I have judged all events for the last number of years, and have been a coach for a championship team. I don't like spreading; I think there is no educational value in it. I enjoy good counter arguments and well thought out and well argued Kritiks. Topicality arguments are interesting, but not always effective, so unless it's a perfect topicality argument, don't bother with it. I like clash and POIs. I will take off speaker points of a rude or disrespectful competitor, including making faces while the other team is speaking.

This is my second tournament judging, so I am not very familiar with many arguments. I am not a primary english speaker. Please be very clear as to what your arguments mean and tag all of your arguments and refutations. if you don't tag them, I may not write it properly. Like I said, I don't have much experience judging. While I know some things because my son does debate, don't assume I know anything past common knowledge. Other than that, please be confident and respectful to each other, and debate to the best of your ability! Good luck!

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging. I prefer arguments which are presented clearly and elaborated on. I also value structure a lot and do not like fast speaking.

Please do not run theory unless you absolutely need to due to abuse in the round. If you end up running theory, please explain it slowly and clearly what the theory is, what the violation is, and why I should buy the theory over the case arguments. Also I would need to know the voters as well/

If you run a Kritik I will probably not understand most of the terminology. I would suggest just going with case.

Good Luck in your Rounds!

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. That being said, treat me as you would any other lay judge: refrain from speed, jargon etc.

Hello, I am a first year parent judge, so I would prefer not to judge theory or kritiks. I would appreciate if your arguments were very organized and clear so that I can follow along. Also, please speak at a moderate speed. Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't spread too fast. Explain your K's, theories, framework arguments, and anything else that is potentially confusing. Weigh things. Besides that, run anything you want. I give everyone ~27.5 speaker points unless you're rude or offensive.

Hello,

I value logical arguments based on the objective evidences.

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

Please keep your own time.

Enjoy!

Be respectful of your opponents

Organize your thought before speaking and clearly articulate your arguments in normal speed of speech

Keep your position without deploying your opponents' plan with slight modification

Teams who manage to defend more key contentions will get more points

From a Technology Sales and Marketing background, what I look for in debaters is articulation by:

1) View points highlighted first and detailed afterwards.

2) I am not a flow judge, please help me with highlighting the view points with logic/emotion/voice

3) Please try to address all what came from opponent side succinctly , missing POI insufficient responses

4) I will try my best to stay on debate line but will appreciate the actual facts you use to make a realistic argument

5) A good battle of wits, facts, opinions, and healthy competition is what I look forward to, emotion is important but should not overtake logic

I am a parent judge (first time) and the below will help me better participate and judge the debate.

1. Please be clear-- talk at a steady pace.

2. Please don't use acronyms and abbreviations

3. Please do not run K's and theories--if it is absolutely necessary to point out the opponents abuse, please be thorough on how they are abusive.

4. Perms are ok, but I will request / need an explanation

Please note that I am a lay judge and English is not my first language. Please do not rush and speak clearly so that I can understand you.

I view logic as the most important factor for my decision. Please provide clear reasoning as to why your argument makes sense and is better than that of your opponents.

I also highly value the evidence you support during the round. Please give credible evidence and citing the evidence will help as well when I try to determine if the evidence is credible.

Lastly, please have a professional tone and attitude while speaking.

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.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for 3 years.

Please speak at moderate pace and with clarity. Be respectful to your opponents and keep track of your time so you can end your arguments. When I am judging, I look for:

- Critical thinking about the arguments and supporting your arguments

- Rebut your opponents

- Don't go in circles and keep repeating

- Be logical and realistic with your arguments

- Eloquent communication of your arguments

Good luck and have fun.

Hey all!

I use she/they pronouns and I competed on the Oregon circuit in high school. I did PF my freshman year, then parli for the other three years. In speech, I did impromptu, ADS, informative, and radio primarily, but also competed in prose and oratory a few times! Currently, I'm president of the parli team at NYU. (ask me about college debate!)

Preferences

1) SIGN-POSTING. If I can't figure out where you are on the flow, I won't flow it.

2) Make sure you get me to your impacts. Don't just say something is bad. Explain why.

3) I'm really not a fan of Ks or heavy theory, but if you give me a good reason that you're running it, I might vote for it.

4) If you're neg on a policy resolution, I'd really like to see a counterplan. (PICs are fine if you can prove them)

5) TELL ME what to vote on in your last speeches. You shouldn't just be listing points in voters, you should be telling me why the points you won matter more than the points the other side won (because, really, unless you're a god you did not win every point).

6) Off-time roadmaps and speed are fine. I will signal if I can't understand you.

7) Give your pronouns and name at the beginning of your speech if you are comfortable!

TL;DR. Love sign-posting, impacts, weighing, and counter-plans. Not a big fan of Ks or theory, but I won't strike you for doing it.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

Talk slowly

No more than 2 POO

Looking for argument with max net benefits.

Good luck.

Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument.

Please be courteous and I am looking forward to watching your debates!

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

Hi everyone!

I am a parent judge, with minimal debate experience. Please be very clear and precise when speaking. I will vote on the side which brings the overall strongest arguments. Good luck!

The more turns the higher chance of winning

Be creative please!!

Honestly, I will vote for anything xD

I will tell you what I don't vote for: DROPPED ARGUMENTS.
Silence is consent in debate, I won't ignore the flow.

Don't read me articles, tell me your arguments and opinions.

Top 4 RFDs -

Turn
Double-Turn
Link Turn
Impact Turn

Abusing your off-time road map isn't cool.
road maps are for people who are lost.

I don't get lost.

I don't like my time being wasted.

I have limited judging experience, but have a good amount of experience as a debater. You're free to speak at whatever speed you like, but if your opponents ask you to slow down, I expect that you will accommodate that request. As for your case, you're of course free to run whatever you like, but if you can, avoid complicated Kritik's or theory arguments.

Parent judge

(Well organized and logically laid out arguments) > (speed talking or try to win on technicalities)

Most debates come down to a few key arguments. Please lay it out for me. Don’t force me to organize your arguments nor decipher your weighing.

Be competitive, be passionate, but be respectful

Have fun!

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

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

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

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

I have been judging Parli rounds for 2 years and enjoy the diverse topics I hear during the tournaments and how students bring their viewpoint to convince me to give their arguments maximum weightage.

I have been impressed by data driven arguments as that gives evidence versus just empty statements made to prove your opponents wrong. Sometimes these evidences are the winning factor for events I have judged without any bias in my decision.

Good eye contact, voice modulation to stress important points and body movement can help to justify the points as needed. You don't have to have a shouting match to win an argument but rather prove it based on evidence stats. I don't prefer theory or K arguments, although I will acknowledge any valid points given.

Good luck to all participants and continue to keep learning and improving as you debate your peer students.

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

PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.

LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.

I am an inexperienced judge so I prefer no spreading and no theory. If you use jargon, please explain. Please be respectful, speak clearly, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

I've judged parli for several years now.

Please enunciate and speak slower. Especially with debates online, sometimes I struggle to hear speeches properly when someone is talking fast.

Make sure you have logical arguments with clear reasoning that I can flow.

Do not try to run theory or kritiks.

I encourage POIs

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

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

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

Otherwise:

⁃ Numbered arguments are easier to follow

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

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

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

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

I prefer students speak at a regular rate. Also, I look or listen for well-reasoned and/or well-organized arguments in debates.

Just a few things:

1. I appreciate sign-posting and off-time roadmaps
2. Please be kind to each other and use POIs selectively

Hello

1) Talk slow so I can understand

2) Not more than 2 POO

3) Looking for arguments with maximum net benefits

4) Pls put the camera on

Good Luck

I am a lay judge.

1. Please explain your arguments thoroughly.

2. Please signpost and use off-time roadmaps.

3. Please talk slow, it is in your best interest that I understand your speech.

4. Please be organized in your speech and give me an easy time flowing.

5. I value facts, and well-supported arguments

TL; DR

I’m open to most arguments as long as they’re not sexist, racist, ableist, etc. Don’t berate your opponents, debate cleanly. Open to T and Ks apart from Give Back the Land and other identity arguments concerning identities you don’t share (you should know why the large percentage of you should not be running this). I’m tabula rasa to an extent; I won’t buy that the sky is green but if you say something like “x country has y policy” and there’s no response on the flow, that’ll fly.

Ask me any other questions you may have before the round! :-)

Long Version:

Background- I’ve done Varsity High School Parli Debate at Evergreen Valley High School, qualified to the TOC as a senior, and was active in almost every Bay Area-based tournament over the 2015-2018 seasons. I’ve also done a bit of LD. I currently attend UC Berkeley as a junior Political Science and Data Science double major. Pronouns she/her/hers.

Etiquette- Please do not shake my hand; it’s a pointless formality. I don’t factor what you wear or anything like that into your speaker points. I hate speaker points and try to be as objective as possible, but for errors in terms of frivolous theory, rudeness, etc, I will drop you .5 speaks each instance. Don’t be rude to your opponents. Loud whispering isn’t respectful while the other team is speaking; try to keep your volume down or write notes to one another instead. I also don’t really care if you stand or sit, or if you dress up; make yourself comfortable so you can debate the best that you can. Don’t flip pens. Try to use all the time given. Be clear.

I will, however, tank your speaks and drop you if you use abusive (sexist, racist, ableist, Islamophobic, etc.) rhetoric and try to spread your opponents out of the round- I am generally fine with speed but your opponents may not be, and especially if they say slow or clear and you fail to adjust, I will have more reason to drop speaker points.

Arguments-

Case: Case debate should be pretty straightforward. I’m tabula rasa to a rational extent. Try to link your arguments clearly and signpost so I know where to look on the flow. I won’t make extensions for you, so make sure you articulate what it is you're extending, why it flows through, and where I’m making the extension. Do not restate your previously made points as a response without explanation of why the response reapplies/don't just reiterate your offense as defense. Use evidence where you can, I'm not looking things up but it definitely helps to be/appear accurate and factual. If I don't understand what you're saying (as in it's a structurally deficient or blipped argument) I won't flow it. Please terminalize your impacts, don't just say "lives" or "economy". Please do some kind of weighing or aff world vs. neg world analysis in your voters as well.

Theory: I enjoy theory debate, when it is done well. While I find frivolous theory annoying, if the other team doesn’t respond adequately and you prove to me why you win and run it structurally well I’ll have reason to vote on it. Again, make sure you signpost and make clear responses. I shouldn’t be doing any of the work for you.

Kritiks: I liked debating Kritiks and watching rounds where they are run well. I’m cool with Aff and Neg Ks. I can easily tell when you are running a K to skew your opponents out of a round, so please avoid doing that as at the end of the day, we all want an equitable debate where people can learn; otherwise the activity becomes useless. Try to avoid running the K if you don’t really understand it because then the ideology will become very convoluted and there will be a lot of holes in your argumentation, and it will be hard for me and the other team to understand. Don’t expect me to vote on something I cannot understand. Arguments I’m very familiar with include Orientalism, Capitalism/Marxist Kritiks, Transhumanism and Feminism. Don’t run Give Back the Land or identity arguments where you don’t actually share that identity, because then it becomes apparent you’re exploiting that identity for your personal gain. Sign post well. Speak clearly and always tell me which link or impact you are responding to if responding to a K. Make sure your links are contextualized in a manner that makes it clear how the other team's epistemology/rhetoric/etc. is connected to whatever impacts you discuss. Terminalize your impacts please! And make ROTB clear.

default to K, T, case. Competing interps over reasonability.

Bottom line is, try to have fun, be inclusive, and learn something.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

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

Short Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

I want the students to speak slowly and clearly and follow a logical thought process and make sure all contentions are addressed. Let the best team win!

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

Hi,

I am Chandan.

I am new to judging and looking forward to contribute to debate competitions.

I do not like theories though PoI and PoO are welcome!

Enjoy!

I have judged parliamentary debate for the past 2 years and 3 years in the past. I am a parent judge and I am not familiar with theory or kritikal arguments, so make sure to explain these arguments before you run them.

I don't have any preferences, as long both teams agree with the rules and are respectful to each other.

Ground Rules:

1. Specify the amount of time each speaker will have to speak.
2. Explain the proper decorum that participants are expected to follow, such as speaking one at a time and refraining from interrupting other speakers.
3. Clarify the process for making points of information and asking questions.
4. Outline the procedure for challenging a speaker's argument.
5. State any other relevant rules or guidelines that the participants need to be aware of.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Will be scoring the debate, such as by taking into account the quality of arguments, delivery, and research
2. and aspects of the debate such as organization, persuasiveness, and evidence.

1. Please make sure you signpost your contentions.

2. I like to follow logical and clearly structured arguments.

3. I expect to see good engagement and effective rebuttal of your opponent’s arguments.

4. I’m open to Kritik- take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. But, as I mentioned earlier, my decisions are based exclusively on the arguments and counter arguments presented with strongly backed-up concrete facts or examples.

5. No Spreading, be respectful of your allotted time, your audience and have fun!!

(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....

Affirmative :

1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.

4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.

NEGATIVE :

1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .

2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !

3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *

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

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 :)

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

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

- Refrain from using acronyms and abbreviations during your speech

- Avoid running Ks

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

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

I am a parent judge judging for the last 3 years. I have been mainly judging LD but have occasionally done other forms as well. I take a lot of notes so please do speak at moderate speeds and explain your arguments logically. I like powerful speakers but please be courteous to other contestants and provide appropriate evidence to substantiate your contentions. Please do not stretch the truth since that could count against you. Have lots of fun!

My Background

I did parliamentary debate and only parliamentary debate for four years, and I mostly attended lay tournaments. I don't have any experience in policy or pofo, and I did try LD for a while, but I definitely don't think I should be judging those events. If you're in a non parli form of debate, please be patient in explaining the rules to me, and explain arguments more clearly than you normally would because I may be unfamiliar with how those arguments work. I generally like case debates, but I'm not opposed to theory if you have to run it. I don't like kritiks or abusive arguments, but I do like creative arguments that are believable.

I am currently an Economics and Public Affairs major, so I understand quite a bit about how government works, and while I try to be tabula rasa, my knowledge may bias the way I judge debate rounds. Make sure you explain all arguments clearly and correctly. I do fact check, so don't make things up.

Case

Make sure all of your points are very clear. Please organize everything into your uniqueness, links, internal links, impacts, and responses. Do not skip links. I run into a lot of debaters who just kind of assume that their plan solves without explaining or giving evidence as to why. Signpost all parts of your argument too. I should be able to figure out exactly which point you're responding to at all times. Also please terminalize your impacts. Every argument you run must have an implication and significance. If you don't explain the significance of your argument, I will have trouble weighing it in the round.

Do not make up evidence. If there is a contentious piece of evidence in the round, I will fact check it. Completely fabricating numbers or quotes will result in an immediate loss. However, reasonable paraphrasing or truncating is okay. Calculating percentages is okay (if it's done correctly).

As much as possible, refutations should be offensive. Try to do link turns more often than no links. I especially like double binds that are explained clearly. I really like interesting impact turns too, but make sure they're substantiated and don't double turn yourself.

Rebuttals

Please use voter issues in the rebuttal speeches. Do not treat it as another constructive speech and spend all your time responding to arguments unless you're the PMR and you have to. Weigh the arguments against each other, and obviously make sure the argument you're winning is given more weight. Seriously, don't try to win every argument. Find the arguments you're winning and explain why they're more important. I also like rebuttals that explain why your argument short circuits their argument. I look at probability, magnitude, and timeframe. When it comes to impact analysis, I kind of like timeframe arguments and sometimes probability arguments. I don't like magnitude arguments that are incredibly unlikely (like nuclear war), unless they can be well substantiated (like if Ukraine joins NATO). Seriously, don't run nuclear war arguments unless you have a good link scenario. Most of the time nuclear war arguments become nonunique anyways. Both sides claim the other side has nuclear war with little to no evidence, and MAD means that nuclear war probably won't happen. Both brink scenarios typically have equal chance of happening anyways.

Plans and Counterplans

I'm not very picky about plans, but they should definitely be topical. Small affs are fine, and I oftentimes finds them to be clever. Avoid extratopical plans, and make sure your plan solves. See my theory category for more information.

In general I'm fine with all types of CPs, but make sure your CP solves, is competitive, and isn't abusive. In other words, your CP alone must be better than the plan and the CP together. This can usually be done with disads to the plan. Make sure you have disads to the plan, do not simply talk about why the CP is better than the plan because that does not generate offense and does not protect against the perm.

No conditional CPs, but dispositional CPs are ok.

Consult CPs are ok as long as you give a good reason why consulting is important and prove solvency.

I'm fine with PICs, but I'll also listen to theory arguments about it. If you plan to run a PIC, be prepared to have responses to theory.

Agent/50 States CPs are fine too, but make sure you have actual evidence as to why 50 states would solve better than the federal government. If there's no good reason why a particular agent or 50 states is preferred, you'll probably lose on presumption.

Theory

Make sure you have all five parts (interp, violation, standards, voters, underview) for every theory argument. If you're missing any of them, you might as well not run theory. There is a time and place theory arguments. I don't like frivolous theory, and I probably won't buy any theory arguments that seem unnecessary. That being said, I think that theory is necessary if a plan or counterplan is confusing or abusive. If your opponents genuinely misinterpreted the resolution, run theory. Topicality and spec are oftentimes the most useful forms of theory. Oftentimes, the aff plan will be so vague that educational debate is impossible. In this case, the neg can easily win on theory.

If you're confused on what's "unnecessary." Think of it this way: if you're running theory because you want a cheap argument to beat your opponent, it's probably unnecessary. If you're running theory because your opponents genuinely did something that shouldn't be allowed, run theory. When in doubt, run theory. The worst that could happen is that you waste your time. I generally don't buy RVIs.

Also, I'm a huge fan of we meet responses to interps. It's probably the best way to quickly defeat theory.

Kritiks

If you're going to run a K please make sure you explain each part of the K clearly. I know a bit about Nietzsche, Sartre, Daoism, and Baudrillard, but that's about it. Everything else you'll have to explain to me clearly.

Misc:

Tabula rasa and tech over truth for the most part. Basically, if you drop arguments (even if they are factually wrong), I have to give that argument to your opponent. This has happened before. You can avoid this by not dropping arguments and making sure you do line by lines if you're the LOC or MG.

Hot take: I don't really care about shadow extensions, but I'm willing to listen to a point of order if the PMR does a shadow extension. For the LOR I feel like the PMR's ability to use golden turns voids the abuse of a shadow extension.

I am fine with whatever speed you want to go at, but do not try to speak so quickly that your opponents or I can't understand you. Make sure you are speaking clearly. I will say clear if you're not being clear enough. I'm fine with tag teaming, but I'll only flow what the speaker says.

I award speaker points based on how well you speak and present, not on the quality of your arguments. That being said, I will nuke speaks for a variety of reasons including but not limited to racism, sexism, and making up evidence. I think you can speak quickly and still be a good speaker.

I prefer cameras to be on while you speak so that I can more accurately judge speaker points. I do judge based on hand motions, eye contact, movement, and stuff like that. If you are able to, please turn on your camera and present your arguments to the best of your ability.

Presumption flows neg unless there is a counterplan in which case it flows aff. Please do not make me vote on presumption. You can do this by making sure your arguments are offensive and not defensive. That means if you're neg talk about why the aff is harmful and if you're aff talk about why doing nothing is harmful and how you solve for those harms. You can also avoid making me vote on presumption by weighing arguments in the rebuttal speech. Seriously, if you weigh an argument you're winning and your opponent doesn't weigh, you'll win.

There are a number of debates I've won from creatively redefining or reinterpreting the resolution. I honestly think this is necessary sometimes if the resolution is seriously skewed against you. I really like these debates, but please make sure your definition or interpretation of the resolution is valid and substantiated before using it. Just remember for any resolution, there exists some creative a path to victory. Do not give up during prep time.

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

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

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

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.

For AFF and NEG, in providing/citing evidence that supports your position, please explain your position clearly and the benefits/advantages of your position. Provide evidence that supports your position and provide examples from world events that supports your evidence. It's not sufficient to cite Y is better than X without providing evidence/examples where Y has been studied/deployed and proven to be better (i.e, Published papers/Studies, and specifics wherein Y is being used/deployed effectively, etc...).

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.

This is my first high school tournament, so I am new to everything. Please don't speak fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you. Speak with clarity and do not use any jargon; if you do, explain what those words mean. Please explain EVERYTHING, so I understand what you are saying. Please provide well-developed arguments. I would be more impressed with two or three well-developed deep arguments over several superficial arguments. Make sure to be respectful. Thanks and have fun!

General

To me, debate is truly about the knowledge that can you gain while being a safe space. Regardless of the round, you should feel accommodated for and come out of the round gaining education. If a debate is not fulfilling this duty, please feel free to contact me at any point and I am more than happy to discuss with you any issues and steps to take to resolve them.

I will try to be as tabula rosa as much as possible, but I am human. :( Therefore I am tech>truth, but I personally have always believed that debate is the most fun when tech is truth.

Please give me the path of least resistance to vote. This means COLLAPSING. Layer. Tell me how to write my ballot.

Please also include content warnings if possible. I would greatly greatly appreciate them <3

Case

I spent most of my high school debate career case debating, so this is definitely where I am most comfortable. Please warrant everything out. I prefer listening to fewer arguments that are well fleshed out over a litany of small blippy arguments.

Love CPs. Pretty low threshold for CPs (actor, consult, delay, etc are all fair game) but I am also super down to vote on theory on CPs so tread carefully

Theory

I don't like friv. I will vote on it but I will try to find any other way to vote before I vote on friv. However, I personally care a lot about accessibility in debate, so if you are trying to skew your opponents out of the round, I am more than happy to vote on theory.

RVI's are cool w me. I will vote on them, ESP when run against friv. also down for meta

Kritik

Currently most comfortable with cap, setcol, Baudrillard, biopower, fem, Nietzsche, and Kant (only the bare minimum though). If you would like to read anything specific, please make sure to explain it to me very very well.

Make sure to have SPECIFIC links to the debate. Your K should not be canned and reread verbatim every round.

Pass text (thesis & alt).

Please refrain from reading an identity-based K if you do not identify with that community.

Defaults (more than happy to vote another way if told in round to do so)

- Perms are a test of comp

- Magnitude >Probability >Timeframe

- Competing interps before reasonability

- Kritik > T > Case

- Pre-fiat before post-fiat

- I default to policy/net bens

Miscellaneous

- Speed: fine w it, if your opponents ask for you to slow/clear, you better

- Please ask for status. please

- I try my best to protect, but I am human so call it

- Grace period: finish your last thought, I stop flowing beyond that.

- Speaks: I start at 27 and go up from there. If you manage to incorporate Biscoff into your speech, you'll get an extra 0.5 points. Please run 30 speaks theory! I will most definitely tank your speaks if you are rude or toxic (please don't be homophobic, sexist, etc)

- Try to make it a habit to ask for status, i promise it'll save you (or not)

- Please provide content warnings before your speech.

- Rhetorical questions in debate are one of my pet peeves. It won't hurt your speaks or win/loss, but if you can, please try to keep them out.

- I always disclose unless I'm not allowed to so stick around

- Sometimes my straight face looks mad, please don't take that to heart, I am not mad at you I promise :))

- If you ever need someone to talk to outside of round about debate or anything else, I'm always here to talk. I struggled with mental health a lot when I was competing so I am always down to help out. You can reach me at carolinxxin@gmail.com or on Messenger.

Background

I experimented in various events and ended up landing in Parli. Spent 4 years in high school Parli, ended my senior year with quarters at toc and 10th. I now coach PF and speech.

Overall, have fun and be confident. Every win and loss is a new step that is so worth it!

The following is written by my son but he just rephrased my opinions in a more understandable way

This is my 3rd year judging debate so not a lot of experience

State your sources, evidence, impacts, harms, etc in a clear and understandable way

Pretend I do not know anything about any topic, so explain everything!

Go slow and focus on getting your message out in a clear way

No K's or Theory, I do not understand them (sorry)

Be nice and polite, you are here to debate an educational round, not to dog fight with each other

Don't interrupt unless it is a clarification/POI

Overall have fun and enjoy the round!

Updated September 2021

I am a parent judge and it is my second year judging (mostly Parli). Having judged at least a dozen tournaments, I am comfortable with terminology and have heard a variety of styles and strategies. That said,

1. Please signpost - it helps me organize my notes and make a decision

2. No spreading if possible, I have trouble flowing when you speak fast

3. You can use theory but it has to be well explained.

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

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

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