ask for one, I'll read every card in the round and value high-quality evidence. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round. If you still have questions after a debate, email me.

Lincoln High School 83'

BA Philosophy Reed College 89'

I am an experienced lay parent judge. I have judged for four years on the Oregon circuit and have judged nationals BQD. I want to see complete arguments, I will not vote on your blips. I value coherence and consistency of argument. I flow and vote off the flow, but I do not see debate as a game. Truth > Tech. I would say that I am tabula rasa, but to have a debate we must start from some very basic assumptions and ideas, therefore I will find arguments that rely on challenging foundational ideas to be unconvincing.

Here is a quote from the paradigm of the great Gonzo from Cleveland High School that I agree with:

"In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. ... But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan [more than] once in 1981."

I have a background in philosophy. I will understand most of the phil you read, but that means I expect you to accurately represent the arguments properly.

I am not experienced in arguments such as T and K, it will not be strategic to run these arguments.

I am fully comfortable with plans and counterplans. Under some circumstances a plan can be very important to bring clarity and cohesion and sometimes a CP might be a key neg strat.

I like POIs. I see good usage of them as key to a good debate on both sides and they can be very strategic.

I see tag teaming as a basic rules violation, so I do not want to see it.

I cannot handle speed. Please talk at a reasonable pace.

Volume does not equal emphasis. I did not come to be yelled at.

Politeness is necessary. Any hateful language will be grounds for a 20 speaks loss (or whatever the minimum speaks of the current tournament are).

**tl;dr read the bold. I like starting on time/early if possible.

For background, I debated PF 4 years at Newton South and it's my 4th year coaching at Nueva. I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round. The later in the day it gets, the more tired I get, so if I'm grumpy it's not you, it's me.

---Most normal tech things apply: here are more unique thoughts

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense as your arguments get more extreme/factually incorrect. I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds). This isn’t Pokémon, I don’t want to hear why your card beats their card.

Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)

---Other stuff

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) and/or there's actual discrimination happening and/or it's drop the arg not the debater

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, drop it. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that: please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

Last thoughts: I generally don’t presume and instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. Let your parents watch your rounds! They've earned it. And remember to eat!

Email: kaylaxchang@berkeley.edu. Please feel free to reach out for any concern, round/not round related.

I am a parent judge with not much experience. I don't have really strict guidelines for what you should or should not run as long as the argument makes sense. If you want more in-depth information, see below.

1. I will not understand your jargon. Put every argument in terms anyone can understand and make sure each argument has a clear story.

2. Please explain your arguments thoroughly and articulate your points well.

3. Signpost. Please. Not the ULI signposting (I won't understand what part of the argument you are talking about), just tell me where on the flow you are and what you are talking about. Off-time roadmaps would help me keep a neat flow too.

4. I am not familiar with technical debate. Please no Ks. I will not vote for them. If you want to run theory it better not be frivolous and make sure it makes a lot of sense. Even then I may not vote for it. If you are trying to skew your opponents out of the round with technical debate I will not vote for it.

5. Just have logical arguments. We are all here to grow and have fun, remember that first and foremost.

Hello,

I value logical arguments based on the objective evidences.

Please try to speak slowly and clearly for me to understand you better.

Please keep your own time.

Enjoy!

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

I am a parent/lay judge with a few years of experience. I do not recommend spreading or using kritiks, and I appreciate when speeches are well organized and clearly defended.

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

Things I Don't Like:

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

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

Things I Do Like:

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

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

Pronouns:She/Her

I am an experienced parli debater. I won state championships and qualified to TOC twice. My partner and I did mostly lay debat but Im comfortable with most styles.

-Keep everything respectful and inclusive, this goes above all else. This includes respecting everyone in the round and the subject you are talking about. Respect pronouns and content warnings.

- On that note, if anything happens in the round that makes the space hostile to you don't worry about getting the format exactly right, or making a perfect theory argument, but please let me know. Debate must be safe and inclusive for everyone.

-I am someone who doesn't come from a big theory background, but I am open to it of course, just help get there.

-Please don't abuse tech debate skills, if you use a word make sure you understand it. (And that I do.)

-Jargon is okay, but not if you are using it to make things difficult for your opponent, that will count against you.

-If you can make me laugh, not only will I love it, it might just help make your point. Please only do this in a way that is reverent to what you are talking about though, I do not buy into the idea that the debate space can be divorced from reality.

-Generally I think speaker points are too easy to be biased and so as long as you are respectful and doing your best that's all I care.

-I really appreciate rebuttals that make an effort to take stock of the round and don't just go line by line. Give me lots of weighing, figure out what is most important about your case and ignore the little stuff if you don't have time.

-Remember to breathe. Literally. I know I personally could get myself all worked up in the moment and it made it harder to think and the whole experience a lot less fun. I know this activity can be stressful, I've been there. Just do your best! :)

-I am new to this world of virtual debate so if there is anything I can do to make the experience better, or anything that I'm doing that is making things worse please let me know! :) (That actually goes for just everything.)

I look forward to a wonderful round!

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

Updated February 25, 2022

Ukraine note: I am normally pure tech over truth, but denying or willfully ignoring the invasion will result in a drop. Thanks.

Debate is an educational activity first and foremost. I will drop speaks, or at the most extreme drop the debater, for conduct which infringes upon the accessibility of the debate space. Namely, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, or other discriminatory behaviors will be tolerated.

Background

Most recently, varsity Parli coach at The Nueva School, CA. Not currently employed as a full-time coach.

Former coach at Menlo School, CA and Mountain View-Los Altos, CA. While in school, I was a TOC-level PF debater; I typically debated as part of Los Altos GV.

Short Form Paradigm: I flow and vote off the flow. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I care about evidence and weighing. When I vote, I look to the last speeches first, so you need to extend both your warrants and impacts to those speeches. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win. Give me an easy path to the ballot.

COVID-19 Notice: This is a really weird time, and a really weird way, to be doing debate. Accordingly, for any round conducted virtually:

-I will be very forgiving with technical and related issues. Please speak up or message me in chat if you have literally any problems. Debate is an educational activity first and foremost and that needs to be preserved.

-This pandemic affects all of us in some way, and some of us very personally. Please conduct yourselves with the appropriate respect.

-I will not be minutely assessing speaker points in any round conducted virtually. Speakers on the winning team will receive 30s (or 30 and 29.9 if necessary) and the losing team will receive 29.9s (or 29.8 and 29.7, if necessary). I reserve the right to drop speaks for uncivil and/or discriminatory conduct, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

Definitions:

Disclose: to inform the debaters who won the round.

Dropping: to vote against

Fiat power: the government's ability to declare that their plan will pass through appropriate channels into law, and be executed by the appropriate authorities. Fiat power does not absolve the government of the potential downsides of this process.

Flow: my notes of the round. I capture the essence of, or paraphrase, all content.

Framework: an argument about how the judge should assess the various content in the round. A common example is a net benefits or cost-benefit analysis framework, which adheres to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

K: short for "Kritik," a category of arguments which seek "to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views" (Bennett).

Line-by-line: a way of organizing rebuttal and later speeches that addresses arguments and evidence in the order they were originally stated, rather than grouping them together in a condensed format, thematically or otherwise.

Non-interventionist: I do not insert myself in the decision of the round; I judge based on who provided the better arguments as recorded on my flow.

Plan: an organized description of the government's proposal for addressing the resolution. It must include a description of the timeframe, funding, and actor.

RFD: Reason for decision. This is provided in written form on the ballot, and frequently verbally immediately after the round as well.

Signposting: when a debater indicates which argument they are addressing, before addressing it.

Spread: a very fast style of speaking, frequently eclipsing 300 words per minute.

Theory (sometimes 'T'): a category of arguments about how the rules of the debate and how it is conducted, rather than arguments about the content of the resolution. "Friv" T, short for frivolous, is that which is only tangentially related, if at all.

Tabula rasa: lit. "Blank slate," meaning I come into the round without bias (as much as possible).

Tag teaming: a parli debate practice when in the middle of partner X's speech, they confer with partner Y, either in a hushed tone or with an audible statement by partner Y that is then repeated by partner X. Statements are not flowed unless they are said aloud by the partner whose designated speech it is. [My own opinion of this practice is quite negative, in the context of in-person debate. Virtual debate sometimes makes it necessary, and that's ok.]

General Paradigm

1. I flow and vote off the flow.

Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for the argument. If you spread, I won't drop you automatically, I just won't be able to understand you and so I'll probably end up dropping you. I'll only say "Slow" a few times to try to tell you to slow down.

Signposting is key. I will write everything down, but if you're disorganized, my flow will be too, and that makes my job a lot harder.

I like to give oral RFDs and disclose if possible, but if I need extra time in order to examine my flow, that takes precedence over giving you a decision in the room. I will tell you you're not getting an oral RFD as soon as I realize I'll need the extra time.

2. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I will not complete the argument for you.

I am open to anything as long as it's within the rules of the event. For example, if you're running a plan in PF I'm perfectly open to that, just don't call it a plan (hint: use "advocacy"), and remember the neg doesn't have fiat power in PF.

3. Don't play around with evidence.

If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence (more so in PF than Parli).

I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at, if you do so within the round (all events included).

Empirics are king, but they are not the be-all end-all. Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, as Cayman Giordano says.

PF: Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.

4. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable. If you have a short-circuit voter or IVI that I should look at first, you need to tell me that clearly AND warrant why I should be considering it first.

5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be. I will detract speaks for rude behavior; this is an educational activity.

6. Off time road maps are fine if they're useful and brief. I do particularly like road maps before the Opp block and PMR speeches in Parli, but they're not necessary per se.

It is fine to ask if everyone's ready before you start speaking. It is fine to not ask as well.

PF

1. I like to see high level warrant debate that doesn't get bogged down in "we have bigger numbers" impact debate. Talk about why your side makes more sense and why you have better proof than the other side does.

2. The second rebuttal should ideally address some of the content of the first rebuttal, even if it's only to weigh against it. If you've got a perfect 4 minute long attack on your opponent's case, that's fine, just be aware of the challenges you're going to face later in the round for doing that.

3. If you're going to go line-by-line in summary, tell me off time that you're going to be doing that. I don't care either way, but I prefer to be prepared for that.

4. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.

5. Give me voters in final focus.

I will not extend arguments for you from the summary: if you want me to vote on it, you must say it in the final focus.

The second speaking team's final focus should address points, most preferably voters, from the first final focus. Extend your warrants and impacts.

6. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is first for clarifying questions, second for offensive/attacking questions, and third for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.

7. Speaker Points: Each speech is worth about 4 points and each crossfire one, roughly. Two speeches + two crossfires = 10 points (on the 20-30 scale). A 30 is reserved for practical perfection, and after my decade plus in debate, I can count on one hand the number of speeches I've seen that have deserved a 30. If you get below a 25, you've done something wrong, not just spoken poorly, ref. my note at the top of the paradigm.

8. I'm tabula rasa, so I'm willing to hear theory and kritik arguments in Public Forum. That said, it's really not in the spirit of the format, so please don't do it if it's not justified. I'm also used to arguments of these sorts in high-level parli, meaning that they're well structured, warranted, impacted, etc., so I'd expect the same in PF. Unfortunately, most theory arguments I've seen in PF recently are undeveloped and poorly argued, so please be considerate.

Parli

I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. Extend both your links and impacts.

That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I also like evidence - most tournaments these days have internet prep; you should use it, but be careful with your sources. Full disclosure of topical bias: I'm trained as a political historian and evaluate cases on the flow as a historian would examine documents (I reiterate: be careful with your sources!). I have a regional speciality in Europe, in particular the EU, Germany, and former Warsaw Pact states (esp. CZ, SK, PL, HU), and topical specialties on populism, minority participation in politics, and transitional democracies. Also, if you're going to impact out to nuclear war, your warranting needs to be pretty darn solid, and you're probably going to need to make a case for why I should prefer your end of the probability/magnitude weighing game.

I will vote on all sorts of T, theory, etc, but please signpost and explain each part of the shell. In this case, as in others, theory is no good if there is no praxis to uphold those values, e.g. claiming education as a voter but failing to educate the other participants in the round about the supposed issue. This criterion includes stock components like education and fairness, and is especially true for non-stock. I like listening to bizarre and friv T for entertainment value, but the flow is a sheet of notes incapable of being entertained, and I vote off the flow.

I don't have a background in Ks, but I'll vote on them. I generally find them engaging, so don't shy away, but know that I do not have a high level of theoretical/technical knowledge about the kritik format, nor am I up to date in the latest developments in K debate on any circuit. If it's important enough for you to center the debate around, please consider it important enough to fully contextualize as well. Please do not run an identity K based on an assumption you make about your opponents' identities, which could lead to outing. Many identities are not visible.

Speaker points (if in person): I treat 27.5 as my average, scoring roughly on a flattened bell curve. Typically, the highest speaks I give on a regular basis at an invitational/flow tournament is a 29.2. The highest level tournaments may see a 29.5. I have yet to see a parli speaker deserving of a 30.

Tag teaming is absurd for high level debaters, and I'll deduct your speaks if you do it. Exceptions to this standard of deductions are granted for COVID and for teams of mixed experience (e.g. 8th and 12th graders together for a learning experience).

POIs are a courtesy. It is nice, but not necessary, for the speaker to take them. POIs need to be a question. If you don't ask a question, I will deduct your speaks.

POOs: I will comment on them in the moment, saying that the POO is either a) valid/sustained, i.e. the argument is new, b) invalid/overruled, i.e. that the argument is not new, or c) that I'll need to examine my flow more closely.

Hi. My name is Rachel Goldstone. This is my third year judging debate. I tend to vote on who has better hair or who can talk in a better British Accent. Haha, Jk

My son informs me that I am a flay judge because I know to to flow and stuff. Still, please don't spread and do explain technical jargon. Probably a bad idea to run a K on me, but I'll do the best I can. If you really explain a theory, it might be alright. Don't be an **unkind person** with POIs and POOs. Tagteaming and other stuff is alright. Generally, I like it if you're funny. Don't kiss up.

I know you are working hard and I look forward to meeting you, hearing your arguments and learning about the world of debate.

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-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

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

I am a parent judge with a few years of experience.

Please speak slowly and explain all arguments. Be respectful and have fun.

TLDR: I am a parent judge who did high school policy debate in the 80s. I won state (WA) my senior year. OK to speak fast, but a little above conversational speed is probably what I am most comfortable with. I will tell you slow/clear as needed. I am unfamiliar with theory and the K, so if you run these please explain them very carefully and justify them. If I do not understand your argument, I will probably not vote for you. Weigh in the rebuttals and tell me how I should evaluate the round - this makes my job easy and makes it easier for you to win my ballot. Homophobic/sexist/racist comments and other abuse will not be tolerated. If you abuse your opponents in any way I will drop you and tank your speaks.

Case: Please weigh in the rebuttals, it makes my job and yours a lot easier. Make clear, concise arguments.

Theory: I have a rudimentary understanding of T and how it functions in a round, but please explain your shell very well. Give me a clear interp, standards and voters as well as how I should be weighing T(ex. apriori). Do not run friv T. Prove to me that abuse has happened in the round and that you have an actual reason for running T other than to get an easy route to the ballot and dodge your opponent's case.

I do not understand RVIs and IVIs. Please do not run them. If you do, I will most likely not understand it and vote you down anyways, so it is in your best interest not to.

K: I have virtually zero knowledge about K lit and the structure of the K in general. I would prefer you not to run K’s but if you must, explain how it is relevant to the round. Still, keep in mind that there is a high chance I will not understand your argument and will vote against you as a result.

Speaks: I judge speaks mostly on substance and persuasiveness, not much on individual style. If you are abusive in any way/attempt to spread your opponents out of the round (although a certain amount of speed is fine - just don't be abusive with it), I will dock your speaks.

Hey there!

My name is Shantanu (he/him/his), feel free to call me by my whitewashed name - Shaun. I judge: LD/PARLI/POFO/I.E./POLICY

A little context about me:

I am a sophomore at USC studying a bunch of interdisciplinary studies. I am a veteran debater, recently just moved to college. I debated for about 8 years in Los Angeles, with experience with lay debate and with circuit debate. Our team was small and underfunded, so I got to see all types of things in the debate community. My experience in debate started with speech. I continued speech throughout my debate career but then meshed PoFo to start an actual debate. I did POFO for 2 years but didn't enjoy the partner structure of debate - my partner was highkey an idiot - so I then moved to Lincoln Douglas and continued that through middle/HS for 5 years. My team was almost completely PARLI and POFO, so I had a lot of experience coaching and judging that as well. I am currently in the debate community as a judge for hire, as well as a drop in coach. I competed a little bit in college but didn't enjoy my time in British PARLI or Policy as much as I did in HS. Regardless, I am here to listen to you and hope to learn from you as well as contribute to your debate careers.

My Paradigms:

Spreading/Speeding: Im completely fine with it, no matter what the speed is; however, I will say that if you are not clear. and articulate, you will lose speaks. If you decide to spread, please make sure to have a case drop accessible for me to follow along and flow.

THEORY/K/OFF-CASE: I love creative argumentation, so I am totally game for this. make sure you explain your arguments well, but don't spend too much time on off-case. Get the argument in and move on, I do not need to know EVERY impact and little, however, I do need you to drive it home well. I expect you to be able to run your T/K/CP/whatever, but still argue the resolution and way above your opponent

IMPACTS MATTER: this is obv. however, don't spend too much time on the BS impacts that are extrapolations in a world that doesn't exist. If you are weighing your impacts as terminal impacts that really don't EXIST in this world, I have little care for them. Ask me to explain this more in the round if you would like.

VOTERS: Coming from an LD background, I like it when debaters bring their argument back to a weighing mech (i.e. Value/VC, a voter, a weigh, an observation, etc). I WON'T FLOW THINGS OR CONNECT THINGS I DO NOT HEAR YOU MENTION; however, I do not believe in abusive flowing. If you have a subpoint that is so small but your opponent doesn't say anything against it, I will not be giving you the points for that entire contention. I respect meaningful clash, and meaningful argumentation, so I won't let you get so nitty-gritty with your flow. At the same time though, I do value silence as a concession in the debate, so if you do not argue against an observation/contention/theory/weighing mech, I will probably continue to flow it.

JOKES: I love it when debaters through jokes / puns into the debate. I will def raise your speaks if you can do this effectively. Can't say I will max you out, but it will help

DONT BE AN A$$: Debate is about learning. I am totally for you being aggressive during XC and during POs, but as soon as something disrespectful/accusatory is said, I will def be taking it up with TAB. Respect your opponents, their pronouns, and their time.

LANGUAGE: If your cards site language other than English, it is fine as long as the majority of your impact and evidence can be translated for the judge and your opponent in English. Im all for bringing cultural context into the debate, however, don't be disrespectful.

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

I am a second-year judge, and I am not experienced with all the technical debate points. Please explain your arguments very clearly while providing logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates! Good luck!

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps a dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

==============================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

tldr: Treat me as you would any other lay judge.

A little bit of background information: I have been judging parliamentary debate for about 7 years. I prefer arguments that are simple and well reasoned.

Homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc. will not be tolerated and you will be dropped and receive low speaker points if you exclude anyone from the round.

Otherwise:

⁃ Numbered arguments are easier to follow

⁃ Quality over quantity when it comes to the number of arguments

⁃ I would prefer if you didn’t spend too much time debating things on the top of case unless it has a significant impact on the rest of your round

⁃ Impact out your arguments and tell me why you outweigh the other side

⁃ If there are any specific abuses in the round, please tell me slowly and clearly what rule they broke and why they should be dropped, and I will consider it

I started judging in the 2019-2020 season, and my judging experience includes over 50 rounds. I've mostly judged Parli but also the other debate events like Policy and Lincoln-Douglas.

I know most of the debate jargon, but I still want you to explain things in plain English. I value clear low-jargon communication in business, and I think debate should be communication practice for real life.

I can follow rapid speaking, but I appreciate organization, clarity, and carefully worded arguments. You will do better with me if you take your time and go for clarity. I look for the points that are most important or should have the most weight, so help me understand what part of your argument you think really matters.

Light theory is ok, but be prepared to carefully spell out why it applies and why I should use your theory argument in my evaluation.

This is supposed to be fun, so humor is welcome. I look forward to a great round!

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! :)

Hi, I am a first time parent judge.

When in a round, please speak clearly, slowly, and confidently. Do not overly complicate the round and explain your plan so it is easier to understand. I will do my best to judge.

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!

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge.

-Speak slowly.

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

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

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

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

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

No spreading. I do take notes and flow your arguments, please speak at a speed with which I can do so.

I do not support plan-plus-counterplan strategy.

Be very fastidious with your arguments when using PIC.

I pay attention to Point of Order in rebuttals.

I am familiar with Kritik, Theory, and Topicality.

Please be courteous with one another.

I expect the debaters to time themselves.

I am a parent.

Do not shake my hand.

Keep a distance from me.

I'm a parent judge with about two years of experience. With a PhD in English and a career at a policy institute (PPIC), I'm very familiar with analyzing arguments, weighing evidence, and maintaining an objective outlook. I will flow the debate, and I won't insert my own views or knowledge into my decisions.

I'm not that swayed by piles of statistics, especially if you can't explain why they matter. I'll consider any well articulated argument or point of view, but do your best to be sensitive -- and please don't weaponize the suffering of others to make a point. Trigger warnings are a good habit.

Peeves: spreading, unexplained jargon, and unnecessary use of theory. Also ploys like, "Their argument is clearly absurd!" Don't tell me something is wrong -- show me.

Be clear, courteous, and have fun!

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

I am a parent judge this means that I am very lay. Please speak clearly and slowly. No spreading. Be sure to signpost so I can flow the round better. I don't know too much about high school debate so please walk me through your points. When I weigh, I weigh not only on the quality of the evidence but also why it matters so be sure to show me why your evidence matters in the round.

No Theory and/or Kritiks. I do not know what they are and I will vote you down if you run them

She/They

Email: stephaniezhang19@gmail.com

I don't like friv theory and I don't care what event it is. Please stop reading theory just because you don't like what your opponent is doing.

If there are concerns/questions: email me or flag me down before round.

I did four years of high school debate (2015-2019) which was primarily policy although I did a brief stint in LD (circuit and local) with some success. I’ve been both a 2N and a 2A while in policy. I graduated from UVA in May 2023 and spent all four years of undergrad coaching middle/high school LD, PF and speech. I'm now a PhD student at UCLA studying sociology. In other words, I can probably pick a winner but since I don’t coach/judge circuit LD or policy regularly, overly topic specific things or community norms on T and theory will probably require more explanation as well as a slight decrease in speed for the first 30 seconds or so.

I was never a super successful debater and there will be things I don’t understand being said or done. That being said, most of the things on this paradigm are a weak default and the longer I've been out of debate (particularly as I swing in and out of various judging hiatuses), the more I vote against things on this paradigm or that I think are true.

Top level thoughts

Things not up for negotiation: Speech/prep time and the fact that I am signing your ballot and it is only who I think won.

I don’t think I’ll have to do this but if a round is getting out of hand (racial slurs, deadnaming, misgendering, sexual harassment, violence of any kind), I reserve the right to step in, stop the round and get tab involved.

Based on my experience, I am very concerned about the way people treat small school debaters, young debaters starting out or debaters who debate on primarily lay/traditional circuits. If you're going to be rude to these debaters for not understanding your argument (being unwilling to explain it, calling them names when they aren't sure how to engage it, etc) or refusing to adapt even the tiniest bit then I will give you a 25 with very little sympathy.

Tech > Truth within reason. I think bad arguments should be beaten and called out but the proliferation of terrible theory arguments in LD is convincing me that not every bad argument deserves a full answer beyond "this is absurd". Hence, the sillier an argument is, the lower my threshold is for answering it but you still have to answer it in some way. If you can't, then sadly for me and for you, you shouldn't win. Dropped arguments are not automatically true—you still need to tell me why drops matter and do the analysis and warranting for me to buy it. [2022 judging update: if you say things that are clearly untrue I will disregard them unless it is proved true otherwise]

Clarity > speed: Speed is the number of arguments on my flow, not your words per minute. You get one clear and after that I’ll only flow what I can with very little sympathy for what I don’t catch. I flow every event except for WSD on paper, so keep that in mind when you think about how much I'll actually write down.

I don’t read card texts and when I do, it’s either a few pieces of evidence in a super close debate or all the evidence in a debate where no one did any work for me. This means it’s important you control the spin of evidence, flush out warrants and do comparisons. I tend to think quality over quantity for evidence—smart analytics can beat bad cards and you should call out bad evidence.

Write my RFD and resolve important questions—I take the path of least resistance when making decisions. Good final speakers will make voting issues clear through framing, judge instruction, filtering comparison through nexus questions and organizing responses to their opponents. When I evaluate a round, I generally look to the biggest points of clash and impact comparison first, and filter everything through that.

Nuance tends to win rounds in front of me. The more specific you are with your analysis and the scenario you give me, the more likely I am to vote for you.

Presumption can be convincing, and I tend to think that terminal defense can tip a debate.

Tag team is ok but I’ll only flow the person who’s supposed to be speaking.

Be nice. Have fun. Treat your partner and your opponents with respect. It's nice to be important, but it's even more important to be nice

Policy, Progressive LD

Fw

Debate is a game. Whether it should mean anything else is up for debate. Fairness is an internal link (stuff like fairness is important to maintain a particular kind of debate), and I think I’m usually better for debates that pit two models of debate and their educational benefits against each other. TVAs are sometimes very useful and sometimes not necessary.

I find that I tend to vote for the side that most directly engages the other.

T

I err slightly (55-45) towards reasonability, but the more "what on earth" an aff is, the more persuaded I am by T. I don’t really think good affirmatives on a topic have to fall under one definition, but one random person defining a word in a completely different context is not a "definition".

No RVIs please and thank you.

LD: I'm pretty skeptical of the Nebel ev (and the argument as a whole).

Theory

Don’t just word vomit your theory blocks. If I miss half your standards I’m not going to think that it’s a reason to reject. Most theory debates end at reject the argument, rejecting the team is a very steep uphill battle.

I’m not a fan of "new affs bad", disclosure theory (btw disclosure is still important!), and the like. As long as a reasonable attempt has been made to disclose (this does not necessarily mean the wiki) then I think disclosure theory has very little merit. If someone doesn't know what the wiki is, running disclosure theory is an auto-25. Friv theory will make me put my pen down. I don’t care what event it is.

I tend to think condo is good, but this becomes a sliding scale the more conditional options end up in the 1NC.

LD:

-Not a fan of whatever """theory""" is in LD. Policy oriented theory (condo, cp theory, perm theory and the like) is ok.

-I understand the proliferation of RVIs in LD and find it ridiculous that this is due to the proliferation of garbo theory args because here RVIs just boil down to "this is stupid, 1AR time skew is bad, vote for me". I am very persuaded by reasonability in these debates.

K

Since I don't coach, I haven't read with the intent of debating since high school but I do read a lot for school. I would say my K knowledge is average overall but quite low on authors who argue that language has no meaning, everything is meaningless, or rely on convoluted metaphors. Based on what I study you can assume some knowledge of literature around race, colonialism, capitalism, technology, etc but you can ask before round regarding specific authors/literature base.

I like Ks that are applied specifically to the aff, not just a broad theory of understanding the status quo or “the topic sucks”/“fiat sucks”. The best K debates spin convincing stories by filtering the action of the affirmative through their literature base into a convincing story that doesn't rely heavily on jargon.

I think mitigating harm is a good thing. Take that how you will

I think a team can win metalevel framing questions and still lose technical concessions

Please just be honest about how long your overview is, although if it's more than 2 minutes I would suggest reevaluating it later.

The ROB is only a question of impact calculus. Framework debates matter surprisingly little if each side puts up a fight.

I have very little experience with K v. K debates, but my default is that the affirmative gets a perm. Perm theory, like most theory, tends to annoy me when it’s done poorly.

DA/CP

I dig. Impact/link turns (within reason) are always welcome. Dedev will get a slight chuckle from me.

Topic literature is the best indication of what CPs are competitive. You should have solvency evidence in the 1NC.

Affs

Case debate please and thank you.

For K Affs:

I tend to think the affirmative should have a direct relationship to the topic (kudos for creativity), a stable advocacy/action in the 1AC (i.e: not generated after hearing the 1NC) and a robust framework response. I tend to dislike when the framework response relies on analogies or comparisons to policing or roleplaying arguments.

I’m not going to make presumption arguments for the neg, but I might raise my eyebrows at solvency claims. Both sides should take advantage of that

LD notes:

-Phil args will take more explanation in front of me. Assume 0 knowledge and slight distaste of Kant, Hobbes, and the like.

PF, Traditional LD

Evidence quality matters. That includes source, dates, including the full text of the evidence, etc. I realize traditional LD (and the PF debates I’ve seen) don’t particularly reward evidence disclosure, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to engage in dubious practices (making up evidence, clipping, mis-citing evidence) for the sake of winning. If I catch you doing so I will auto-drop you, since this is academic dishonesty.

I get irritated when the last speeches devolve into overviews. Even if you're outlining voter issues for me, you should be filtering them through nexus questions and explaining why I prefer your side or why your value/vc is better AND responding to your opponent's arguments in a coherent way. I should be able to trace a point A to point B in your scenario.

Other things

For circuit tournaments I start at a 28.5 and move up/down depending on the division. For WACFL non-policy, speaker points start a point lower (27-27.5). For WACFL policy, they start a half point lower (28-28.5).

Non-disclosure as a policy is absurd and pedagogically harmful. If I have time I will absolutely give feedback after the round, especially if it is something that needs to be fixed before other rounds. If we are in person you are absolutely welcome to track me down to ask for more.

I have a pretty terrible poker face and you 100% should use that to your advantage.

I get really peeved when debaters give silly answers during cross x. Just answer the question.

I don’t feel comfortable making a judgement on something that happened outside of the round.