Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

Hello all! I hope this paradigm answers most of your questions, but please contact me at alex.abarca@yale.edu if you have any outstanding questions. I’m also happy to discuss debate in general. I’m a first-generation, low-income student and down to answer any questions about college!

I competed in NPDL-Parliamentary all four years in high school. I was a two-time NPDL TOC qualifier, a four-time state qualifier in IX (CHSSA), and a four-time national qualifier in IX (NSDA). I top spoke at the Jack Howe Long Beach Invitational and won the 2020 Stanford Invitational. In college, I was a member of the Yale Debate Association, served as tournament director for the 2022 Yale Invitational and Yale Osterweis Invitational, and judged both tournaments.

I have judged elimination rounds at NPDL-TOC 2021-2023 and the semifinal and final rounds in 2022. I have experience judging the West Coast Circuit and the NYPDL/East Coast Circuits.

I’m happy to judge either lay or tech rounds, but I see myself more as a traditional judge. I don’t like to think of debate as a game – we sometimes discuss heavy topics in rounds and articulate policies with theoretical real-world implications. Viewing debate as a game is unfair to our logic and skills, the people and situations we draw from when writing resolutions, and people who want to learn from this activity. Thankfully, theory usage as a strategy to win has begun to fall out of fashion in the community – I’m happy to judge theory debate when it’s well-warranted and called for. If you do it in an attempt to shut your opponent out of the round, I may vote for you, but don’t expect to speak above a 25.

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I avoid speed and jargon unless you and your opponents agree on it (jargon such as turn/cross-apply/extend is great if both teams understand it!). I encourage the 1AR/1NR (PMR/LOR) to collapse functionally towards the most critical arguments and weigh (against both sides, even-ifs, and counterfactuals) using a variety of weighing styles (scope, magnitude, brink, etc.). In constructive speeches, connect your arguments to a definite weighing mechanism and the resolution. Be explicit in your definition and operationalization of terms (this will make your life easier when impacting arguments). As mentioned above, I am generally unreceptive to Kritiks or Theory unless they are well-warranted in the round and executed well and have some basis in either the resolution or an in-round fairness violation.

I encourage everyone to share their pronouns – although you are certainly not required to. Do not make harmful generalizations about groups of people in your argumentation. If your opponents argue with you on your rhetoric, I have a medium threshold for dropping you. If I vote for you, your speaks will suffer. Share content warnings with us before each speech where there is new content.

As a note for me: I have ADHD – please ignore my facial expressions and body gestures for the most part. If I stop flowing and give you a confused look, that’s a sign that you’ve lost me in terms of argumentation.

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

I look at the flow and see where the critical arguments in the round fall. From there, I consider which side won more of those critical arguments. I will vote as strictly on the flow as possible. In the case where everything is a wash, presumption flows to the opp unless there is a counterplan, in which case presumption flows gov.

In-Round Intervention

The act of having a paradigm means none of us are tabula rasa philosophically. However, I will not intervene in the round unless arguments or inaccuracies are called out. If something is factually wrong (especially in my field, Comparative Political Development/Representation Linkages), I have a low threshold for tossing an argument or fact out.

Argumentation

Have a clear framework, weighing mechanism or criterion, and have sound plan-text.

Use cohesive logic with well-structured link chains. Have strong and defined warrants coupled with transparent impact chains. If I hear, “This will improve the economy,” I will not be happy. In what way, in which sector, who will benefit from these improvements? This a gentle reminder that the more expansive the magnitude and severity of the impact, the tighter and more cohesive the link chain.

For refutation, please substantially interact with the argument. Consider the claim, warrant, link (internal/external), and impacts of the argument. I've been judging rounds recently where I keep using "ships passing in the night" in my RDF, and I'd rather not have to say that phrase again. Cloudy refutations mean I must intervene more in the flow, which is potentially bad for you.

In the rebuttal speeches, please have voting issues, explicit weighing, and collapse down to the most important arguments. Except for the PMR/1AR, you do not need to go down the flow line-by-line. In the case of the PMR/1AR, I suggest you interact with the most substantial new arguments in the opposition/negation block and not waste your five minutes going down the flow.

Organization:

Please signpost – I flow on spreadsheets, so signposting makes my life easier. If you don’t have clear signposting, there’s a high chance of me dropping an argument accidentally. I prefer using jargon such as turn/extend/cross-apply/etc., but only when both teams are comfortable using such language. Regardless of jargon, make it clear where you are on the flow.

Framework:

Provide a mechanism for flowing the round. Use this reference point to weigh all the arguments. Lately, I have judged rounds without such a reference – these rounds inevitably become a mess of “prefer our side – no, prefer our side.” Why should I prefer your side? How do your impacts and logic better link to the weighing mechanism? Impacts in a void are unhelpful – debate and life are relative.

Speaker Scores:

I start around 28 and then go up or down. More substantial argumentation and speaking will warrant higher speaker scores – where your contribution to the round is substantial. I disagree with judges who think anything rhetorical is irrelevant – how you convey your ideas matters, or why don’t we type out responses online and save ourselves the hassle of attending tournaments?

Theory

If used correctly, I am open to hearing almost any theory argument. I'm happy to judge the round if you sincerely believe a Kritik or Theory Shell is warranted. If you use a K or theory for strategic purposes, I will have a low threshold for voting against you if called out by your opponents. The history of theory debate is that marginalized groups and debaters used it to access better the space they had historically been shut out of. Using theory debate as a strategic decision without acknowledging these historical reasons is a disservice to the art of theory, philosophy, and the people who used them. I also believe that we can read more conceptual and technical arguments in a way that makes them more accessible while still retaining their core purpose.

As a first-generation, low-income, queer(bi), and Latinx former debater, I don’t think being against K’s as strategic gains is against minority debaters. I think we should all be inclusive first and then go to theory when that’s functionally not realistic or save it for the moments when we need that access or want an issue spotlighted in an accessible manner.

Hi! I am an experienced BP debater with plenty of competing under my belt but I am relatively new to judging. I am currently a student at UC Berkeley and frequent tournaments as part of the Berkeley Debate Society.

I appreciate a very crystal clear speech with signposting and minimal ‘flowery’ language. A good argument should be simple enough to be understood by the average person so do include clear definitions and models. It should be obvious that teammates are working with each other and that a bigger cohesive picture can be seen after both speakers are done.

I do not prefer super fast speakers and people that have impetuous or condescending attitudes. There will be zero tolerance for any sort of bigotry and I expect pronouns to be clearly indicated and respected. We do not want a hostile environment.

When it comes to the actual material of your arguments, I will be taking a tabula rasa approach and voting, as expected, for whichever team can best tell me what the issue is and why I should listen to their arguments above everyone else. I will be looking favourably at debaters that both offer and take a reasonable number (ie do not interrupt every two seconds and keep it under five) of POIs and will be considering it as a sign of them further engaging with the debate.

I have 4 years of experience judging and debating in high school debate (Lincoln Douglas, World School debate, and British Parliamentary Style) and college debate (British Parliamentary Debate).Racism, sexism, classism, and bigotry in general are never tolerated in round or in argumentation. For virtual, please stay in the camera frame. It is best if your hands are always in the frame as well; otherwise, gestures seem extreme when your hands suddenly enter the frame. When I judge a round, I focus mainly on whether or not you have a clear structure. Structure to me means whether or not you fully flesh out your examples to make them impactful. The biggest thing I look for is your explanation - you need to explain things in a way that makes it easy to understand without sounding condescending. Your examples and explanation should help me understand your ideas or else they do not serve a purpose in terms of persuasion. Lastly, speaker points are based on who creates the most convincing arguments not who are necessarily right or wrong in the real world .

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).

I am a flow judge who debates in college policy and parli for MIT and BU. I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments. See below for specific guidance on arguments and conflicts.

Spreading: I am mildly hard of hearing and rely on some degree of lip reading to understand people so I ask that debaters not spread at their full capacity but just speak fast and I'll let you know if its getting hard to understand.

Signposting: please please please do it, when you're moving to a separate page or getting into links or impacts let me know so I can flow your argument as well as you have constructed it.

(Epistemology) Tabula Rasa: In general, yes. If you drop something on the premise that its absurd or untrue but don't let me know why I will not flow the arg your direction. I use conservative common sense theory in parli but am generally tabula rasa when it comes to what you can and can't drop without explaining.

--------------------------------specific questions and issues (all basically standard) ----------------------------

Theory and Kritiks: Love em in the right context. Standard form should be adhered to but please talk to me before round if you have specific questions or if you want to alert me about how you structure these args differently.

Neg Block Skew: some new off case and on case args in the neg block are valid unless 1AR collapses on theory. Egregious violations and skew will be noted on the ballot. Collapse in the Neg block.

Drops and Collapse: Don't drop important stuff w/o notification, collapse to your best/strongest args.

Presumption of fiat for policy resolutions: fiat grants agency of enactment and enforcement unless a specific issue is highlighted by neg (see: tabula rasa).

Monolithic plans/plan inclusive cp: valid (burden of disproof is on aff and moot args are valid in most cases)

Straight turns: if you run a disad and only offer defensive non-unique args and link turns a straight turn is valid and will be considered on the ballot, to ensure this is noted the opposing team should mention it in rebuttal and closing.

Topicality: sucks, but if someone is egregiously off-topic or skewing the topicality of the debate in some inherently harmful way you should make this arg for sure. Not a fan of topicality stock args if there isn't any specific atopical approach from a team tho (but of course i will abandon this bias to hear whatever debate occurs)

Offense/Defense: I vote on offensive arguments flowed through, if both teams only offer defensive arguments and rebuttals I will adhere to the least responded defense and largest defensive issues. Please do not make me vote on defense it is a messy game.

Anything else I can answer or clarify in the beginning of round! :)

Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Ableism: no tolerance policy, if you engage in harmful behavior in round we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If your opponent is engaging in some kind of intolerance/harm that I do not notice (which may well be the case) let me know and we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If you are using microaggressions or coded harmful language in your arguments it will be reflected in the ballot.

Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

Brief blurb: If you’re reading this right before the round, the shortest bit of info I can give you is that I’m open to any position you can run, so long as you run it well and you’re not rude to your opponent. Give me clarity and give me clash. I would rather see you do good comparative analysis than dump out several cards to prove you're winning. Warrant your arguments, weigh your impacts, and you'll probably like where the round goes. If you do these things and tell me exactly what I should vote on, you should be golden.

Longer blurb: I debated LD on the national circuit in high school, and did APDA and BP nationally in college. Outside debate: I'm finishing my PhD in chemistry soonish, and am going into management consulting after ye olde doctorate. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible. However, I get that most judges – particularly former debaters – have specific eccentricities in their philosophies, so I’ll try to explain mine.

Framework: Whatever you want it to be. I don’t really care if you provide a traditional framework, but provide some type of burden that tells me how to vote. I always care more about the intuitive link level rather than the existence of a specific card, so have a compelling link story. Even if Professor Google can tell me your card is true, tell me why it matters to the resolution and how it impacts the round. If you want to do something squirrelly (like PICs, imo, but kicking CPs is fine as long as you work to give your opponents room to engage), I expect you to be abundantly clear about how your strategy fits the context of the resolution, why it is unique, and where you see the clash going from there. Explain it like I’m five.

Speed: I’m fine with spread if your opponent can also follow it, but do not try to spread your opponents out of the round. Slow down to ~50% (make it clear!) for tags and key arguments. I’d recommend sticking with 75% of your top speed with me, and I’ll yell “clear” and “slow” if necessary. Slow down if you see me drinking coffee; if my camera is off/we are in Zoom university, <70% top speed is better. If your opponents yell “clear” or “slow”, do it so they can engage in the debate. If you do not, I will happily tank your speaks.

POIs/POOs: As a speaker, I expect you to take at least two questions. As the person asking questions, do not shout over the speaker or be deliberately disruptive to get your point taken sooner. It’s so rude, and if your opponent isn’t taking your point you can be sure I’ll notice, too. POOs: I’ll flow the new arguments made in rebuttals unless you make the POO. **TOC update: Judges protect the flow. You should still raise the POO if you think it's unclear.

Big picture: Please no offtime roadmaps or thank yous - you don’t need them if you signpost well. In rebuttals, tell me the key issues and why you’re winning them. By the end of the round, I want a clear picture of your advocacy and where you see the clash. I prefer hearing stronger, more developed arguments that clearly matter to the resolution over several blippy arguments trying to cover the whole flow poorly.

tl;dr: How would you condense the round for a CEO on their blackberry? what issues truly matter to you, and why are you winning them? take your opponents at their best, and find a way to beat them anyway. Any questions, email aberl at berkeley dot edu.

Other than that, be kind, have fun, and learn new things.

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

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

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

Good luck and enjoy the process!

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

I competed in policy debate in high school and a year in NDT debate at Loyola Marymount University in the 1970's. That was usually fast, spread debating. I was an assistant debate coach at New Roads School in Santa Monica, California from 2017 to 2020, predominantly focused on Parli debate. Don't feel obligated to spread. Do speak clearly. I appreciate slow and intelligible tag-lines, repeated when appropriate. Signposting and off-time roadmaps are vital. I take notes on paper with a flow sheet, not a laptop computer, so I expect debaters to explain what contention they're on and where they're going.

I'm a courtroom lawyer, so I appreciate persuasive and logical advocacy, spoken well. At the California Attorney General's Office, I argued in the California Court of Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the California Supreme Court. I admire the classic modes of persuasion - ethos, logos, and even pathos. I appreciate powerful persuasion, specific examples and citations, and an authentic appeal to what is just and equitable. It's possible to be incisive and analytical while also being genuine and moving. I've done jury trials - about 20 - and myriad hearings on motions, in civil litigation and on both sides of the criminal law world, so I'm especially grateful for an eloquent speech, with cogent analysis, clear inflection and minimal jargon. Be open to humor and some whimsy; debate doesn't have to be solemn.

If you suggest a weighing mechanism, then you should actually use it to weigh each side's arguments. I prefer probability to magnitude unless convinced otherwise. I love a true clash of cases and policies, argued creatively and persuasively. Emphasize the relative importance of particular arguments. It sounds obvious, but arguments, claims and debate theory should be warranted. You have the burden of persuasion on your claims, which also seems obvious but sometimes gets lost in the weeds. Someday you will be advocating in the real world, where people need, even want, to be convinced, where consequences are material, and where impacts are weighed. I'll be looking for you to weigh arguments and impacts.

Dropping an argument essentially means conceding the argument, but that's my default. I still would consider whether there was a warrant for the argument to begin with, and I'd listen to analysis about the argument's weight.

I'm open to Kritiks, but I prefer them to be logical, interesting, and well-explained.

I expect everyone to be respectful and courteous. Not only is that clearly the right way to be, it is also a preferable way of being convincing. Long after your competitive debate days are over, you still will be benefiting in countless ways from skills you learned and refined in debate. One of those skills is the ability to make or refute an argument with concise but passionate sophistication, disagreeing without being disagreeable. You can do it. And I look forward to hearing it!

Be kind. Have fun. Persuade!

Hello reader, my name is Joel Brown (he/him/his)!

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at Chabot College and at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a fair amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm able to keep up with spreading for the most part, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this often impacts your argument quality and consequently your speaker points too.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards that relate to your impacts in the context of the round. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally mutually exclusive with the plan or else the perm is terminal defense that I will vote on as the easiest out in the round.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently ran kritiks as a competitor and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the lit base you're citing inside and out - my flow benefits from 1) slowing down when introducing your thesis and/or framework at the top 2) presenting a well-developed link story that indicts the specific actions of your opponents case 3) explaining how your alt solves the K per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well-versed in other literature, but I can usually track a well-explained and cohesive thesis for the most part.

Round vision is key to wining in front of me - PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/PMR OR ELSE IT BECOMES OBJECTIVELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU. It is both easier and more compelling for me to vote for the team that identifies and collapses to a few points of key offense than for the team that keeps doing line-by-line in the rebuttals without providing coherent impact calculus.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

Most important: No spreading. Be respectful to your opponents.

I am not a former debater or a technical judge. As such, if you use technical terms of debate, please briefly define them. I have two years experience judging high school debate.

Regarding my background, I am a marriage and family therapist. Before that I worked as an editor at a legal magazine. Prior to that I got my doctorate in English literature. All of this is to say I have spent my life listening to and analyzing language and argument/story structure. I will base my decision on how coherent your argument is, how well you support it, and how well counter your opponent's arguments. I take careful notes during each speaker's speech and pay attention to flow and dropped arguments.

Parliamentary Debate

As a student at Friends Seminary, I debated with our nascent parliamentary debate team for three years. Finding both community and stimulation in our school's team, I was proud to represent them at tournaments around New York City in the NYPDL. I began judging as my senior year came to a close and have continued to judge virtually for the past year.

I'm always happy to answer questions before and after rounds, and I take feedback very seriously. In terms of argumentation, I appreciate creativity, historical accuracy, and ties to current events.

I find parliamentary debate rounds that get overly caught up on definitions to be discouraging: please don't let that monopolize the entire clash.

When it comes to Points of Information, I do not have a strong preference on how they are conducted, as long as everyone debating is in agreement. Before each round starts, I like to standardize how they will be conducted (whether that simply be unmuting or raising a hand). I understand that different people have different relationships with and access to technology, and won't hold any technological mishaps against the debater. Another note about POIs: please don't go back and forth.

I don't have strict rules about off-time roadmaps, but I do feel that they are overwhelmingly unnecessary. If you feel the need to present one, you may, but definitely don't feel pressured to do so. Finally, I always time speeches but prefer not to interrupt speakers for going overtime. Please be mindful of your time so the tournament can run smoothly.

I participated in a debate club (my school did not compete in any league or particular format) and mock trial in high school. I debated for 5 years for Columbia, University of New Hampshire, and Harvard on the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) in the 1990's, including serving as the board member in charge of novice development and co-director of the national championship. I consistently broke and finished in the top ten speakers at tournaments my last two years. I have judged at dozens of tournaments across APDA, CUSID (the Canadian equivalent), APDA Nationals, North Ams, and the World University Debating Championships. I have also judged at the NPDL TOC and Harvard high school tournament.

The things I value most in a debate speech are logical consistency, well developed arguments supported by analysis, and the ability to convey these ideas through speaking style. Dropped arguments are not appreciated. I will track every argument and take a tabula rasa approach; I will not allow personal opinion or arguments which were not introduced in the round affect my decision. Arguments will be weighed based on their impacts, how well they are developed, and how persuasively they are presented. It is not a numbers game so that the side with the most arguments automatically wins, nor does a single magic bullet argument guarantee victory if it is not well developed. The winning side is the one which presents the best overall case that would convince a group of thoughtful people who held no preconceived position on the topic. Complexity of argument will be rewarded.

I am open to theory arguments to check demonstrated abuse in the round, particularly to address situations where one team is denying the other a fair debate, or when one team is being offensive. I’m skeptical of kritiks, but I am open to your presentation, and will evaluate it like all other arguments, based on the analysis presented. I am My strong default for topicality is reasonableness, as competing interpretations standard tend to cause the topicality debate to occupy much more space in the round than is necessary to ensure ground for both sides.

Debaters are expected to refrain from verbal abuse of each other and show respect, including using preferred personal pronouns.

From my perspective, the point of parliamentary debate is persuasion. Speaking very quickly not only counterproductive to this end, it also makes arguments more difficult to flow. Debaters wishing to speak quickly should still ensure their points are clearly made and land with impact. Please heed warnings to slow down if they are offered. Pace of delivery is a key component in the speaker points awarded, and could also play into a decision on the victor of the round.

Signposting is helpful, but not a requirement.

Points of Information can add to a round, but I have no minimum threshold for their use. Refusal to entertain POIs at all does reflect on the confidence of the debater, and may impact the scoring of the round.

New arguments should not be brought up in the LOR, and only in the PMR to address an issue that was introduced in the MO. However, it is the responsibility of the debaters to call out such arguments through a Point of Order. POOs may be ruled on in real time or taken under consideration.

Tag-teaming is not appreciated.

I did league parli in high-school and did american parliamentary debate while at Columbia. I have experience judging both. I flow and I understand fast talking. However, I do not have experience judging spreading, nor am I a fan of it. I appreciate signposting like everyone else but it's not an end-all be-all. I expect every team to take at least one POI. If there's a VERY blatant POO I'll protect the flow but you should err on the side of calling it out yourself because I try to actively limit my own bias or interventionism as much as possible. Fine with tag-teaming.

I'm open to theory but I have not judged anything non-APDA in a long time so keep that in mind. Keep that in mind for kritiks as well -- open to them but if I think they're too tenuous or poorly explained I won't value them very highly. I approach topicality from the reasonableness standard.

Obviously, any abusive language - especially if it's discriminatory - is unacceptable. Teams should introduce their pronouns (or refrain from doing so) according to their comfort. I go by she/her.

I try to be pretty tabula rasa as a judge. Please weigh your arguments so that I can in good faith ignore my own biases as to what arguments seem most important without having to make a stupid decision. In the same vein, please also dedicate time to framing the round. Please explicitly link all of your impacts - if the link is subpar I won't be very impressed by the impact even if it's extinction.

I studied philosophy in college and I like hearing it in round when it's applicable. I also like when it's explained well and meaningfully contributes to the round rather than when a few buzzwords are thrown out. I'm doing immunology research now so would love to hear some science arguments. Obviously no pressure to include either kind, but no need to shy away if you're studying similar things, I will follow them. In general I encourage complex arguments over blippiness.

Good luck to everyone competing :)

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

So apparently I haven't judged in a while..

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

I'm just down to hear some good args and chill

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

Mostly everything below still applies. Main update about kritiks: I am pretty down to hear kritiks, but will get sad if the kritik misrepresents source material. Buzzwords and tags only will make me sad, but if you've actually read the source material, actually UNDERSTAND what the arguments mean, and can EXPLAIN CLEARLY the argument, I will be very happy :)) THE K IS NOT A TOOL FOR EXCLUSION. IF YOU DO(and with any other argument as well), THAT IS GROUNDS FOR ME TO INTERVENE IN THE ROUND.

K affs should be disclosed, and if you do not disclose, I am very sympathetic to disclosure arguments.

And because I cannot stress this enough..

On weighing: SUPER IMPORTANT DO IT. PMR should have access to weighing arguments, unless it's a new internal link scenario. I would generally like to see weighing arguments starting in the MO, but will allow LOR to make weighing arguments, but depending on the scope of the weighing, may give it less weight. Generally speaking, whoever does better weighing tends to win the round. Hopefully that incentivizes you to weigh.

ALSO please i love helping people with debate, so if any questions, email me at shirleych@gmail.com

(and i literally mean any, doesn't matter if i've judged you before or not, PLEASE reach out to me)

_______________________________

Background

debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years, coached MVLA for two years and in my third year of coaching Gunn parli

General

Tabula rasa

tech over truth, but keep in mind subconsciously I may be more likely to believe arguments that are the truth if the tech debate is close

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs on new arguments in case I do not catch it, if there are things that are kind of new but not really, I will give them less weight in the round

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

WEIGHING WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. WEIGHING SHOULD ALWAYS BE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL TO THE ROUND. The easiest way to my ballot is to weigh. I don't like bad weighing arguments that are generic and not comparative but if nobody else makes weighing arguments in the round, then I will appreciate your effort in at least trying.

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

Incorrect: "We win because our adv 1 has the biggest magnitude in the round since they did not refute our adv 1" (does not contextualize and compare to other arguments in the round)

Also incorrect: " " (<- the reference here is not doing weighing)

Correct: "We win because our adv 1 saves MORE lives than their DA 1 due to the fact that [x thing mentioned in Adv 1] affects more people than the potential [y problem in DA] would affect" (note how this is comparative and contextual)

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims

I hate voting on presumption and if I have to intervene a little bit to not vote on presumption, I will do that. This is not to say I just randomly like to intervene. I find that the times when I get close to voting on presumption is when BOTH teams have not made explicit offense but rather have gotten close to making an offensive argument(usually in some implicit form). In that case, if one side gets closer to making an offensive argument than the other, I will generally be okay with doing the work for them and considering that just offense. Note that this is just what I default to, not that I will never vote on presumption if the argument is made.

I generally dislike voting off of arguments that are not in the LOR, even if it's in the MO. I do not need the full explanation in the LOR if it's explained in the MO, but it should at least be highlighted as a tagline in the LOR.

How I judge rounds

to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Case

I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing specific impact scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I look at strength of link * magnitude. I rarely vote on magnitude in a vacuum.

CPs

I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics, these are just what my preferences were when I debated, but I'm open to hearing arguments that go both ways

Theory

I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will probably have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory.

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, orientalism, and some nihilism args, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.

Things I have read actual lit on: critical race theory, ableism, and Daoism. I have also read literature that references orientalism and discusses applications of orientalism, but have not read Said's original work. Reading these arguments could go in your favor but it could also not. I like seeing these arguments, but I'll know when you're misrepresenting the argument if you do, and I don't like it when people misrepresent arguments.

I am okay with K affs, but if you do not disclose, I am sympathetic to disclosure theory.

Speaker Points

I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks. I tend to find that the better and more weighing you do, the better your speaks will be. Hopefully this an incentive for you to do more weighing.

also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

Hello! I am a relatively new judge, but have competed in the Parli circuit for about 2 years.

1. Signpost
2. Warrant
3. Weigh - terminalize things and collapse
4. Honestly just explain things to me, whether that be the case, a T, a K, phil, tricks, etc.
5. Not that great with speed tbh.

Have fun, don't be mean!

about me:

• my pronouns are he/him

• 4 years of high school parliamentary at Irvington HS

• TOC qual 10th and 11th wasn’t on the circuit much in 12th

• plenty of experience with case and theory, familiar with most tech, but minimal experience with kritiks and kritikal debate (just wasn’t for me…sorry!)

TLDR - Case and Ts are lovely, Ks not so much. WEIGHING, structure, analysis, clash, and good strategy.

general info:

• tabula rasa, but I have really high threshold when it comes to considering blatantly false claims as deciding factors in a round

• I’m ok with speed (250ish wpm), but this is my first time judging virtually, so this might change. It is also a different dynamic than in person, so please be extremely cognizant of requests to slow/clear.

• tag-teaming is A-OK, but I will only flow what the recognized speaker says.

• no shadow extensions pls. it’s just bad debate. I think they’re on par with new arguments, so if you call POO, I will consider giving it less weight.

• On the topic of POOs, I’ll do my best to catch new arguments and protect against them on the flow, but I’m a human being and I make mistakes, so be vigilant and call POOs if it is necessary.

• judge intervention - hated it when I was on the circuit, so I try to intervene as little as possible. That being said, take every step to ensure that I don’t feel burdened to intervene.

• please signpost!

case/disad:

• I was really big on case and t in high school, and I still am now. I value clearly organized and structured case/disad with purposeful claims and warrants. I’m ok with most, if not all, arguments as long they have clear, logical links and properly terminalized impacts. Please please please don’t tell me you help the environment without telling me why the environment is important.

• I also think that impact calc and weighing are super super super important. I’m really going to struggle to evaluate the debate without that key analysis, and once again, I hate intervention. if there aren’t weighing arguments will most likely default to magnitude since that path minimizes intervention.

• most important things - weighing, actively engaging with opponents’ case (clash), and strategic collapse.

CP:

• CPs are totally fine, and I think they’re often a good strat for the neg.

• PICs are okay too, but you have to prove that they’re theoretically legitimate. Just be careful about being abusive.

• don’t like condo that much, but I’ll entertain it if you can defend your position.

theory:

• I appreciate structure when it comes to theory. Don’t read unorganized or incomplete theory, with substandard standards or unterminalized impacts. With theory, the same level of attention to detail as I do for case/disad.

• I don’t like frivolous theory, but I’ll still vote on it (with a higher threshold) if it’s run well.

• I’ll default to competing interps unless you give me a good reason to evaluate based on reasonability. If you want me to evaluate based on reasonability, I need a brightline because I hate intervention.

• like I said earlier, I don’t like condo much, especially in situations with contradictory advocacies, but I’ll still play along if it’s warranted.

• weigh between standards the same way you might weigh link scenarios in case debate. Don’t make me intervene.

• I won’t vote on an RVI unless you give me a really good reason (high threshold).

kritiks:

• definitely not K debater, and very minimal knowledge on lit.

• I have a basic conceptual understanding of cap, security, colonialism, and ableism, so I will still be able to follow the K.

• I still understand the structure of a Kritik and how it should function in the debate space, and I won’t be completely lost.

• if for whatever reason, you decide to run a K, then make sure to these things.

• Have a very clear structure

• Explain the Kritik thoroughly

• Do not go too fast

• Explain any weird jargon

• I know it might be frustrating to have a flow judge who doesn’t get Ks, but if you work with me, I’ll do my very best to evaluate the K.

Speaks:

• in my opinion, speaks are an unfair and antiquated practice; they’re ableist, sexist, racist, etc.

• if you are rude, abusive, or rhetorically violent, I will definitely tank your speaks.

• strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks.

I'm parent judge and former high school policy debater, and won a few local tournaments during my senior year. I did not debate at the college level. I have some scattered past judging experience, both high school and college level, but most recently, my judging has been limited to several tournaments during 2021. I judged elimination rounds at three or four tournaments this year and have always voted with the majority.

My suggestions:

Be persuasive. Explain the voting proposition and why your side merits the vote. I generally vote based on overall persuasiveness of the presentation. Some arguments are accorded more weight than others, and you do not automatically win simply because your opponent drops an insignificant argument. Quality of arguments is far more important than quantity of arguments. I am unlikely to vote based on technicalities or procedural error.

Be logical: I am most persuaded by arguments that make sense and are consistent with your position overall. I'm prone to notice unexplained inconsistencies in arguments, although I like to think this will not affect my voting unless the inconsistencies are identified by the opponent. In most debates, there is merit to both positions. I am more inclined to be persuaded by debaters who recognize this and make a nuanced explanation of why their side is preferable rather than just trying to steamroll over the opposition.

Be creative: I am open to any arguments, and particularly appreciate an argument that I have not heard before. If your argument is rooted in debate theory, please explain the theory rather than just labeling it, and explain how it should inform the vote.

Be relevant: Tailor your arguments to the specific issues raised in the specific round. I find it frustrating when debaters make standard -- particularly disadvantage -- arguments without much effort to tie them to the specifics of the round or respond to specific issues raised by their opponents. If you want to use the same "millions will die" argument every round, that's fine, but please connect it well to the topic at hand.

Be on topic: I prefer debates that focus on the assigned topic. Although I will consider novel arguments, arguments that stray far off topic defeat the purpose of the debate. Debates about topicality also defeat the purpose of the debate -- so if you make a topicality argument, make it and move on. Along those lines, I'm all for a good creative counterplan, but not if it appears that the counterplan is simply an effort to reframe the topic or thwart the purposes of the debate. Counterplans that are similar to government plans with minor adjustments frustrate the purpose of the debate. I'm open to -- but not a huge fan of -- and not sure I always understand kritiks, so proceed with caution (or very clear explanation) if you go there.

Be organized; I track every argument in writing. If I can't follow your presentation, I'll have difficulty tracking your argument. I don't object to spreading, but please be clear so that I can follow your presentation. If you're all over the place, or just ticking off lists as quickly as you can with no development of arguments, I will likely stop flowing. It is easier to follow presentations when arguments are clearly numbered or labeled, and the labels are used consistently throughout the debate. I have no objection to roadmaps and signposting, nor do I expect off-clock roadmaps. It is your argument to organize and present as you wish -- but do be organized.

Points of information/points of order: I'm generally indifferent to points of information. Make/respond to them or don't, as you deem appropriate. Good points of information can help clarify or focus the argument. Overdone, they're annoying and rarely helpful. You should have a good reason to interrupt someone's speech with a POI. If you have a good reason, by all means, go for it. But don't make a POI just for the sake of making a POI. A POI should be used to get information or clarification, not to usurp your opponent's platform. Regarding points of order, feel free to make them, but keep them brief and focused. I will take them under advisement. You don't need to make a POO about new arguments first raised in rebuttal.

Speed: A brisk rate of delivery is fine, but be reasonable. If you talk too fast, I will have difficulty tracking your arguments. Fewer, carefully chosen words that focus on important arguments are generally more persuasive than rapid-fire presentations that fail to highlight what is most important.

Be polite. Be respectful. Being witty, funny, or occasionally sarcastic is fine, even welcome, as long as it is not rude. Although presentation is not as important as the strength and substance of the argument, it is noted and much appreciated.

Kathleen Clarke-Anderson- Ridgewood High School, Ridgewood, NJ

Pretty simple-

I have been a speech and debate coach in NJ for 38 years. Judge of LD, PF, Parli, some CX.

I know I need to hear everyone's contentions, sub-points, etc. I don't like spreading. I would like to hear the evidence clearly. For Parli- don't make a POI/POC every 30 seconds. I realize the differences in debate styles throughout the world and nation; however, I want to see a rational, solid round that includes a clash of ideas and evidence for any contentions. Philosophical thoughts and ideas are welcome; please be able to defend. Not a fan of "gimmick" cases. Saving lives always wins.

Basically- stock issues- clear presentation of contentions, off-topic or surface arguments tolerated, but not preferred.

Will weigh advantages/disadvantages.

If I don't believe you are using your evidence correctly or out of context I will ask you for it.

Please do not be abusive you will lose speaker points. Above all keep in mind equity, diversity, and inclusion, this means, no hating, no discriminating of others, and no triggering comments/contentions without warning.

Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:

To start, my credentials are as follows:

-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate

-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament

-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.

-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress

With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.

Now, what does it take to win my ballot?

I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.

Public Forum:

-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)

-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.

Policy:

-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.

LD:

-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*

-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.

IPDA:

-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.

Congress:

-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.

-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality

BQ:

-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.

Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.

Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.

Hi, my name is Akshana and I'm a first year out from PA. I did a lil debate (LD & Policy) in high school and am super comfortable judging them, and I also judge parliamentary as well.

I'll vote for anything if you win it. I'm not very good at flowing so pls go 60-70% top speed if it’s super technical.

PLEASE IMPACT OUT AND WEIGH YOUR ARGS. I really hate having to do the weighing myself at the end of the round, and more likely than not I'll probably arbitrarily pick which impact I care about more in the moment. I'll give you high speaks if I like the way you debate or if you make me like debate :)

I don't like tricks. I have a very high threshold for independent voters; they're usually very arbitrary BUT feel free to use them.

PLEASE KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME AND YOUR OPPONENTS TIME. 99% of the time I'm not timing you, and if your opponent calls you out on time I'm going to dock your speaks.

For K's i'm quite familiar with Set Col, Security, and ID Pol Ks, but you should read what you're most comfortable with. Whatever you read, make sure to be more nuanced than just extending taglines from the NC the whole round, even if you read lit I'm familiar with I'm not going to fill in any blanks you leave for you

Brief note for parli:

Please try to be polite w/ interrupting for questions (and generally accommodating towards if you're the one speaking) , I really only care about the flow, but if one team is blatantly rude, hostile, or just misusing their time then I'll start to dock speaks.

Yo! My name is Yannick Davidson (he/him) and I am a junior APDA debater at Williams College. In High School I did 1 year of LD, 2 Years of Policy, Sporadic PF, and 4 years of some extraneous debate related events such as Model UN and Extemp. For the past three years I have competed and judged in American Parli Debate at the College level.

Parli Paradigm

Flow — Partly due to my background, I’m a very flow heavy judge, I really appreciate debaters who can make my job on the flow as easy as possible by delivering clean and well structured responses on the flow. I’m relatively tab and tech > truth in the vast majority of cases, but I won’t vote for anything that is obviously unethical — it probably doesn’t need to be said but I won’t vote for any arguments that are explicitly racist/homophobic/sexist etc.

Behavior — I would appreciate that people try to be friendly with each other in round. I realize debates get heated at times, but I definitely try to reward debaters who have both charitable characterizations of the argumentation of their opponents and treat everyone in the round with respect. It’s not usually a decisive factor in who wins the round, but it certainly will help your speaks to be chill.

Speech Stuff:

Speed — I can follow speeds up to circuit Policy speed, and I personally quite like debates that are very quick if clearly both teams can follow the speed. I think that spreading for the purpose of keeping another team out of the round is a droppable offense. I would ideally like for a debater seeking to spread to mention that before their speech and check to make sure that both the opposing team and the panel are fine with speed. If it is the case that they aren't, and the speaker still chooses to spread, I am willing to drop the team depending on how egregious it is.

Signposting -- I always appreciate clear signposting, especially in quicker rounds. I will likely be able to flow/follow the round without it, but it makes my life significantly easier.

POIs — I don’t expect anyone to take a minimum number of POIs, I think that it reflects positively on a speaker to take 1 or 2, but it’s not a necessity for me.

POOs — I will modestly protect the flow. I can't guarantee if I will be perfect at protecting it. If you think something is new, please don't hesitate to call it.

Tag-teaming — Not a huge fan, because it’s often a bit disrespectful to the partner being spoken for, e.g. it seems like this person is often cut off from making an argument that they wanted to say. However, if a speaker is genuinely stumped by a POI, I don’t mind a partner tag teaming for expediency.

Argument Stuff:

Evidence — Evidence can be a really useful way to illustrate a point, but evidence is by no means sufficient to win a point, nor is lack of evidence necessarily a reason why a point is untrue. Arguments that are logically constructed and incorporate deep warranting structures always matter more than shoddy evidence in my book.

Weighing — I prefer that weighing and crystallization is done explicitly, the earlier the better. Comparative weighing is incredibly important in helping me adjudicate the strength of various weighing mechanisms, I encourage debaters to explicitly try to cross weigh and mechanize their weighing. I defer first to the weighing mechanisms that are most well established in the round, absent an explicit mechanism, I next defer to the implicit weighing structure of speeches — e.g. things like argument prioritization and mutually agreed upon conceptions of the termination/weighing of impacts to make my decision.

Theory — I debated a substantial amount of theory in LD and Policy, so I am relatively familiar and comfortable with the general structure and adjudication of theory debates. That being said, I am less familiar with the specific contour of theory in Parli. Debaters seeking to run theory in front of me will probably find it helpful to run non-generic argumentation and provide deep warrants for their theory. I am totally comfortable adjudicating Theory rounds and positions, so don’t feel discouraged running it in front of me!

CP/Disad Debate: Yep, I love them. Some of my favorite debates. I think the critical part of running a successful DA in front of me is avoiding incredibly generic link work, the more specific to aff advocacy the better.

Kritiks — I love Ks. In Policy I was a K only debater. I am most familiar with the following K lit areas: Afropess, Black Nihilism, Queer Rage, and Setcol. That said I will not penalize anyone for not running a K, and running a K in front of me certainly won’t guarantee your victory. I am not a fan of generic links, I would really stress the importance of linking to specific advantages/pieces of analysis along with you overall link defense. There’s some resolutions that might have strong links into the K, but aff strategies can often skirt these links, which I think harms a lot of the link strength that neg teams go for. I think that there is often an underinvestment in the impact section in K debates and too much time spent in the framework, I appreciate significant impact level work from both sides.

Topicality — I don’t mind T, run it if you want. I’m more inclined to believe that T is about competing interpretations, but I’m willing to listen to arguments about why I should prefer reasonableness or some other standard. T as an RVI is usually a non starter unless that neg team is super egregious.

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

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

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

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

Update for ToC 2023

I want to be impressed by your debating.

1. I am more distanced from the community now, so wow me with the new meta and some innovation or just go for heg. I will struggle a bit with speed and I may not resolve complicated layering debates in predictable ways, particularly on positions I am unfamiliar with. I tend to find ballots on fairness.

2. Since I care less about competition and more about pedagogy, I'm less inclined to vote for frivolous positions in close debates. I will not intervene against your new tricks, but beware my wrath on your speaks.

3. Let your timer ring in NSDA campus if your opponent is speaking over time. There are too many weird, untimed speeches happening online to not be clear about this.

4. If there are technical, "West Coast" debaters that are deliberately making debate less accessible, I am open to voting on arguments that this specific behavior is bad and ought to be punished. However, I will not vote on arguments that say that all arguments of a certain kind are bad. If your strategy is to complain that a position is prima facie inaccessible, you should strike me.

Argument content and speed seem to be the two aspects of debate that people find inaccessible. I caution any team reading arguments about the accessibility of debate:

First, genuine attempts to engage are a necessary condition to win that a position is inaccessible. For example, if the 1NC argues that the 1AC is too fast and therefore inaccessible, I would expect that the negative littered the 1AC with POIs asking for clarification. The optimal scenario for accessibility is one in which requests for certain practices are made before the round begins, ideally before prep.

Second, a viable alternative vision of debate, this round, and the ballot is necessary. What should debate look like? How does the ballot affect it? Do I completely abandon the burden of rejoinder or apply a different standard? An argument about accessibility should answer all of these questions. If you don't provide an alternative to the burden of rejoinder, I'll likely vote on conceded responses to speed bad or cross-applications of critical arguments against K's bad, because those are common arguments that you tend to drop. That will be difficult for you, but you have been forewarned.

Third, realize that inaccessibility is not solved by excluding certain positions or practices. Mandating debaters speak below a certain rate or banning critical positions is not liberatory - it's antithetical to liberation for some, and a bit authoritarian for my taste. You are reading a position to win the round just like everyone else. That's cool, but do not pretend/argue that speed is the worst form of exclusivity and that a ballot for you would solve everything.

TL;DR

Move fast and break things. You do you, unless you avoid line-by-line, give meaningless overviews, or drop arguments. Don’t do that. Do some argument resolution. Adapt to your opponents and think strategically before the speech/round/tournament.

Arguments require warrants. Tech >>>>>>>>>> Truth. Good framing makes voting simpler. I’m a link person more than a uniqueness person. K affs are fine, but I like fw. I enjoy direct, substantive clash. Theory is fine.

Background

he/him/his; Bellarmine College Prep ‘19, Georgetown ‘23; I like economics; debated at Bell, Notre Dame, and MVLA; coached at MVLA; coached Evergreen MS.

In high school, I read politics, heg, and long, conditional 1NCs. I went to one college tournament and read a queer temporality performance aff, framework, cap, and theory (and case!).

My resting face can be frowning or stern. Don’t take it badly - I’m just thinking.

Ballot

I will intervene on speech times, giving at most one win, that I only flow what the designated speaker says, and that structural violence in debate is real. If necessary, give content/trigger warnings before the round/speech. Deliberate misgendering along with anything else morally abhorrent is an auto-loss.

Claims require warrants. Pointing out that an argument lacks a warrant is sufficient for terminal defense. Empirics > analytics > testimonies. Interaction does not require signposting, but it helps.

Conceded claims need not be extended. If an argument is dropped, I will consider it true. But, I should be able to explain the arguments I’m voting on, so a quick explanation when extending an important argument would hel.

Style

I don’t care iff I can understand you. I will yell clear if necessary, but after a three times, I will stop flowing. Slow down on tags and be clear with subpoints, please. Except in cases where your opponent is unable to compete with your speech, I’m down for speed. If you’re in doubt, I will default to tournament norms for speed/tech.

Case, I guess

Case defense is overrated, case offense is appropriately rated, framing is underrated. A long framing sheet, even as early as the 1AC, is great. Impact terminalization and weighing is a must in case debates. Absent these arguments, intervention is more likely necessary to resolve the debate.

Infinite condo with intrinsicness perms is sounds like a fun model for debate. I find myself arguing that uniqueness controls the link but believing that the other way around is more correct.

I find it difficult to evaluate turns case scenarios, squo solves, or solvency arguments that are not articulated in the context of the advantage(s).

CP

Turns out that a fresh-out-the-oven cp that defaces the absurd cherry-picking that is the aff's solvency mechanism gets me just as excited as it would get anyone else. If the 1AC internal links aren't tight, punish them. The more specific, well-warranted the solvency deficit and net benefit are, the better. PICs and actor counterplans are not good strategies.

CP theory is probably reject the argument. 2A’s, don’t bother with shell theory if the 1AR can explain the obvious brightline. It's a hard sell for me that PICs are ever legitimate on (functionally) one-topical-aff topics.

Conditionality is great and underutilized. 1 condo makes theory an uphill battle, 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4+ and I'll be more sympathetic to the aff.

K’s

I wasn’t the most prolific K debater, but I’m down. If you're reading complex high theory, I'm a bad judge for you - not because I'm particularly biased against the K, but because I'm not well-versed on many lit bases and I haven't judged a lot of high theory K rounds, so I might not necessarily resolve a messy debate in the way you expect.

The criticism should disagree with and disprove the aff. I have a high threshold for voting on sweeping claims about the structure of society/the world. I’m inclined to weigh the plan/the 1AC in some form. I am more convinced by 1NCs that engage with the case.

Lit I’m comfy with: SetCol, Security, Neolib

Leave time for questions.

Framework

Bread-and-butter fairness first is fine, but I avoided this strategy, although skews eval is probably True. I'm enthused by, well-read in, and interested in watching debates of the more interesting framework impacts - self-questioning, debatability, epistemic humility, etc. Procedural fairness is still an impact, though. Defenses of policymaking are fine, args like "policymaking key to solving climate change" are silly.

IVIs

My threshold for IVIs is 1. a sufficiently strong claim to the ballot and 2. they do not operate under any existing framework in the round.

If an independent voting issue's offense operates under an existing framework in the round, it is probably not an IVI. Examples of each side of this:

1. Reading SetCol on the neg conditionally is probably a relink to the K, but unless it's a categorically distinct abuse/offense/violation, it's not an IVI.

2. Regardless of whether or not "discourse matters" framing exists in a round, saying a slur is obviously distinct from using language of settlerism. I'll drop anyone who does it instantly, but it's useful to clarify that the IVI exists under my threshold - "slurs bad" operates under a distinct framework and has a clear claim to the ballot - the IVI is justified.

If you spam IVIs, I will take a baseball bat to your speaks. An additional link to your criticism is not, in fact, an independent voting issue.

There seem to be a disturbing number of IVIs that are essentially "answering our argument is a form of {whatever we criticize}, it's an IVI." This is not how debate works. If the position centers the issue of white people/cishet people/settlers/whomever, yeah, maybe. If it's a case turn - hurts the folks you're trying to help - that's not an IVI, it's a response with which you must engage. Your ideas are subject to criticism.

Critical Affirmatives

The affirmative should be topical or impact turn fairness cleanly to win my ballot. Beware, my most controversial ballots are finding thin routes to the ballot on framework.

Develop a couple pieces of thesis-level offense and lbl effectively. You will lose if you drop fairness first (skews eval, etc.) in the 2AC. I find I often give low speaks to 2ACs on critical affirmatives because they are terrible at answering framework (which is silly, and yet...).

Unless the aff impact turns framework, the counter-interp is usually undercovered by the negative. LBLing the standards debate is usually a waste of time.

Theory/Tricks

Paragraph theory > shell theory, especially on CP theory. I don’t need an interpretation to know what condo bad or actor CPs bad means.

I default to competing interps. Absent contradictory arguments, reading an interp is not necessary to win theory, but it helps. I think reasonability (substance crowdout) is underutilized and has potential value as metatheory. All other brightlines are terrible. I’m ambivalent about RVIs - debate them. I default to and am inclined to drop the argument, barring condo.d

I'll grudgingly tolerate friv. I dislike NIBs and/or presumption triggers that have sweeping implications (truth value). I’m uncomfortable but willing to abandon offense-defense for truth-testing or anything else.

Rebuttals

Please don’t call the POO, I’ll protect. Don't POO the 1NR. I hold the line on new args higher than most judges. No new layers that are not sublayers that are responsive to arguments in the block.

I prefer early-breaking debates. I would rather the 2nd constructives make arguments about the leeway I should give the rebuttal than leave me to protect or not. Do more weighing and warrant comparison.

Other

Presumption goes to advocacy of least change absent other argumentation. In a relevant case, I will apply this standard paradigmatically (e.g. a round in which 1. all offense is zero-risk 2. the negative reads a counterplan 3. no presumption arguments are made).

Splitting the block is fine.

Explaining dense arguments will make voting on them easier.

Unless you gain significant, asymmetrical advantage from disclosure, or someone in the round requests that I do not disclose, I will disclose. Please ask questions and argue with me if you think it’ll help you be a better debater. I won't change my decision, but as long as the conversation does not become circular, I don't really care if you argue with me (as long as we maintain basic respect).

Policy >>>>>>>>>> Value > Fact. My ideal value or fact debate involves a disclosed, relevant, directional plan-text in prep and no “must/must not read plan” or trichot theory. Debate is your space, do what you want with it.

Claiming that an argument was “conceded” has replaced substantive clash in a disturbingly large number of speeches. Overusing the phrase “conceded” or (even worse) “cold conceded” will cost you speaks.

I will likely grant permission for you to audio record my RFD. Please ask before recording.

Don’t call me “judge.”

Here are cool things I didn't do/wasn't able to do/didn't do as often as I wished. If you do them well, you'll get a speaks bump; if you do them poorly, I'll be sad: embedded clash; numbering frontline responses; speed, clarity, and efficiency; advantage counterplan + impact turn; going for the politics DA with good link arguments as a real strategy; courts CPs; being a K team.

Speaks

29.7+ – top speaker.

29.3-29.7 – top 5-10 speaker.

29-29.3 – top 20 speaker.

28.5 -29 – a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; should break.

28.2-28.5 – a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.8-28.2 – a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27-27.8 – a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Be clear even when you are being unclear.

Similar Debaters

Please reach out to ask questions or talk debate

I don't talk about debate with anyone anymore, but when I did, it was with Riley Shahar, Sierra Maciorowski, Alden O'Rafferty, Trevor Greenan, and Brian Yang. If you can't reach me pre-round, Riley and I coached (and debated) together and are similar paradigmatically, they will know how to answer your questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

about me:

- 4 years of highschool parli for Irvington HS

- primarily a case and T debater

.

what i like:

- strong link chains

- simplicity and strength of logic

- strong impact calculus in rebuttal speeches

- concise speeches

.

what i don't like:

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

- friv T or Ks

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

- potential abuse as a voter

- weighing impact over probability

.

random notes:

- i am tabula rasa

- Ks should only be run where they apply

- play fair

I competed in World Schools Debate and Public Forum for 3 years with Kingwood High School and competed for the USA Debate team my junior and senior years. I coached British Parliamentary debate at Pepperdine University while I was a student there.

I debated three years of Lincoln-Douglass and policy debate in high school, then four years parliamentary (APDA) at Swarthmore College. My highlight was winning Best Speaker at the Worlds Parliamentary tournament my senior year.

Debate is a remarkable educational experience, and I encourage debaters to make the most of it by polishing their skills at gathering and presenting evidence, formulating arguments and analyses, and crafting a persuasive rhetorical style. The most effective debaters respect both the importance of carefully crafted argument and the art of speaking to persuade an audience.

Accordingly, I discourage speaking too rapidly, using technical jargon, and otherwise behaving in a way that would confuse or annoy a novice judge. Though I have some familiarity with the technical points of contemporary parliamentary debate, I expect most debates to avoid becoming debates about the debate itself.

Please take the time to preview/summarize arguments, use signposts throughout, and otherwise direct my attention to what you think is crucial in the round. Recognize that in any good debate, each side will make strong arguments. Your job is to persuade me that although both sides have merit, your position is stronger than that of your opponents.

I am open to theory arguments to check demonstrated abuse in the round, particularly to address situations where one team is denying the other a fair debate, or when one team is being offensive. My strong default for topicality is reasonableness, as a competing interpretations standard tends to cause the topicality debate to occupy much more space in the round than is necessary to ensure ground for both sides.

I do flow arguments, but I’m more concerned with the power and substance of each side’s main arguments than whether one side dropped an argument the other put forward. Likewise, I can tell when a new argument appears in rebuttal, and I simply ignore it, counting it as time wasted.

Points of information are fine, but be respectful of the speaker when offering them and understanding when your point is not taken by the other side. I permit (but do not encourage “tag-teaming,” but a partner suggesting an argument to a speaker isn’t making the argument. I’ll need to hear the speaker make it in their own words.

Racism, sexism, classism, and bigotry in general are never tolerated in round or in argumentation. Being sincerely respectful toward your opponents does not impede your argumentation, it only boosts your own ethos.

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

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

Hello! I'm Shreya (she/her), a 4th year varsity parliamentary debater in high school! If you're reading this right before the round (breathe! you’re going to do great!), here's what you should know:

• Weigh, weigh, weigh! I really dislike judge intervention and avoid it as much as possible but I can only do that if I have arguments weighed for me. No matter how good your argument is, if it’s not weighed against the other team’s arguments, I can’t evaluate it in the context of the round which will make me sad :(

• Signpost please! I can handle speed for the most part, but I need to know where you are on the flow. The more technical/complicated the argument, the more I need signposting. Passing texts can help with that if you choose to do so.

• Be nice! This one’s simple, just be respectful to others. You are opponents right now, but you are fellow debaters and human beings first and foremost. Disrespect will make you lose speaks at best and result in you being dropped at worst. I trust y’all to be kind though, just do your best and have fun :)

Feel free to ask me any questions about any of the stuff on here before the round. Good luck!

Note for events besides parli: I don't have experience in them, so please limit the jargon-y terms! Sometimes a debate-specific phrase is needed; in the case that a word has a specific meaning in your debate event that someone wouldn't immediately understand from context, please explain it. I will do my best to keep up and flow of course, but this will make it a lot easier for me.

He/Him

2024 NPDA update: I haven't judged a whole lot of national level NPDA this year but in the majority of rounds I have teams have read some form of RVI on theory positions. I have a very high threshold for these arguments particularly when they are based on some form of time-skew or other procedural link story. In order to win these arguments in front of me I need some sort of parallel or higher framing argument for the RVI as well as impact weighing. In short, I honestly don't want to hear time-skew anymore. RVI's that pertain to other forms of abuse generated by the procedural, such as a team being racist, transphobic, homophobic, are functionally different that the aforementioned RVIs and probably operate as Independent Voting Issues.

Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.

I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.

I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.

I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp. You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.

While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.

Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe

Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it

Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space.

Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

For CARD debate: I am looking for strong argumentation relying on both evidence and proper explanation of the implications of said evidence. Coming from an evidence-less format I generally prioritize how well evidence is leveraged to make an argument over the quality or form of the evidence itself. Further I am extremely compelled by comparative impact calculus which entails a comparison between magnitude, probability, and timeframe. CARD debate includes specific ordinances that preemptively answer questions left up to debaters in other formats. This means that theory and topicality operate on the same layer of the debate as case, conditionality is discouraged even for procedural arguments, and that procedurals rely on proven abuse opposed to potential abuse. This focuses the debate on the case level making it the starting point for my evaluation as a critic.

I have taken this down because I am no longer an active judge on the circuit. If you need to contact me my email is camgrigg@icloud.com

Harvard College (Class of 1994) Speech and Parliamentary Debate; Yale Law School (Class of 1997); after law school, I spent several years clerking for federal appellate judges. I am now a lawyer practicing in Los Angeles. I prefer substantive analysis of key arguments, and tend not to be impressed by cursory references to minor issues. And, I prefer that participants speak at at ordinary conversational rate of speed, and use tone of voice and style of speaking to be as persuasive and to emphasize the key points. Finally, in my experience, the attorneys who are most effective at oral advocacy assume that the judges know little or nothing about the case or the applicable precedent, and therefore explain their arguments simply and clearly. Finally, I tend to give higher scores to participants who seem like they have a sense of humor; who take the quality of their work extremely seriously, but do not take themselves too seriously; and finally who seem like they genuinely enjoy what they are doing.

Please speak at a normal pace. I prefer substance over style but enjoy good rhetoric. No ks. Theory will not be appreciated as a tool to win - only use it to point out actual abuse. Warranting should be supported with evidence. Weighing is important. Signposting is greatly appreciated.

Here Is A Link To My Parli Paradigm

TLDR: I am a standard pervious parli debater / flow judge. Run what you want, explain it, weigh everything and give me impacts.

Alt Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT2VJ0znd2fZ5pxNmNAkm-h5HvJfQgAw7cfm083e1hbKeow2PiSxEN6G6g0oYTaUzhm7JxrNLoAmO_V/pub

If I am judging any other debate event you should still read my parli paradigm, but it might not be as applicable (my high school and college debate background is in parli so that is what my paradigm is about).

If I am judging IE then who knows, its all subjective anyway, but be funny and don't exploit other's sob stories to gain my pity.

Hey! I'm Christopher (he/him, xe/xem) and I'm excited to be your judge! I'm an third-year undergrad student at UCLA pursuing Communication and Disability Studies. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me at chris.p.ikonomou@gmail.com.

Experience:

I'm currently coaching parli at New Roads High School, and I’m a former parli debater and captain of the Menlo-Atherton High School debate team. I have 5 years of parli experience. My partner and I were in the top 10 of the NPDL rankings for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, and I’m well versed in both lay and flow debate (I personally prefer the former).

TL;DR: I’m down to listen to anything you can get me to understand, but I prefer topical, warranted, and logical debates. Just make sure you explain yourself. Take a couple POIs.

Formalities:

Put your pronouns on Tabroom if you feel comfortable doing so! A small gesture can make the debate space a bit more comfortable for trans/nonbinary debaters (I know it helped me feel welcome). I don’t want to put you on the spot before the round by asking for pronouns, so only use pronouns your opponents have confirmed and use gender neutral language (partner, opponent, etc). On NSDA Campus and Zoom, you can edit your screen name to include your pronouns (if you feel inclined).

If you need an accommodation (be it related to a disability or something else) please ask before the round starts (or shoot me an email before). Remember this is supposed to be fun!

Case:

This is what I was best at. Good case debate will reward you. Have warrants for your claims/links, quantify, diversify, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents so I don't have to. Just saying "our impact negates/outweighs theirs" doesn't work if you don't give me any context for why, especially if the argument is less well known. Offense is important, tell me why they lose (and use that to prove that you win).

Good speaking is often associated with case debate. I personally enjoyed using rhetorical flourish myself when competing! However, you won't be penalized if speaking isn't your strong suit. I trust you're doing your best.

Theory:

I have a fairly high threshold for voting on theory. I need proven abuse to vote on theory and I default to reasonability. I will vote on theory that points out exclusion from the other side (speed, misgendering, etc).

Kritik:

Don't run an AFF K if you don’t disclose and give your opponents an opportunity to engage. NEG Ks are fine. I’ve run some projects about exclusion and my experience in the debate space, and I prefer criticisms that are genuine and have a link and alternative that effects actual change in the round or participants' mindset. Do not run identity-based Ks about groups you are not apart of (unless an instance of oppressive language/behavior happens in round about a marginalized group). If you lack experience responding to Ks, mention that in your speech and let me know how I should weigh your arguments against the K (i.e. should I rely more on logic than how many arguments you can counter, discussing current events are more impactful than theoretical debates, etc)

I can vote on other Ks, I just may not feel good about it. Explain anything related to literature well, especially terms and any abstract concepts (post-modernism is confusing and you probably want me to understand what you're talking about). I have little patience for debaters who run Ks just for an easy win against a less experienced team.

Speed:

Not too good at it. I’ll let you know if you’re going too fast (I’ll yell slow or clear). If you don’t listen, there's no guarantee I'll flow the rest of your speech). Don’t spread your opponents out, seriously.

Speaks:

Points are rewarded for speaking, humor, good strategy, etc. Average speaking will get a 27.

Enjoy yourselves. Debate was my thing in high school (I debated into out rounds instead of going to the hospital for a collapsed lung once in my junior year). Have fun, it’s not the end of the world, and ask any questions before and after round. (I’ll disclose with RFD if rules/time allows)

I will drop you if you are racist, transphobic, queerphobic, misogynistic, ableist, etc, even if your opponents don’t make it a big voting issue. I will lecture you in my RFD. You’ll also get the lowest speaks I can give you. Bad rhetoric is the first step towards violence and dehumanization in the real world.

PARLI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD/PUFO:

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

POLICY DEBATE

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

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

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentary Debate

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

Overview

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

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

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

General Paradigm

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird Aside on Evidence

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

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

I debated in high school for 3 years in PF and parli, but I also have experience in LD and policy.

The most important thing to know about my judging style; make it easy for me to vote. If I have to dissect and overthink an argument you make, then its likely convoluted and I probably won't do it.

Make your case coherent and consistent. Avoid overcomplicating simple arguments. Also keep in mind that I will not be impressed by any high level diction if it doesn't add anything to the debate. I tend to favor simple and straightforward language. If I find your word choice as odd and unnecessary it will just distract me from your case

Do not assume I understand an argument, theory, or any specific jargon. Even if I do, make sure to explain and present it in your own way. If I don't understand the point you're trying to make, I won't vote for it.

Make sure to frame the debate and have good flow. Try to guide me through your flow. The better I am able to follow you the easier it is for me to understand your case as a whole.

Make me want to vote for you and your case. Even if your arguments/case is strong, you should still actively try and sell it to me.

I don't mind if you speak quickly/spread as long as you articulate your words properly.

I value delivery. While it isn't the most important thing, make sure to be aware of what you're saying and how you're saying it. Bad delivery can make it difficult for me to fully comprehend an argument.

I like seeing clash. My favorite parts of debate were cx and breaking down an opponents arguments. While everyone's style is different, this is something to keep in the back of your mind. Also make sure to be respectful. Any offensive language or disrespectful behavior (such as laughing at your opponent) will automatically lose you the debate.

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

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

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!

UCSD' 22

I debated LD, PF, CX, and Parli in highschool. The main event was Parli

Went to TOC for PF and was ranked 5th in the nation for Parli.

TLDR; Run anything you want, in order of my favour: LARP, Theory, K, Performance, Heavy Phil, Trix. I flow everything I can hear/reasonably read. I will say now tho I been out of the game for a while so may not be as fast as I used to be.

Dkolikineni@ucsd.edu

General

I'm tabula rasa, so I won't lean to any specific argument over another, so run what you'd like. Though I will not fill in any gaps for you and if I cannot say for certain you have won the round by the end, you will not win. It is most strategic for you to

a.) tell me which arguments you have won

b.) why you won them

c.) and why that means you won the round.

Prefs (In order of my understanding)

LARP / Case Debate - 1

Theory - 1

Philosophy - 1/2

K's - 2

Performance - 3

Speaks

30: Perfectly performed debate on all layers + you were entertaining to judge.

29+: All layers of the debate were handled very well.

28+: Most layers of the debate were handled well.

27+: Some layers were handled well.

26+: Missed critical aspects of the debate and didn't handle most layers adequately.

25+: Fatal error / Lot to improve on.

0: Defending sexism, racism, etc

Arguments

Kritiks

a. If you're going for a K, make sure the framework, link, impact, and alt are clearly stated. Provide a ROTB when applicable to make my job easier. If it's a K that is uncommon on the circuit, spend 15 seconds explaining the thesis PLEASE

b. If you say "the alt is to vote neg", provide justification in the sense of analysis, logic, or evidence.

c. General links are not ideal. Give me something directly from the aff case that links the case.

Aff Kritiks

a. In addition to everything else stated above, give me good reasons why the aff gets to be non topical (if you are non topical).

b. Creative but logical alts make me more inclined to vote for you.

c. If you don't have me convinced by the 1AR, I probably won't vote for your K Aff.

Plans

a. Clever plans that go outside the expectations of the resolution but still are justifiably topical are good. Be very specific in what your plantext contains. (All the different types of Specs).

b. Give me a solvency advocate. Ideally two. Go for the perm.

c. (For Parli) Give me a copy of your plantext on a separate piece of paper before or during your 1AC.

Counterplans

a. Please, PLEASE, prove why the counterplan is competitive.

b. Counterplans should have advantages independent of the rest of the debate.

c. Perms by the neg are valid. Convince me though.

Disads

a. More recent evidence is better than not.

b. A direct link is better. Something specifically from the aff you're facing.

c. Give me quantifiable impacts.

Misc

a. In LD, CX, and PF you can spread all you want provided you send me a speech document.

b. In Parli I am fine with a fast pace however I won't allow LD / CX speeds simply because I cannot guarantee I'll catch everything.

c. I cannot spell if my life depended on it and I care less still to try so just keep that in mind.

d. If anything isn't answered on this paradigm, ask me briefly before the round.

Overview:

I used to do debate from my sophomore to junior years in Stuyvesant High School and have volunteered to debate for tournaments the Stuyvesant Parliamentary Debate team participated in since my senior year. I don’t really participate in debate tournaments in NYU but I enjoy some fun math and music and random conversations from time to time!

Paradigm:

My style is really simple: if I think a side argues a case with stronger arguments, then that will be the winning side. That said, what do I mean?

Firstly, I try to judge as unbiased as I can. I try to ignore my personal views and believe that whatever is said in a round stays in the round. Of course I like warranting and impacting but I think that weighing is probably the most important factor for me.

Also, try to make your arguments simple. Pretend I’m a five year old who doesn’t know anything about the topic and convince that naive child that your side’s arguments are better.

That said, remember, you are competing at debate tournaments. Competing does not dictate the course of your life. If you win, congratulations but if you lose, just learn from your mistakes and move on. Not worth getting depressed over a simple round, or even a tournament, because you’ll have plenty of other chances in life to get what you want.

@tanishkumar@berkeley.edu

I did circuit LD, parli, and Congress in high school for Mitty and I coach there and at Athens debate now (qualled to states, nats, and was pretty highly ranked in parli), and I graduated Cal doing CS and Business (tanishkumar@berkeley.edu). I can judge any event except like platform speech at a pretty tech level, so just be yourself and have fun!!!!

I'm too lazy to write my argument preferences out, so I'm fine with anything. I'm fine with any argument (phil, Ks, theory, CPs) and any arguments against them. I'm pretty tabula rasa; in calc terms, the limit approaches infinity for how tab I am.

You do you, just don't be rude. Also, be clear and don't go like 300+ WPM, I'm probably tired.

(Real paradigm here)

TOC update: here are some resources I put together for the housing topic area

Background: debated in high school. That was fun! Included in my impressive list of accomplishments are such gems as: going 2-3 at Vassar, being told I am “dry enough to go straight into law” by a judge at Ridge, and spending approximately 23 seconds arguing that free will doesn’t exist in Yale Octos. Outside of debate, some of my hobbies include debating, débáting, and dëbätïng. For instance, if you ever find a college debate round with like 7 views on YouTube, 5 of them are probably from me.

Some notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences:

- “Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

- If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will likely assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of. I’m kritical and kwestioning of the konsistent kustom of katering to adjudikators through kritical klaims in kompetitive debate. Konsequently, I kan’t komprehend komplicated kritical klaims. In short: kick the Ks to limit the Ls and wrack up Ws

- If you pull out one of those tripod-desk-stand thingies, I will assume you are using it as a table for brunch. And then get offended if you don’t offer me food.

- If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

- If you time yourself using your phone’s alarm and the ringer audibly goes off, I will assume the noise is coming from my microwave and immediately rush off to make sure my food isn’t burning

- Sometimes, when I’m walking around on the streets, people’ll come up to me and shout “RYYYAANNNN – WHAT’RE YOUR THOUGHTS ON USING ABUSIVE DEFINITIONS TO GAIN A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE???” to which I always respond: “Roses are red, violets are blue, don’t use abusive definitions, for I will hate you :)”

FAQ

Q: Are you okay with PICs?

A: Not sure why you capitalized it like that, but I absolutely ADORE dog pics, cat pics, fluffy cow pics, or basically any [insert cute thing here] pics

Q: Do you like theory?

A: Depends on the theory. Like, for instance, I’m really into the theory that colleges are just money laundering fronts for the massive #2 pencil lobbying industry. Watch out folks: it’s not just Big Oil and Big Pharma that runs the world. It’s also Big Pencil

Q: Do you enjoy POIs?

A: Oh yes for sure! But please, for the love of all things good on planet earth, under no circumstances *ever* should you pronounce the word “POI” phonetically in a way that rhymes with words like “toy” or “boy.” Please.

Q: Will you give me an extra speaker point if I bring you food?

A: I’m actually such a generous person that I’d rather bring you the food! To make sure I’m delivering it to the right place, just shoot me an email with your name, address, preferred type of pizza, social security number, mother’s maiden name, and the name of your first pet.

Dear Debaters,

Some things about me: I have been judging primarily East coast style parli for about two years. I appreciate well thought-out arguments and good rhetoric. I also value weighing, especially when used with impact calculus, as well as warranting (with clear logic, please!)

Some more specific suggestions for you as you debate:

1) Please speak at a reasonable pace, one in which listeners can process and appreciate your flow and argument.

2) Please take care in raising Points of Order--they shouldn't be made excessively or unnecessarily.

3) Please avoid using progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc...)

4) Please note: Reason is more persuasive to me than competing interpretations.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

yo what up

lejakenneth@gmail.com email me with questions or further feedback you would like! Always down to help anyone in the community.

I am Kenneth (he/they) I am the head spontaneous and parliamentary coach of Lincoln High School. I think also head of Speech/Interp? My man Ben Harrison works in the labs of Big Tournaments, and we all do the most we can for our students. I care about my students very much, but if you are reading about this then you probably care more about my experience than my love for them lol. I attended* college at Lewis and Clark and am studying both Philosophy and Rhetoric and Media Studies. I did parliamentary debate and some speeches in high school. In college I did college debate for a while, found it was awful and inaccessible, and switched to speech and did that for several years. I was nationally competitive in both, and it was a very enjoyable experience that I would encourage many to consider. Speech that is, not college debate ;) In my time I have debated in Parliamentary Debate for 3 years, Public Forum for one, NPDA for one. Speech events I have performed in are Impromptu for 6ish years, Extemp for 3 years, Prose like twice ever. Poetry for a year, Info for two, Persuade for two, After Dinner Speaking for two. In high school I never did nat quals, but won state in Parliamentary Debate my senior year. In college I nationally qualified and competed on a national level in NPDA one year, extemp three years, impromptu two, ADS two, Persuade one, Info one, Poetry one. My prose and poetrys are unanimously acknowledged as having never been good :) As you can probably tell I have done nearly every event or debate format so I am a jack of all trades sort, hence my love for teaching and coaching.

TLDR for events:

~Don't say thank you!!!!!! Number of thank yous I have heard since adding this to my paradigm: 123

It is far far preferred to end speeches with a powerful memorable line or thought. Thank yous ruin this completely and ruin the ending tone of a speech.

Debates:

Say you all deserve 30 speaks, it takes 8 seconds. I will give you 30 speaks. speaker points are bad and sexist, you know the drill.

1. Policy: Anything goes. Frivolous Ks run in bad faith will be dropped. Ks cannot be kicked, if you kick a K you are running it in bad faith. If this is confusing or you have questions, please ask me about them before the round.

2. LD: Ts okay. Ks probably not. Frivolous T/Ks, especially if kicked, will be dropped. If you are wanting to run a K ask me about them before the round so I can explain.

3. Parli: Ts okay within reason. Ks probably not. Frivolous T/Ks, especially if kicked, will be dropped. If you are wanting to run a K ask me about them before the round so I can explain.

4. Pofo: Run theory in pofo I dare you :) please don't actually. I also flow cx. Don't change how you approach cx, I just think if it is said it should have flow to refer to it.

5. BQD: I hate all philosophers. Logos is your friend, not ethos. Also don't be a sociopath and any morality arguments will probably be fine. This means you too LD.

6. Worlds: ...bruh

Speech events:

Ask yourself "why is this argument made in this event and not another".

7. Impromptu: You need to have a thesis, and all of your points need to independently prove your thesis. Impromptu is best when you use a complex range of material for examples with unique interpretations and arguments for why they support your thesis. Please do not ever use yourself as an example. If you do it once you won't rank first in the round and if you use more than one self inserted example you are bottom two.

8. Extemp: You need to have a thesis, and all of your points need to independently prove your thesis. Make an argument and convince me, easy as that. Also if you do not DIRECTLY answer the question you rank behind anyone that did, which can result in an auto last.

9. Informative: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through educating the audience about a specific thing that exists, and having some form of interpretation of what this information means and its impacts.

10. Oral Interp: This format is a little strange, but it is mostly the same as whichever style you decide to do (informative/ads/etc.) with some form of persuasion often incorporated.

11. After Dinner Speaking: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through humor with deeper thematic points and overall themes throughout your piece. I value substance of the argument heavily, so more laughs doesn't win a round in my mind, although no laughs is pretty detrimental. These laughs are mine though lol, I don't care what the audience thinks I'm the judge. This may seem rough but this helps prevents things like stacking rounds. Additionally, I don't always audibly laugh and can appreciate the art and skill of a speaker without audibly laughing. It is just the nature of the event and who I am. That being said, do not be afraid to give it your all, I appreciate the commitment and challenge of this event, so swing for the fences.

12. Poetry: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through complex and overlapping pieces of poetry. This is a set, not a single piece.

13. POI: Same as Poetry, except the material used is much more diverse in medium than just poetry. This is a set, not a single piece.

14. DI: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through depiction of character and character progression and story. If there is not a central character, or implied "common" character, your piece will be harmed significantly. I have seen sets for this, but the best DI's I recall have all been singular pieces.

15. DUO: Your mission is to have an argument, or "point", that is conveyed uniquely through the relationship between two people. Singular pieces way way preferred. It is harder to convey relationships if your characters keep changing. I have seen good sets, but I highly discourage it unless you absolutely know what you are doing.

Eventually I will write some manuscripts about each event individually and add them here. The thank you count will keep me coming back to this.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

Debated in college parliamentary, working in tech now. Please be logical, rational arguments will always supersede arguments based on quantity or technicalities. Do not like spreading, jargon, and unfamiliar with kritik

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.

Background: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame High School. Debated for Cal for 1 year.

Judging: I try to be tab.

- Also if your rhetoric is sexist, homophobic, harmful in other manners - your speaks won’t be good. Just be respectful.

- I’ll try to give 27-29 for speaker points so impress me if you want more than that.

Debate:

Case Debate: that’s good

Cps: great. Don’t do time-delay or advantage cps - those are usually not good. Perms are fine.

Impacts: terminalize them - also, good link stories help me buy your impacts. If going for Nuclear War/Extinctions - please have a good link story. Also please do IMPACT WEIGHING IN YOUR VOTERS.

Ks: Please don’t. I can't keep up with the level of spreading that is usually required to execute a K properly.

Theory: It is fine. Just make sure you have good voters and how it operates in the round. If you’re running theory to skew your opponents out - reconsider. Also if you are going for theory, you should collapse to it in your voters.

Presentation

• Signposting will be helpful for everyone in the round
• Tagteaming is okay but be reasonable.
• POIs: useful: take at least 1 per speech?
• Speed: moderate speed; your opponents have the right to yell SLOW or CLEAR.

Other: Texts of CPS/Plans should be available to your opponents in round

Questions: Message me on FB or ask before the round.

P.S: Don’t try to shake my hand =) ... guess this doesn't matter now

*Format for this paradigm was copied from Steven Herman*

I'm a former APDA debater from Wesleyan University.

I track the arguments and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round.

I weigh the arguments qualitatively and rely on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple less impactful ones.

I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Help me understand why your position should defeat the other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully.

Speed. I really do not care for high-speed speeches. I went to Harvard Business School where we had lively class discussions and debates where we engaged with each other rather than talking at each other. Talking faster than real world conversation makes it difficult to keep track of arguments and in my opinion is less persuasive. Facts and details are important – but anchoring in the big picture helps to be persuasive in the real world.

Style. I prefer debates where the debaters don’t seem like they are reading their speeches or trying to impart a laundry list of arguments, but are able to engage personably with each other and the audience.

General stuff: (please read)

TLDR: I am a coach for Campo, and I debated for cal parli last year. I debated all 4 years in high school, doing lay PF for the first 2 years, then transitioning to national circuit PF and attended gold TOC in my senior year. I will vote on the flow. you have to have warrants in your arguments. I will reward you for giving me reasons to prefer certain arguments or impacts, and for articulating clear arguments, but I will still vote on dropped/conceded arguments first because it's the path of least resistance (smallest amount of judge intervention). If you have a specific question, either before or after the round, email me @ olive.ray.mccauley@berkeley.edu I'll do my best to answer.

1) I will vote on the easiest out. pls collapse and tell me what the easiest out is so that i don't have to do a lot of work and accidentally intervene.

2) It's my responsibility as a judge to make sure that I do my absolute my best to make a good decision, because, "You all put a lot of effort into this activity, and it's my onus to adjudicate every round thoroughly. If you feel like I'm failing to do this in any way, pls call me out." (bilal askari) That being said, I'm not perfect. I don't always get everything on my flow, so if something is particularly important, try to signal it's important by just saying "this is critical for xyz" or something along those lines.

3) Put warrants (reasons things happen) in your stuff. just do it. if I don't know how you get from point A to point B, I'm probably not going to vote on point B, even if you say it a lot and tell me it's really important. Do NOT ask me rhetorical questions, they are not reasons/warrants and I can't answer them without intervening with my personal opinion.

4) a lot of speed is fine.

5) Please extend things that you want to win on throughout the round, even if it's not super fleshed out, at least mention it. I'm definitely okay with things getting expanded in the back end of the round, For example, if you have arguments about climate change, and argue that climate change will cause extinction but you add an extra warrant or replace one in your last speech, and it's not a response to a new argument in the MO, I will not evaluate that new stuff. You might still win on the argument, but you won't win on the new stuff, so your time is probably better spent on saying things that *aren't new.*

6) points of order: I protect the flow, but I might not get everything. Points of Order are good, but should not be called for: weighing/comparative analysis, slight rephrasings, or contextualizations in terms of other arguments. Things you should call points of order for: new warrants, new examples, or a completely new cross-application to a conceded argument (unless it's weighing. I do not consider weighing new in the last speech of the round, its what I want you to do.).

7) speaks: they are super arbitrary, change a lot from judge to judge and are riddled with sexism, racism, xenophobia and a whole host of other things, so I default to 28s if you do a decent job literally saying words in round. Extra points are awarded based on how well you executed/utilized warrants in round strategically. If you do things that are offensive (ex: racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic) or are just generally mean/rude, I'll give you a 26, probably drop you, and talk to your coach. Don't be toxic.

9) Signpost. I flow on paper, so please let me know (ex: 'go to the "a" point on uniqueness') where your argument goes, otherwise, I might not evaluate it as a response to something you need to answer, because I just don't know where it goes.

Advantage/Disad:

I am most familiar with topical case debate. I think the uniqueness, link, impact structure is good for clarity, which is good for everyone in round. Don't try to be so tricky that your opponents can't understand you, because if it's that unclear, your judge (me!) probably won't either.

Your uniqueness decides the direction of links (aff: things are bad now, affirming makes them better, neg: things are good now, affirming makes them worse), so please make sure that your uniqueness corresponds with your links. I'm down for wacky arguments, just make sure you explain it to me and your opponents.

Counterplans are good, just make sure you prove they're competitive.

other than that, have good warrants! explain to me how the resolution and plan (your plan can be either the resolution or something more specific, both are fine) lead change the status quo, and why that's good or bad. You need offense at the end of the round, and you also need to weigh impacts *against* the other impacts in the round (not just: "this outweighs"). If both teams are weighing, but going for different mechanisms, I need clear reasons to prefer one weighing mechanism over the other. Please spend time on this, because if it comes down to scope vs. magnitude I don't really know what you want me to do.

Terminalize your impacts! if there isn't a clear reason why to prefer a clear weighing mechanism, I probably will vote on whichever impacts I think are better terminalized (ex: if "global warming" outweighs on scope, but disease outweighs on magnitude because it kills people, and "global warming" isn't terminalized, I'll probably vote for disease because you show me how it affects people, while the other team doesn't).

At the end of the round, I'll vote on the easiest out: conceded arguments that are extended with warrants and weighed impacts, or whichever side does a better job of answering their opponent's responses and then extending their arguments.

Theory:

theory is fun. I know friv theory is popular, but i think it's a waste of time, and I have a lot of homework to do so i will probably be annoyed if you spend a lot of time on something like shoes theory. That being said, if you win it I will vote for you, I will just also be annoyed.

I evaluate theory first because the impacts are pre-fiat.

Please read your interpretation twice, so that I can get it on my flow.

please justify why i should evaluate theory based off competing interpretations vs. reasonability

Kritiks:

I like Kritiks, but don't assume that I can/will fill in warrants for you. My understanding of critical literature is relatively limited (I've read some Marx, Bentham, Benjamin, Adorno, Baudrillard, etc.), so just make sure that you're explaining things well, and that you have warrants for the claims that you make on any level of the K. Other stuff:

I am okay with K affs if that's your jam, but I'm not as good at evaluating them as I am at evaluating Kritikal negs.

If your K is complicated, it's probably good for everyone in the round if you read a brief thesis that summarizes your argument so I know (and your opponents know) what's going to happen in-round.

Links of omission are links if and only if you tell me specifically how omission reifies or strengthens the system you seek to critique. (ex: "misidentifying the root cause" is only a link if you tell me how misidentification does xyz to strengthen the system by masking how it causes harm or something like that)

perms are a test of competition. If you have stuff built into your K about why the other team can't perm, please provide warrants (ex: "no perms in a methods debate" is not a warrant -- you have to explain why there are no perms in a methods debate)

have structure in your K, so: thesis, framework, links/harms, impacts, alternative/advocacy, and solvency.

abt me:

Background:

I did Classic debate in Minnesota during my freshman year of high school, which is genuinely the most lay form of debate ever. I then transitioned to Public Forum for my remaining 3 years of high school debate, but I was only really good for the last two years. I did National Circuit PF, qualified and competed at 2018 nationals (went 7-5, didn't break, nothing special) and went to ToC in 2019, last year (again, didn't break, nothing to see here lol). I debated for cal parli last year, and i am a coach at CHS.

Good luck, and happy debating!

I debated in Public Forum, Parliamentary, and World's Schools debate throughout high school. For the past four years I have been a part of the Debate Society of Berkeley's team competing in British Parliamentary debate. I have over 8 years of debate and judging experience. I expect everyone to be respectful and civil for the entirety of the debate. I do not like speed as I can not flow arguments well if they are given too fast. I appreciate signposting and would like debaters to weigh their arguments in the end so I know how to value everything they have said. I think having clear impacts is really important and I value the big picture, overall impact of arguments more than making sure everything is addressed on the flow. If you are going to use theory please explain it very thoroughly and thoughtfully.

I am currently a student at Stanford Law School. I have seven years of competitive debate experience, and three years of experience judging parliamentary debate. I am a former competitive debater at Columbia, where I competed on the APDA and BP circuits. While at Columbia, I was top varsity speaker in tournaments at Princeton and Georgetown, and broke to out-rounds at APDA Nationals. As a BP debater, I broke to out-rounds at the 2015 WUDC in Kuala Lumpur, and finished as part of the 18th overall pair.

I flow rounds closely, and as a result I prefer clear signposting throughout a speech. I don't protect the flow, so make sure to raise a point of order if you think a rebuttal includes a new argument.

I passionately dislike spreading. Take your time and speak at a conversational speed. Two arguments that I can understand are better than five that I cannot.

I strongly prefer resolutional debate, and I don't respond well to theoretical arguments or kritiks. The one exception is that I am open to topicality arguments if the government's interpretation of the resolution is manifestly unreasonable. I don't want to force the opposition to debate something silly or squirrelly. But as long as the government's interpretation is reasonable, the round should move to case debate. If a topicality issue does emerge, I don't view it as a reverse voting issue.

I think it is good practice to take at least one POI during a speech (unless, of course, you're in rebuttal or protected time). POIs should be questions, not just argumentative statements that you could have made in your own speech. I don't like "tag-teaming" answers to a POI. The person on their feet should know their case well enough to answer the question.

I vote for the side that is most likely to persuade a reasonable, educated person. I don't particularly care if a side drops a few arguments, as long as their overall case is stronger. I especially value debaters that crystallize the key voting issues and weigh the arguments on each side, and that save me from dissecting the flow after the round is over.

My name is Leo Mutarelli, and I am a former HS Parliamentary Debater.

I do not believe I have any particular judging preferences which would strike you as abnormal; however, I'll briefly go over some of my preferences.

Fact Checking: I did Parli for 4 years and I understand Parliamentary debaters can often times have a unique relationship with the truth. With that being said, I will not generally fact check unless a piece of information becomes so important that the result of the entire debate is contingent on the veracity of the fact.

Theory: I am perfectly fine with theory arguments; however, I have a general dislike for arguments that seem pre-baked.

Spreading: I cannot state in strong enough professional terms how much I despise spreading. Do with that information what you will.

Speed: I understand that many of you will have a lot to get through, and I have no problem with you talking fast in order to do so.

Disclosures: Provided the tournament does not have any specific regulations barring judges from disclosing, I am happy to disclose.

This list is by no means an exhaustive list of all my preferences, and if you have questions regarding my preferences, I am happy to discuss them with you once both teams are in the round.

Basics: I have experience with parli and will flow + vote off the flow. Make sure you're clear with signposting and extend your impacts.

Experience: I debated parli for all of high school at Berkeley High. I'm currently a coach for Berkeley High debate, and I've coached for SNFI.

Speed: I can handle a reasonable amount of speed but if you spread too much I won't be able to understand.

Theory: Don't'run frivolous theory just for fun, it's annoying and I won't vote for it unless it's actually necessary. That being said, if your opponents do something unfair to exclude you from the round, run it!

Kritiks: I'm not a huge fan at all but if you reallllllllyyyyyy have to, run a K. Make sure you're CLEAR with impacts and if your opponents are completely blindsided and can't clash, I will be disappointed.

This will be Prashni's son writing the paradigm for her.

To convince my mom you need to do a couple key things:

Speak slowly and clearly

Avoid meta debates/technical debates. No Theory!!!!

If getting into a definitional quarrel keep it clean/base it in logic

Avoid Jargon

Furthermore, arguments are made more convincing for my mom through using examples.

Good luck!

I debated 4 years in high school, mostly doing parli. I will vote for any arguement/any type of arguement if you successfully convince me that I should. Make clear, and thought out impacts. Don’t use speed if you can’t do it well, it will just make me miss more of your analysis. Have fun and do your best to win.

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

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

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

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

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

High school teacher - economics, government, history.

Pronouns - he

Approach to judging

- I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round; defense almost never wins rounds.

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

- If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

- I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, and in these cases, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

- I prefer teams to take at least two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, if the tournament doesn't allow POCs, you should take clarification POIs after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Tag teaming should be kept to a minimum. Pass notes.

- Don't go over time in your speech. I stop flowing when the timer beeps. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

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

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

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

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

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

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

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

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

My business background has certain implications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ejr, rev July 2023

Updated 04/05/21 for NPDL-TOC

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round!

About me: I did national circuit LD in high school and APDA parli in college. I qualified to the LD TOC my senior year in HS. My senior year on APDA I was the 4th highest ranked speaker in the country and half of the 7th highest ranked team.

I used to be pretty active in coaching and judging circuit LD, and currently coach APDA.

How I judge rounds: I try my best to make an evaluative decision based on the flow and avoid intervening as much as possible. In practice that means I'll evaluate the framework debate first or, if both debaters have agreed to the same framework (philosophical or otherwise), and evaluate any weighing arguments made about what I should prioritize under the framework. Then I'll evaluate the offense both debaters have linking back to the framework I'm using to evaluate the round (this includes also evaluating relevant defense and weighing arguments).

I assume a truth testing paradigm (Gov has to prove motion true, Opp has to prove motion false) but am certainly open to other arguments about how my ballot should function. I default to using reasonability to evaluate theory/T and don't assume theory/T is an RVI, but those are just the presumptions I have if you don't make any arguments on these issues, not absolute preferences by any means.

Progressive arguments: I am generally fine with anything that you would normally see run in a circuit LD/policy round. I don't have any particular argumentative preferences and I think historically have been pretty neutral when judging clash of civilizations type rounds - I judged a number of LD rounds back in the day that were some version of a K aff vs topicality/framework, and I think I had a pretty even voting record in those rounds.

All pre-fiat arguments do need an explanation of why the come before case, so reasons theory is a voter or a role of the ballot for a K. I won't just assume something is pre-fiat because it's tagged as being something that is traditionally understood to come before post-fiat arguments.

I won't vote on anything I don't understand, so if you want to ready a really gooey K I'd recommend going a bit slower in constructives and then explaining it really clearly in the LOR/PMR. This also goes for blippy theory arguments. I have a very good understanding of what theory is generally, but I'm not at all up to date on the latest theory trends. There's usually certain buzzwords/jargon/shorthand that refer to certain theory arguments that are popular on a circuit in a given year - I won't know any of those, so it would help me a lot if you could explain any theory arguments you want to make in clear and intuitive terms.

Speed: I don't have anything against speed and could comfortably flow national circuit LD/policy speed as of 3 years ago. However, that was 3 years ago, and I haven't tried to flow rounds that fast since then. I'm honestly not sure what will happen if you start reading at top speed in front of me. I would recommend starting off slowly and building speed, and enunciating really clearly. I've found that clarity is more of a limiting factor on what I can flow than pure speed is, so I imagine I'll have an easier time flowing speedy but also very clear teams than I will somewhat slower and less clear teams. I'll say clear or slow if I can't understand you. If I'm saying it a lot, that's probably a sign you need to slow down.

Parli specific things: My understanding is that judges in NPDL are supposed to ignore new LOR/PMR arguments, so I'll apply the same standard that I would in LD and ignore anything that seems obviously new. I'll automatically look at anything you call a POO on, so might still be worth calling if you think it's close or you're really worried about me not thinking something is new. If you do call a POO, please keep it quick and civil. Just tell me what you're calling new, I'll ask the other team to tell me where they think I should look for the argument on the flow, and then we can move on the round.

If you're spreading and/or reading something really complicated, I would prefer that you take a POI or two during PMC/LOC so that your opponents can clarify the arguments. I always thought that cross-ex was really important for this, and since there's no CX here I feel like POIs are an important opportunity for your opponents to try to understand your arguments. I feel much less strongly about POIs in MG/MO and don't really care if you don't take any in those speeches (unless you read something totally new, in which case same thing probably applies).

I'm fine with PMR shadow extensions for arguments dropped from PMC, even if MG doesn't explicitly extend them. However, that doesn't mean that the PMR can answer LO responses to PMC that MG dropped.

I'll also evaluate new MO arguments that the LOR doesn't explicitly rehash.

Misc. preferences: I don't really like it when debaters are unnecessarily mean or condescending or when debaters talk over their opponents. I'll drop you if you say something explicitly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc.

I won't call for cites unless there's a dispute in the round about what a card says. If you accuse your opponent of misrepresenting evidence, I'll call for the cite and look it up. If you are clearly lying about what an article says, I'll drop you, since lying about evidence is bad. If it's ambiguous/power-tagged, I'll probably just ignore the card.

Main points:

I will vote on anything, but it's impossible to be completely Tabula Rasa.

I like interesting logic and dislike generic arguments. I will try to filter for these biases but you should be aware of them.

Please read all plans, counter-plans, alternatives, other advocacies, and roles of the ballot twice and slowly.

I believe that I have to personally believe real-world impacts are good or non-existent to vote for them (more on this below).

I assign speaker points based on persuasiveness.

Call the POO, I don't protect the flow.

I default to competing interpretations, but am very open to reasonability arguments.

Experience:

I competed in middle school MSPSD for three years, high school policy for one year, and high school (California) Parli for three years. I went to TOC, did well at invitationals, etc. I also debated in APDA/BP at Stanford for three years and coached Sequoia High School's parli team for four years.

Case Debate:

Case was my bread and butter as a competitor. I don't have any particularly hot takes about it. Structure is useful. I find generic arguments a bit tedious, though I acknowledge their strategic utility.

Kritiks:

I generally dislike the generic way people use kritiks to gain competitive edge. That being said, I will still vote for one if you win it, and if you have a relevant Kritik, please deploy it just as you would any other argument. I only ran one kritik ever in high school debate, and it was an argument of my teammate's and my own creation, so I am not familiar with any of the lit bases. (I also think completely original Ks are interesting.) If I don't understand your argument, I will have a hard time voting for it.

Theory/T:

My partner and I almost exclusively ran theory when our opponents were actually abusive. That being said, I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it. I default to competing interpretations, but am less anti-reasonability than most judges. I don't believe you absolutely must give me a specific set of criteria that define reasonability, and I think that the debate doesn't have to end when one team says "reasonability leads to judge intervention." (If it does end there, though, I will vote on that argument.) I think potential for abuse is a real thing, though of course you have to warrant it in round like anything else. I don't care if you're condo unless the other team does.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed up to a point, and will shout "clear" or "slow" if you're unclear or too fast. I am willing to vote on speed theory, just like any other argument. Please also shout "clear" or "slow" during your opponents' speeches if you need to.

Points of Order/Protecting the flow:

I don't protect the flow (meaning I won't discount new arguments in the rebuttals unless you call a Point of Order). Please call as many POOs as you think necessary. There were several times as a competitor when I didn't call POOs because I was worried about the judge getting annoyed, and I don't want you to feel that way. If you think they're making a new point, let me know. I will rule on every POO as "well-taken," "not well-taken," or "under consideration." After maybe the 5th well-taken POO, I will just ask you to stop calling them and announce that I am going to start protecting the flow for that speech, in order to save time. The exception is on panels, in which case I will not rule verbally on POOs.

Non-Technical Debate:

I am absolutely willing to hear a non-technical round, as long as this doesn't mean it's an unorganized round. I don't want you to feel like I will be biased against you if you don't have technical debate experience. If you are a non-technical debater and feel intimidated by theory, kritiks, and spreading, I encourage you to watch this round in which a team of non-technical debaters beat a team spreading and running a kritik, just with logic and good argumentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoQ9kiCi1ho

Real-World Impacts:

If you win any real-world impacts in the round, one of two things has to happen for me to vote on them. Tl;dr at the bottom.

1. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, and I believe personally that voting for you will affect the real world, then I have to personally believe your impacts are good to vote for them. This is because if I believe that voting for you will actually affect the world in a negative way, the result of the round matters less than the negative effects that voting for you creates. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I believe that is true, I will vote against you because I personally think a Marxist revolution would be bad, and I can't let my ballot increase the chances of that, even if you win the argument in round. Just as you would argue that actual good done to the outside world comes before in-round or in-debate impacts, actual bad done to the outside world comes before in-round and in-debate impacts, and I have to do what I believe is best for the world first.

2. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, but I don't personally believe that voting for you will affect the real world, then I will just vote on the flow, because there's no moral imperative for me to affect the real world if I don't actually think voting for you will affect the real world. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I don't believe that's true, but you win that it's true in-round, I will vote for you even though I think a Marxist revolution would be bad, since I don't actually think that voting for you will cause one.

Tl;dr: So basically, if you want to win a real-world impact argument, you need to either:

1. convince me personally that you have real-world solvency and convince me personally that your impacts are good, or...

2. Win real-world solvency in round, but fail to convince me personally that you affect the real world.

Political Spectrum:

I highly value viewpoint diversity. I think that there's a lot more room in debate for politically diverse arguments than we usually hear. I encourage you to make arguments from political perspectives different than your own.

Non-verbals in round:

I'm a somewhat reactive judge. If I'm nodding when you're talking, you're doing well. If I look confused, please explain further until I nod or otherwise indicate that I understand you. If you talk really fast, I will have to sacrifice some or all reactiveness to focus on flowing. I will also be less reactive when I'm on a panel.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaker points based on persuasive speaking abilities. This doesn't mean don't spread, I've seen many people maintain persuasiveness while speaking fast, but if spreading causes a detriment to your persuasiveness, then it will be reflected in your speaker points. What is persuasiveness? Hard to define, but it includes smart argumentation and the effective delivery of that argumentation. I know this is subjective, but I don't know how it's any more fuzzy than whatever standards most flow judges use. If I'm nodding my head a lot while you speak, you're probably doing a good job. Major points for humor.

I won't intentionally doc you speaker points or the win for making racist, sexist, etc. arguments unless the other team gives me a reason to...I think it's pretty weird that this is a norm since it is clearly judge intervention. I will, however, doc speaker points for being rude or demeaning to your opponents in round.

If you speak exclusively in double and triple negatives, I will give you a 30 and personally seek out your other judges for the rest of the tournament and encourage them to give you 30s as well.

parent judge for 3+ years with a focus on parliamentary debate.

no theory or kritikal arguments, big advocate for fairness and i will hear arguments against abuse and violating fairness

evidence + reasoning > evidence > reasoning

i prefer when debates stay respectful, and most importantly, have fun :)

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

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

General

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

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

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

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

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

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

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

Case

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

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

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

Theory/Topicality

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

Tech v. Truth

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

Good luck :^)

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.

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

I think the flow is important but not the end-all-be-all. I take a largely tabula rasa approach - i.e., I try to limit my bias and focus only on the arguments in the round - but being convincing is also essential which I know involves some subjectivity; it's important to remember that you're trying to convince a person, not a robotic flow-evaluator. At the moment the round ends, I will have a very good idea of how I'm going to vote. Zealous argumentation is great but don't be a bully. Don't trick the other team into taking your points of information. Tell me why you should win the round even if you don't win every argument in the round.

Welcome to my paradigm. My name is Daniel Sorial, and I debated in High School for the Academy of Information Technology and Engineering (AITE for short) for three years, the latter two heavily in parliamentary. I'm now a junior at Yale, and a member of the Yale Political Union.

As a judge, I most value weighing and effective rhetoric. Final speeches on both sides should go off the flow and paint the bigger picture. Why does any of this matter? What are the future implications of passing or not passing this motion? 

As per debate techniques, spreading within reason is acceptable. Feel free to speak faster than conversational pace, but necessitating hyperventilation does not pair well with good rhetoric. Spreading should be avoided, but I understand if it is necessary. If you genuinely can't offer your entire case in your first speech, you can give more arguments in the second speech. If you think of a new argument before the second speeches, give it. However, purposefully designing your first two speeches to give some arguments in one and others in the other is bad debate etiquette because it does not allow full engagement by your opponents. It therefore ought not necessitate the same level of refutation. As for other things, Ks and T-Shells are fine, but explain them well incase your opponents are not familiar. Different parts of the country have different techniques, so use them as you please, but ensure everyone is on the same page.

In parliamentary, take POIs, as it shows you have control over your speech. You should offer multiple to your opponents in every speech you can, though the speaker should only take one or two.

I appreciate civility, but being too nice is awkward. 

Good luck!

Background: I've debated for 8 years between high school and college (since 2015), mostly in Extemp & Amercian Parli. I have tons of experience competing, judging, and running tournaments.

Paradigm: Arguments that focus on weighing and logic are more persuasive than those that rest on statistics. Statistics are often biased; logic stands the test of time. I heavily value weighing mechanisms in rounds. A debater with a consistent vision in a round that carries through in all speeches is most effective. Accordingly, rebuttal speeches are very important and should consist of much more weighing than further argumentation. Really take the time to explain why your argument leads to a better outcome than your opponents'. This means that constructives should be extremely well-organized and easy to follow to set up rebuttal speeches in a way that does not make the round messy.

Other miscellaneous things:

1. Definition debates are the worst, I generally err on the side of gov/aff unless there is good reason not to (usually abuse that is called out by opp/neg);

2. Treat everyone in your rounds fairly and do not belittle arguments or speakers. Remember why debate is important: for education & in order to have a constructive conversation -- no side is inherently better than another;

3. Spreading is fine but signposting is always important (if you want to make sure I flow it--signpost it!) Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1;

4. And finally, theory shells should only be used if absolutely necessary and reasons for doing so should be explained in ways that apply to the specific round at hand (and not to all rounds in general).

Good luck!

Easter egg: If you use the phrase "dandy" in one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)2

1 credit: preston bushnell & 2 inspired by: cara weathers

I debated 4 years in high school parli and PF and I’m a year into college British parli so I have a lot of experience!

Here’s a list of things that I do and do not want to see in a round!

1. Introduce yourselves and make sure that you are following proper etiquette when entering the room.

2. Don’t stall the round I’m here to judge and you are here to debate.

3. It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of your case and the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit.

4. Theory debate is something that I know can be imperative for a round but please avoid at all cost and if not use it properly and not to pigeon hole a debate via some specific definition

5. Make sure you properly tag and flag rebuttal I will pick it up but I shouldn’t have to do that for you.

6. Speed is something I don’t mind when it is because you have a natural habit but if you are purposely spreading I will most likely drop my pen.

7. Rude debaters aren’t fun to watch at all so really try to not.

i weigh rounds based off of 1. Impacted out arguenents with proper explanation and linking 2. Understanding and context 3. Etiquette

I was a college parliamentary debater (elected twice as the President of the Swarthmore College debate team). I won several APDA tournaments, and broke at the World University Debate Championships and other international BP IV tournaments. I have also coached the Stanford debate team after graduating from college and been a judge for the finals of the APDA national championships.

I flow, but care more about major arguments being adequately addressed. In other words, please do not give a long laundry list of small arguments only to point out that they have not all been addressed. I would prefer you to focus on a few good arguments. I do not like dropped arguments, but the fact that an argument has been dropped does not guarantee a win. I also expect you to signpost where you are on the flow.

I’m relatively skeptical of kritiks, but I am open to them, and will evaluate it like all other arguments, based on the analysis you present. I'm generally opposed to topicality debates and use a reasonableness standard. Both sides should have plenty of ground to work with.

I will not consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I will vote for the side that is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful well-informed people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

I expect you to crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Evidence without impact will not be incorporated into how I judge a round. In addition, I will not make comparisons between arguments that are not explicitly pointed out in the round. It is your responsibility to convince me that your arguments are more persuasive than the other side, while also providing good-faith credit to the arguments advanced by the other side. Please avoid strawman arguments. I am open to theory arguments if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is unfair or abusive, but these are not my favorite.

I'm ok with tag teaming, but it's not my favorite. I will not include any new arguments made in rebuttal, but I will expect them to be pointed out with a point of order.

Jargon heavy arguments are not persuasive. Please explain arguments in plain language when possible. I also prefer you to speak as close to the conversational speed you would use over a dinner time conversation.

I care deeply about you respecting your competitors and the tournament. I expect each speaker to take at least 1 point of information. However, if they become disruptive or excessive, they will hinder a good debate. I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Hi yall! I'm Kevin and my pronouns are he/him/his. I coach debate at Ridge High School in New Jersey. I debated for Ridge ('20) primarily in traditional Lincoln-Douglas debate, and sometimes in Parliamentary and Extemporaneous debate.

Paradigm Summary:

I'm most comfortable evaluating traditional debate. I'm not very experienced with tech, though I'm most comfortable evaluating LARP debates if I have to. I'm happy to listen to anything as long as it is not exclusionary and is warranted. I appreciate thoroughly warranted arguments and clear overviews at the top of rebuttals. While debate is a competitive activity of persuasion and strategy, debate should be safe and accessible. Please show respect, especially if your opponent is less experienced than you. Be kind to each other :)

Preffing Guidelines: 1&2 Trad, 3 LARP, 4 Kritiks, 5 Anything else tech (Phil, Tricks, Theory, T, etc.)

Experience:

During high school, I qualified and cleared twice at NSDAs (in LD and World Schools) and qualified twice and cleared once at NCFLs (in LD). I also qualified once to Parli TOCs. I'm now a debate coach at Ridge High School, mainly focusing on Parli debate.

Trad LD Paradigm:

I have a lot of fun with evaluating traditional LD debates, and I did this the most in high school! I'm tab and flow thoroughly. Please don't be too fast. Really really love strategic frameworks and framework debates in general. In high school, I typically read util and side constraint/procedural frameworks. Warrant your arguments, weigh early, and link impacts under frameworks. As a judge, I appreciate clear overviews at the beginning a lot.

I care much for quality arguments; quantity doesn't matter as much to me, and arguments should be complete. I have a pretty high threshold for extending and warranting arguments. When you extend, please extend individual claims and warrants. Be specific and thorough. That being said, I still do value efficiency in rebuttals.

To borrow from Ishan Bhatt's paradigm, it's important to note that "arguments do not start at 100% risk—they start at whatever risk your justifications for them imply. The implications of your arguments stem from the warrant, not the claim." For example, if you say nuclear war might happen because of x and your opponent concedes that argument, that doesn't mean that nuclear war will 100% occur (just because they conceded it).

Ultimately, debate is your activity! Read arguments that you feel most comfortable with.

Tech LD Paradigm:

I am generally not good with evaluating tech debates, though I like to judge LARP debates if I have to. I am not very good with speed either, so please slow down and focus on clarity in front of me. Explain your arguments really thoroughly. At circuit tournaments in high school, I mainly did LARP (plan, counterplans, disads, etc.). I occasionally read Deleuze, but I do not have a good understanding of kritiks overall. I am least experienced with everything else (phil, tricks, theory, T, etc.). I have a pretty high threshold for theory, but if there is legitimate abuse, I am down to listen and vote off of it. I dislike having to decide the round procedurally, and I appreciate clear overviews.

Even though I prefer certain arguments and have more experience with certain arguments, I will still evaluate the entire flow (that includes things I am not comfortable with, such as theory and T). Please explain everything super clearly, as if I have never learned the basics of progressive debate. If I ultimately can't explain it to myself, I can't and won't vote for it. I will try my best to listen and understand.

Parli Paradigm:

My "Trad LD Paradigm" section covers a lot of my thinking for Parli. For miscellaneous thoughts, if you plan on tag-teaming (calling on your partner in the middle of your speech for assistance), please only do so if both teams are okay with that and please vocalize that to me before the round starts — I know for East Coast Parli, tag-teaming isn't really a thing, so it doesn't seem fair if one team does it while the other doesn't even know about it. I love seeing the Opp block (the final two, back-to-back Opp rebuttals) being used to its full potential. Use those 12 minutes strategically! I'm also okay with the second Gov and Opp speeches having a new contention, and I think it's underrated. I like seeing POIs being used frequently and clear overviews being read at the top of each rebuttal.

Speaks:

I award speaks mainly off of strategy in round. Be creative and read arguments that you are comfortable with and can explain well. I greatly appreciate clarity too (e.g. overviews, clear signposting and line-by-line rebuttals, etc.). And most importantly, being respectful and kind matters a lot to me!!

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at kevin.pa.tang@gmail.com or ask me in-person before the round starts. Good luck and have fun, yall.

Background

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

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

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

Judging Style

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

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

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

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

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

Speed / Speaking / Signposting

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

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

Signposting is preferred, but not critical.

Debater Expectations

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

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

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

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Kritiques:

I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.

I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.

Alternatives:

Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.

Impacts:

I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.

Framework:

I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.

Evidence:

Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.

Theory:

I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.

Kritiques:

There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.

Speed:

Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

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!

General

My pronouns are she/her. I debated in the parli circuit through high school (2016-2020). I've judged a lot informally as captain and president so dw I'm not a complete newbie. Primarily a case and theory debater.

I'm okay with speed as long as you are clear and I am able to make out & flow your main points; I'd prefer if you don't spread though. I'll call clear if I need to. Use tag-lines and signpost so I can flow better. If your opponents ask you to slow down or clear, I expect you to respect that. If you don't slow for me, I won't care but I probably won't be able to understand your arguments either.

I care about inclusivity. Debating online can be hard and I have a lot of respect for you guys. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate easier for you. That being said, don't be rude to opponents or offensive, and give content warnings when applicable. Overall, just be a good person and have fun:)

Parli

I'll ask for text; we're online so just drop it in the chat.

Impact out your arguments and weigh them clearly. Flows can get messy and it will only help me vote in your favor. I'm open to basically all arguments as long as you can impact it clearly and tell me how to evaluate it.

Tabula rasa but I have common sense. If you say something completely false, I'll know it.

I'm good with theory and like a good theory debate. Again just be clear in your arguments.

Although I am familiar with Ks, my experience with them is limited. If you go for them, try to stray away from overly technical arguments. Walk me through them; be clear and explain. It's been a while since I was last in a debate round!

Off-time roadmaps, tag-lines, and signposting are all amazing. I'm good with tag-teaming, just don't overdo it.

Good luck:)

I’ve judged/coached most formats at this point, but my personal experience is some hs parli and then BP for Berkeley.

Debate is a game, so I’ll vote on anything. While I competed in less technical events in college, I enjoy complex rounds if they're interesting so please do try new things.

Speed's okay but slow down for tags and expect me to miss some nuance if it's very fast. If your opponents ask you to slow down, I expect you to give them the opportunity to engage.

Otherwise, run what you want! I'm very far removed from current trends in debate, but I love strong + analytical warrants, good linking, and fun strategic decisions. I tend to find super stock DAs and Ks or a heavy reliance on evidence quite boring.

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ Logan, & Parli @ UC Davis.

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com & mittypolicydocs@gmail.com. However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).

I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.

I am currently a BP and APDA competitor at UC Berkeley and one of the exec members of the Debate Society of Berkeley.

I flow very carefully. I am fine with any speed, but preferably not too fast. Please be clear and calm, and sign-posting/a clear roadmap for your speech is critical for me.

I weigh arguments qualitatively. A strong argument with clear warrants and real-world impacts, in my opinion, outweighs a few weaker ones. Stating a claim doesn't make your argument valid even if your opponents don’t point it out.

I want to hear the comparative analysis of two sides in the final speech. Explain clearly to me what is most important in this round and why your explanation on that matter becomes your path to victory.

Please be respectful to everyone in the round. I encourage you to be confident, but not overly aggressive.

Hi! I'm Maya (she/her) and I competed in parli with the MVLA S&D team (and am now attending Swarthmore College!). I'm so excited to judge you and I hope you have fun at this tournament! Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (weird vocab, further preferences, etc.) before the round.

TL;DR Be nice, I will drop you if you're blatantly offensive. Debate is for learning, not skewing your opponents out of the round however you can. Engaging with your opponents arguments, doing comparative analysis, and signposting make me happy, messy debates make me sad. I will buy whatever you read if it's conceded and extended, but I will like you more if you keep the debate educational. If you read a K or tricksy argument be prepared to explain it well. I'm proud of you for joining debate and making sure you learn and have at least a little fun is my top priority!

A Few General Things:

BE NICE. As much as I'm sure we all love winning, the point of debate is education. If you're rude, I won't like you (I will drop your speaker points) and if you bully the other team or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you (this hopefully/most likely won't apply to you!).

I am comfortable with moderately fast speed(~300 wpm) and will ask you to slow or clear as necessary. I'm open to 30 speaks theory and will allocate points based on how strategic your speech was rather than how good of a speaker you are (speaker points used in the latter manner have a history of being exclusionary and problematic).

Please time yourselves (and your opponents if you'd like). Ask if you'd like me to time but I won't really be paying attention to my phone so you should still time yourself anyways. Please try to not go more than 30 seconds over your allotted speaking time, and feel free to call out your opponents if they do by holding up your timer or something similar. I won't flow any new arguments after the grace period is up (and even grace is sketchy, it should just be used to wrap up your speech not blip in a few more responses).

I have only competed in parliamentary debate so please feel free to ask me more specific questions about my preferences for any event. I know the basic rules of each event, have watched demo rounds, and will just vote however you tell me to in round - I love layering, impact framing, weighing, etc. It just makes it so much easier for me to evaluate the flow.

I will buy just about anything you say as long as it's not offensive. You can tell me about aliens or conspiracy theories, but please back them up with at least some logical analysis and be ready to respond to opponent refutations. Please don't make up warrants, if I catch you I will either drop you or lower your speaks depending on how significant the warrant was to your case (I have definitely misinterpreted warrants before and understand the difference between misinterpreting & straight up lying so don't stress, just be honest!).

I'm familiar with the structure of typical ULI debate arguments (and internal links) and can flow pretty well so I will just vote however you tell me to. Comparative weighing makes me smile, if I don't hear any framing or weighing arguments I will cry and have to figure out which sheet is the most important on my own, which probably won't help your case.

Case Debate

- please please please signpost. Tell me when you're on Uniqueness, Links, Impacts, when you're moving onto a new sheet, etc. When doing responses either number them or do some sort of "they say", if you're going down the flow/laid out a clear off-time road map then embedded clash (not explicitly signposting) is okay.

- again, please be nice during cross. Being aggressive is fine, I get you want perceptual dominance, but if you continually interrupt your opponent and don't let them ask any questions then I will dock your speaks. I will not be flowing cross or tag teaming, if you want me to flow a point say it in your speech.

- same as speech times, please time your running prep and say when you are starting time (so if opponents want to time you they can do so as well). If you go more than 30 seconds overtime I will dock speaks (though if you want me to see your opponents going overtime hold up your timer otherwise I won't know).

- weighing or just generally making comparative arguments between you and your opponents makes it so much easier to evaluate without intervening (using personal biases) and I will like you a lot more if you do it. If I don't know what's a voter or what's my top priority then evaluating gets messy and you get to deal with a sad judge (there's not really an impact to the round but do you really want to make your judge sad?)

- I have more case prefs in the Parli notes below, feel free to check them out and see what applies.

* apparently theory is a thing in PF. Check out the parli notes to see more specifics, basically I will vote on whatever you read (though I might be slightly biased against shells like spec & no neg fiat). Theory at this level should be read sparingly, especially when events like novice PF are so focused on having well-prepped case-level arguments.

PF & LD

I think there's a pretty good chance that I'll be judging more than parli for upcoming tournaments, so if you're curious:

• As a parli debater, I don't usually view warrants as a top priority but I know it's different for other events. I won't be great about flowing specific warrants – I will try – but if you want me to look to a specific piece of evidence please highlight it and emphasize the key parts for me, don't just blip them in and extend in your final speech (I may miss it on my flow and think it's a new point). I probably won't call cards unless prompted, so be prepared to call out your opponents if you think their stats are sketchy. If I do find out you've made up warrants you will be docked speaks and this will definitely affect the strength of your case.
• If you read a value, tell me why I should evaluate the round under that criterion and then tell me why you win under it – I can't vote for a team just because they have an uncontested value criterion if their case doesn't apply.
• Please time your own/your opponent's cross, prep & speech times, you can hold up your stopwatch to the camera or send a message to chat if your opponent is going way over time, if they're past the grace period I will stop them. I may keep a timer, but I'm not super consistent about that.

Parli General Notes

[this is tech stuff]: I default to K > Theory > Case, but you can definitely convince me otherwise. feel free to ask me specifics but I mean if you're going to go for layering then you should really just tell me how to layer and I will buy whatever you say unless your opponents contest it.

• please layer the IVIs for me, and I'm not a huge fan of friv IVIs :). do they come before theory, and why? etc.

I will try to be as unbiased as possible, but I'm also aware that I am a human with unconscious biases and will do my best to check that. Unless something is blatantly offensive I will buy any conceded arguments but please do not say an argument has been conceded when it hasn't.

If your opponents ask 2 or more POIs, please take at least 1 unless there's flex time. If you don't I definitely won't buy must ask questions counterinterps and I will probably drop you by like 0.5 speaks.

I will do my best to protect the flow but I recommend that you call the POO just to make sure I catch it. I buy golden turns and am not a fan of shadow extensions (I probably won't strike it from the flow, but I will give it less weight).

I'm familiar with debate jargon, but your opponents might not be. Again, just be nice.

Case

I love a nice clean case debate :) Signposting makes me really happy and makes it easier for me to flow. Have clear and organized uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts, that's all I ask. I think I tend to vote for the team that has the clearest & strongest link story and arguments for why their impacts outweigh. I will do my best not to intervene, I buy anything if it goes uncontested, but if your link is sketchy then my internal biases may take over.

I've said this earlier on but I love weighing. Just tell me what to do, it makes it so much easier to vote. If the other team does any weighing or framing, contest that. Because then I have 2 weighing claims and it's all a big mess again and now I'm sad. On that issue, do engage with your opponents. Your case comes first, but that doesn't mean you can have no refutations. Then, especially without those weighing claims, the flow gets really messy, I'm sad, and I will likely have to intervene (use my biases on which argument comes first) and make a decision you might not like.

IMO case debate is pretty straightforward so just debate how you usually do and I'll give you feedback where I can. Try to keep a good balance of offense and defense when making responses.

Counterplans: I love these, I view them as an opportunity cost to the aff. Read whatever you want, agent, delay, process, PIC, whatever, but be ready to face theory if you do. Please have solvency, I have a high threshold for what it means to be mutually exclusive so you'll definitely need a DA if you want to compete via net benefits (I don't buy counterplans along the lines of "don't do the aff, instead do this completely unrelated thing that could be done in the same world as the aff plan" unless the aff totally drops it/doesn't perm it). I buy the perm as a test of competition, but again, explain to me why there are more net benefits to the perm than just the CP. I don't have an opinion on condo, so I could be convinced either way if a condo shell is read.

Theory

I prefer interp -> violation -> standards -> voters. You do you but it'll make it easier for me to flow and evaluate if it's read this way. I default to competing interps over reasonability, but you can easily change my mind – also, I won't do anything with the shell unless you tell me drop debater/argument and whether or not it's a priori/whatever order you want the debate to be evaluated on.

Please be nice to novices who have not learned theory yet! I get that it's another way for you to win, but again, debate is supposed to be educational and I will like you more if you try to create a positive, encouraging community for everyone. This doesn't mean you can't read theory, but just be patient with your opponents and be ready to explain if they ask any POIs.

I would prefer that you keep the debate educational, especially at the novice level – ie avoid frivolous T if possible. If your opponents are cool with it, though, I think funny T is funny.

Similar to impacts, do weighing where you can. What voter am I prioritizing? How do you win on that voter? Which standard is most important?

Ks

I buy anything. Again, BE NICE. Ks are confusing to your opponents and to me. Explain clearly for everyone's sake and be patient (though I will be understanding if you're rushing to finish reading your K). I've read lit for setcol and queer theory + debated some cap and funky K affs, so I will probably be able to understand your K but I'm probably not going to know the context for any of your warrants – if you're going for one, explain it to me please.

Against Ks, I'm very open to hearing theory arguments and layering arguments, but I probably have a softer spot for debaters that engage with the layer of the K and come up with innovative responses rather than generic arguments.

Other

I don't know any tricks or phil arguments, but as always, I'm happy to evaluate them as long as they are explained well.

Mistakes happen! I've definitely read some sketchy arguments that I myself didn't particularly appreciate, and will not look down on you for reading a sketchy argument. Your opponents are probably going to have good refutations so just look at this as another learning experience and opportunity to improve. Especially if you're a novice, it's the prime time to make mistakes, have terrible prep and 2 minute speeches, make epic fails (all of which I've done), as long as you take what you've learned and use it to improve :)

If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading my paradigm. Know that I am so proud of you for having the confidence to go up, compete, and speak in front of practical strangers for however long your event lasts. Debating and competing in speech is scary, I've been there and still am there most of the time. While I will be judging you in terms of who wins, know I will not be judging you as a person based on how good of a debater you are. I can't wait to see you grow and become the scariest competitors on the circuit!