Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc:3offncase@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.

Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, I'm always ready for your speech and I'll give a reaction in zoom if I'm not.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the arguments have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude! Please respect your opponents.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! Speak fast, but don't zoom through your speech! Calm down and speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims. Role fulfillment is a must-do!

Good luck!

I have been coaching forensics since 2001, leading programs in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and all Individual Events. I am now the Founder and Executive Director of The Practice Space, a non-profit dedicated to elevating underrepresented voices through public speaking programs, curriculum, and coaching. I also coach debate coaches and have started 5 forensics programs. In high school, I competed on the national circuit in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, going to elimination rounds at many major tournaments, including State Championships, Stanford Round Robin, Glenbrooks, UC Berkeley, Emory, and winning MLK. I also went to State Finals and Nationals in Individual Events (Dramatic Interpretation and Duo Interpretation).

The following refers to all forms of debate:

As a judge, I believe that speech and debate should be about communication and persuasion. While I can handle speed and know the jargon, debate should ultimately be about making the right choices in the round and giving strong explanations. I flow well and am okay with kritiks and topicality (although not enamored with them). Don’t let speed and jargon get in the way of clear communication. It’s not about winning every argument, but choosing the right ones by identifying the right clash, weighing the arguments, and concluding with a clear and persuasive story of the round. I ultimately judge rounds based on standards.

To me, the final speeches are the most important. Be clear about the standard for the round and don’t forget to impact well. I hate off-time roadmaps and starting off rounds with “time starts now”. Balance defense with offense and paint the picture of your side’s world. Do NOT be rude! I do not vote for people who are rude. If you are on the negative, make sure you leave enough time for clear voting issues in your last speech and don’t spend the whole time on line-by-line. The final affirmative speech should not contain line-by-line.

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years at Berkeley High.

My significant preference is for simple clear debate. Make sure your points are logically sound and clearly signposted. Weigh your arguments all the way. If I don't understand why your argument actually matters it doesn't matter how good the underlying structure of it is, I can't evaluate it in judging.

Don't be abusive. If I think a part of your plan/standards/definitions are abusive and your opponents call you out on it I'll probably give the round to them. The same goes for theory. If you're running theory and it's uncalled for I'll be inclined against you.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Enjoy the rounds and good luck.

I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. I'm pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

I keep time silently but do honor the 30 second grace period. While you shouldn't take advantage of it frequently, just don't feel the need to abruptly stop when the timer goes off in the middle of an impactful closing thought. Don't worry so much as speaking up to the bell as giving a clear, cogent argument or rebuttal. Although I myself am a fast speaker, I'm not as keen on hearing rapidly paced, densely packed verbage ("spreading"), but rather a convincing and eloquent train of thought. Don't interpret my silence badly -- I'm just adhering to judging protocol. I do give detailed feedback in Tabroom. Good luck and enjoy yourselves!

Hi I am Rosie (she/her). I did American Parli debate at Berkeley High School for three years and I won the 2022 NPDL TOC. I am now captain of IPDA debate at UC Santa Barbara.

This is all you really have to read, if you want to read my specific ramblings see below.

Please don't give me an off-time roadmap. I like good case debate. Don't talk fast or use jargon. Quality over quantity--usually the team able to explain better wins. Be creative and have fun, just don't be unfair to your opponents.

Preface: I want my paradigm to be accessible to people who don't know debate language. If you are confused about anything I have written please ask me to clarify. I remember being very confused reading paradigms--I still am sometimes--so please, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. At the bottom of my paradigm I have linked a document that I wrote going over the basics of some of the debate terminology I have used. I have also included my email if you want to talk personally.

Long(ish) version:

My preferences are pretty simple: I enjoy case debate with good reasoning. I do not enjoy theory. I like voting issues in rebuttal--tell me what the most important issue in the round is and why.

Tabula rasa

I guess one could call me tabula rasa (meaning I pretend I know absolutely nothing about the world at the start of your round). However, if someone says something absurd, and you give a two second reason for why it is absurd, I'll believe you. That being said, don't expect me to do the work for you if your opponent lies or makes a large leap in logic.

Evidence

Evidence in parli is easily misrepresented or straight up lied about. Statistics should support your argument, not be your argument's backbone. I will be hesitant to decide a round based on one statistic or piece of evidence. If you want me to weigh your evidence more, provide details. Also, if you think a statistic is suspicious don't be afraid to call it out, tell me why I shouldn't trust it.

Counter plans

Counter plans are fun. I don't need plans to be mutually exclusive, but I will vote on arguments saying all counter plans should be. Run them if you wish!

Jargon

Do not expect your opponents to have read the same literature that you have. Don't expect me to have read the literature that you have. All jargon should be explained, even jargon as simple as "utilitarianism." If you are using a lot of jargon and don't take POIs it will be hard to win my ballot. Also, if your opponents use too much jargon, please POI them and call them out for making the round hard for you to debate.

Theory

I know some people can be unfair so run theory if you need to. I wouldn't use theory as your primary path to the ballot if you can avoid it. That means if your opponents don't state a weighing mechanism, you are better off giving me one yourself than telling me to vote against them because they didn't. Attack the plan/weighing mechanism/etc. only when you can genuinely prove it has made the debate less fair or educational. Also, as long as you get the point across, I don't care if you run theory in a proper shell or not.

Kritiks

I don't like them very much. Only run when abundantly necessary. If your opponents tell me that Ks are bad I will be inclined to believe them.

Don't spread and have fun everyone! I look forward to judging you :)

Email me at nataliabultman@gmail.com if you want to talk or have any more questions.

Document that explains things: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lnmSwREGG2zKGaC1PodU9wv1tED2oCxL_9qjPrO9upA/edit?usp=sharing

I am a lay judge, i have been judging for 3 years. My preferences:

1) Speak clearly and slowly to build and argue your contentions

2) Prefer No Theory or Ks

Be courteous in your questioning and speaking.

Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for three years. I am a scientist by training but mentor and work with attorneys.

Eloquent, logical, well-supported arguments will impress me. Speaking at a sprint and using techy debate tricks will not.

I appreciate debates that address the entire topic, approached from a global perspective. I prefer evidence-based arguments with solid analysis over emotional appeals or exaggerated hypotheses.

Please make debate accessible to me, other judges and your opponents by speaking clearly and concisely. I am unlikely to vote in favor of kritiks.

I hope you will have fun and approach debate as if you are in a real-life situation where something important is at stake, and you are doing your best to convince others to join you.

I'm a newer parent judge. I appreciate clear articulate arguments and prefer conversational speed. Make sure to connect different arguments during there round as well as impact/tell me why they're important. Tell me what argument you're on. Explain any jargon. Treat your opponents kindly and with respect. Make sure your arguments follow logic.

Hi, I'm the former Captain of the Stuyvesant Parliamentary Team. I've been debating Parli since Freshmen year so I'm pretty familiar with the ins and outs of the format, but here are some notes on my judging that might differ from others:

- If a definition is abusive, it must be explicitly stated ( I want to literally hear, "we believe this definition is abusive" ) and I view abusive calls the same as other arguments, you have to properly warrant it out and tell me why exactly it's abusive.

- Even if a definition is called abusive, both sides must continue to debate under the "abusive" definition. I do not believe you can change your definitions in the middle of the debate.

- Examples are not warranting. If the only reason I should believe that X is true is that it happened somewhere, sometime in the past, it's not as convincing as giving me actual analysis on why X occurs or why X must be true.

- I'm usually somewhat confident in picking out which arguments are new in the last two speeches, but I definitely advise using POOs in case I just blank out - It'll usually never hurt to call a POO on something you genuinely believe is a new argument.

- No Theory ( Besides Abusive Calls ), I'm very much in the east coast line of thought that kinda hates Theory and Ks. If those terms don't mean anything to you, then don't worry about it.

- I like weighing. I think its a really complicated and hard skill to consistently use in rounds, but it's usually what determines rounds for me. If both sides have some relatively good impacts, then I side with the team that can argue their impacts are better in their last speech rather than regurgitating the arguments I already heard in the constructive speeches.

- I like creative cases that are done well. If you want to argue that it's actually better for America to turn into an Authoritarian - Communist paradise, then warrant out why it's good. If you are against a "creative case", don't just tell me it's ridiculous, or they're not being serious, give me reasons why I shouldn't believe what they're saying. Obviously, stay within the bounds of equity, prejudice is probably not where you want to go creatively, but everything else I'm okay with.

Other than these, I don't think I'm too different from any other judges, meaning things like being respectful, being organized, don't talk TOO fast which applies to basically anyone also applies to me.

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

It's been a long time since I debated/judged/coached on the circuit. I can't follow spreading like I used to. Please slow down a tad (especially if I look visibly confused) and explain stuff thoroughly.

Prefs cheat sheet:

1: fast, technical debate. good K debate (not pomo).

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

• Andrea, she/they. La Reina HS & Yale. Earth & Planetary Science major.
• Include me on the email chain andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
• I have debated and coached for 10 years now - 7 of which were circuit LD & policy in SoCal and 3 years of lay parli in New Haven. Also dabbled in speech & slam poetry - so I have a soft spot for performance... take from that what you will...
• I was coached by Leo Kim. I understand debate very similarly to him, but not exactly the same. Anything not answered in my paradigm can be answered in his.
• I was a K debater and am most familiar with set col & fem. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and go stupid. I think K's need to have some alt or offense or something or at least have an outstanding defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Miscellaneous notes:

• Ways to improve your speaks: emailing me a picture of your flow after the round (and it's a good flow) (tell me you are planning I do this so I can look at your flows before submitting my ballot), telling me to read a specific piece of evidence (and it's good evidence), making puns or jokes (and they're funny)
• NON-CIRCUIT DEBATERS: I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed," then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
• If your opponent asks you not to spread, you better not spread!!!
• If your opponent reads tricks, you can respond by saying "silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" and that will be a sufficient response for me.
• Include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of identity-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide. For example, reading set col pain narratives cause you're thirsty for a ballot is kind of hard to listen to. When you read these positions, ask yourself - how are you showing up for these communities outside of the round? Are you kind to other marginalized debaters? Do you donate to mutual aid funds with your resources? What books and sources do you read to learn more about the arguments, even when it doesn't benefit your case? The consequence of ignoring this is an L-25. If you are confused, ask before the round.
• If you are a circuit/varsity debater, and you are debating a traditional/novice debater, and you do some ridiculous behavior, act rude and condescending, spread them out, read 6 off, use tons of jargon, push them to disclose, etc., you will also receive an L-25. I have no qualms about judge intervention in this respect. I'm so sick of watching these types of rounds. You probably don't deserve to win anyway if you have to revert to these strategies; it's so embarrassing. Practice kindness.
• Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
• I flow primarily from your mouth and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics.
• Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

• You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability and try to adjudicate fairly.
• You read a critical affirmative.
• You mostly go for critical arguments.
• Your positions are creative and entertaining.
• You like fast, technical debate.
• You display a ton of personality in your debates.
• You are great at the topicality debate.
• You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
• You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

• You read an affirmative.
• You negate the affirmative.
• You default to generic negative strategies.
• You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

• You assume I am following along with the speech doc as you go.
• You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique, so you don't have to explain it thoroughly.
• You're bad at debating the critique.
• You don't warrant your arguments.
• You expect high speaker points in every debate unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
• You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
• You like satire.
• You go for tricks.
• You think of human suffering as a tool to help you win the ballot.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

• You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc., arguments.
• You think death is good.
• You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
• Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
• You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
• You speak unclearly.
• Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
• You're disrespectful to your opponents.
• Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Alanna Cronk

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

A short summary of who I am:

I'm a former Parliamentary debate competitor from San Francisco who competed for 4 years at Lowell High School. I currently attend UCLA as a Philosophy and Comparative Literature double major, and am a member of the UCLA debate union. I'm primarily interested in applied and normative ethics especially in regards to the biomedical and artificial intelligence fields. I have competed on the UCSB Ethics Bowl Team.  Have also had experience in CX and competed at the Senate level in student Congress during HS. I use he/him pronouns.

Judging:

Fine with K, Theory etc. Feel free to spread.

I flow. Try not to be abusive in definitions or VC. I will dock speaks but if your opponents don't call you out for it that's on them.

I'll try to be a tab judge as much as that is possible. Of course, I have personal biases. I am a registered independent in the state of California. I supported Bernie Sanders during his 2020 presidential campaign, so if your arguments leans towards progressive policies, I'll probably agree on a personal level.

Personal Preferences: Try to be respectful at all times. In my opinion, debate is a space for learning first and foremost. Whether we vote aff or neg has no substantial real world impact regarding the issue at hand, but the way you treat the people around you does. If your argument negatively impacts the continuation of debate as a forum of discussion and creative argumentation I will vote against.

I vote neg on presumption.

I will stop a round if I hear homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist rhetoric.

If you have any questions regarding how I judge that are not in this paradigm, feel free to ask beforehand.

If you have questions about a specific decision feel free to email me at stevenchow313@gmail.com. I'll try to respond as best I can. 

I did a lot of Speech and Debate right before the pandemic, mainly Parli, HI, POI, and OO, but I am familiar with all events. In my junior year I was somewhere in the top 30 in Parli and qualled for TOC, and I have finalled many times in speech.

Parli

You can do flow debate, anything goes. If you do run a K, you need to sufficiently explain exactly what you are talking about and have specific links (but be warned that I'm not the best audience for Ks in general). Don't assume that everyone in the room has read the lit. I will vote for Ks, friv Ts, etc. but the more out there they are, the more you have to really prove it.

If someone says slow / clear, do it.

Speech

For interp / oratory, I vote for delivery, technical ability (pops, using the POI book), and story (even an HI can have a coherent plot and message). Whether or not I actually agree with your message or stance does not factor into my decision. For extemp, I vote on delivery and how well you proved your stance.

If you have any further questions after a round: brandonsychung@gmail.com

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.

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

Mel DeBlasio (she/her) Yale '23.5

General Info

I'm a New England girlie who judges West Coast tournaments every once in a while. Parli experience only.

Be kind, be chill, and above all be respectful!! Any act of aggression (table banging), intimidation (yelling), disruption (whispering during speeches), or abusive argumentation will result in the lowest possible speaker points awarded. Please tell me your pronouns prior to round start.

Include trigger and content warnings. Let me know if you have preferences or accommodations that you're uncomfortable sharing with your opponents directly, and I will make an anonymous announcement prior to round start.

If your opponents have strong prefs due to different debate backgrounds/experience, you must try your best to accommodate them. There is nothing satisfying or educationally valuable about gatekeeping your opponents out of a round.

Debate Preferences

I hand-write all of my flow and have the attention span of a four year old on methamphetamine. I can keep up with fast rounds easily but if you spread, I will stop listening and the only RFD you'll get is how many ceiling tiles there are in the room. Spreading is unnecessary and an accessibility concern, and in my mind spreading = bad debater.

Please please please do not rely on tech jargon in the round to describe your arguments. If you cannot explain your case to a random person on the street, it is meaningless. The only "perm" I care about is the one Elle Woods used to win her third-act court case in the 2001 cinematic masterpiece "Legally Blonde", and if you start using half words, acronyms, and other nonsensical ten dollar words I will stop the round to perform the Cincinatti Stroke Scale on you. Techy terminology does not replace actual warranting.

Please no tag-teaming or verbal team communication during speech times, save it for flex time!

ELI5 and pretend that I have never read a book in my life.

I will listen to whatever type of round you want to have, however keep in mind that I don't have a tech background. All arguments will be evaluated the same, regardless of the technical or stylistic context: is it well-warranted? Is it unique? Are the impacts clearly linked? Did you weigh your impacts? And at the end of the day, you have to tell me in the PMR/LOR why your arguments win you the round. Lowest pref is theory because I find it uninteresting.

Please give me your creative, crazy, and radical cases. Please try to present unique and entertaining arguments, and feel free to joke around a bit and have a good time. My Breaking Baby brain loves it, and if you're having fun in the round then I'm having fun in the round. But leave your edgy bigoted "death and suffering are good, actually" cases for your Discord meme channel. And don't try to go OTT on details and style in sacrifice of argument quality... you still have to run a good debate round to win!

I am a parent judge with relatively little judging experience. Please try to avoid technical terms and complicated technical arguments, as they will likely be lost on me.

Please signpost clearly so that I know where you are in the flow.

I strive to maintain an inclusive and safe space, so if you say something that I believe to be harmful or problematic, I will pause your time and address the issue to give you a chance to repair it.

Please be courteous, kind, and respectful to each other.

Pronouns:She/Her

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to a wonderful round!

I am a varsity debater, so I will be keeping a flow and I understand the rules of debate. I don't like theory rounds, I would much rather hear a productive debate with convincing, logical arguments and strong impacts. The best way to win a round is to prove to me why your side actually has the impacts you propose, and then weigh those against the impacts of the other side using your framework, i.e. net benefits. I don't mind what you're wearing, how fancy your diction is, or how fast you speak, I care that you have good arguments and that you can effectively refute opposing points. Please organize your case as clearly as you can, it will make you look much better, make your points more convincing, and be easier for me to follow. Most of all, please be respectful of one another!

I only really have one hard and fast rule: don't be a jerk. Otherwise, it's up to y'all to show me what a competent and civil debate looks like.

Good luck :D

Background:

I debated 4 years of NPDA parli in college for CSULB. I have since received my M.A. in Spanish, and am currently a Global Studies PHD candidate at UCSB. I have been out of the circuit for a while, but I think parli is a very important form of debate and I care a lot about equity and access within it.

General:

I am pretty rusty with speed, and I will call slow/clear if I can’t understand you. Please put all your texts for plans, CPs, interps, ROTBs, and alt texts in the chat, and say them slowly. Please take at least one POI in your speech. I like it when teams are respectful, substantive, and engaging. In general, I believe the debaters in the room are the ones who should decide what the debate should look like, and my defaults/preferences are not hard and fast if you decide to argue otherwise .

Case:

Weighing and signposting are very important to me.

I am comfortable with all counterplans and see perms as a test of competition.

Theory:

I think I have a higher threshold for theory than most judges on the circuit, and I am not a huge fan of generic and blippy theory shells. I really dislike theory that discards entire forms of debate such as Ks bad theory. I will vote on whatever layer you tell me to vote on, but I will be much happier evaluating a case or K debate. I default to competing interpretations and am not a huge fan of RVIs.

Kritiks:

I love Ks and have debated them a lot. While I am not up to date on circuit preferences and arguments, I am pretty open minded about kritikal debate. I am widely familiar with most K literature, but please err on the side of caution and be accessible to both me and your opponents with your arguments. I personally prefer materialist arguments, but I am okay with any literature as long as your alt text is clear and your solvency is coherent. Please be especially slow and clear when reading a K, it’s been a while since I have evaluated kritikal debate.

Truth v. Tech:

I won’t Google or verify your claims, and I don’t vote for unwarranted arguments. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but I am very willing to intervene against exclusionary and problematic (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc) arguments.

I believe debate is an important place to discuss real world issues and I am very supportive of debaters centering their experiences in the arguments they read. However, I ask debaters to remain cautious of reading arguments that are reliant on their identity, particularly when it involves making assumptions about your opponents identity. I support every debater's survival strategy and understand that these arguments can be necessary to read, but ask that debaters be explicit in providing me a framework with which to evaluate these arguments and experiences when doing so.

Speaker Points:

I will generally give around 27.5-28.5 points and won’t go lower unless you are rude or exclusionary.

Hi Debaters, I'm a parent judge and this is my second tournament and first time judging Parli. Please be respectful to one another as conduct is part of my decision-making when I assign speaker points (and it's just a good thing do). Good luck to everyone!

I did parliamentary debate at Berkeley High for 4 years. Above all else I just want to see a good round.

Make sure you provide actual clash and don't just restate your arguments as refutations.

Weigh a lot in the rebuttal speech, I need to know why your arguments matter.

Don't run frivolous theory, but if your opponents actually do something abusive do of course run theory. If you make abusive standards, definitions, plans, etc. I will be predisposed against you even if your opponents don't run very good theory. Just don't be abusive.

Good luck and have fun :)

I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.

I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.

I am a parent judge (software engineer) with 1 year of judging experience. I value arguments that are explained clearly and presented in a well organized flow. Speaking too fast or having a messy flow will only hurt you so try and keep your information and end goal clear.

Theories: I do not understand theories very well. If you want to run theory, explain slowly what the theory is, and why I should vote on it over case. Also clearly explain how the other team is violating your theory.

Kritiks: I do not understand kritiks so most likely if you run a kritik, I will get confused so please do not run them unless absolutely necessary.

Please be respectful to others during the round.

I am a parent judge with relatively little judging experience. That said, I've taught speech, studied philosophy, and worked for many years as a researcher of public benefits programs. I appreciate well-reasoned, and logically presented arguments that are grounded in research. I also appreciate a clear and straightforward presentation: sign-posting of your arguments, using plenty of examples, and explaining any debate terminology that you might use. Overall, please be kind to one another and focus on making the best case for your position and against your opponents'.

Hello! My name is Kayla (she/her/hers),

Having competed in team debate on the HS level, parli and LD in college, and having judged for LD/parli/IEs/IPDA for middle school, high school, and college tournaments, I will enjoy most arguments you want to raise, so long as they are respectful. I believe that ethical communication happens when teams respect each other and don’t use their arguments to degrade each other. I am open to all types of argumentation but will drop teams for problematic rhetoric.

For HS:

I will vote on procedurals (including condo) and topicality. I prefer to see proven abuse, or at least a clear instance of potential abuse, for most theory arguments. Policy debate, or a K on the Aff or Neg is welcome. I am comfortable with speed, but am willing to vote on speed theory if the debate becomes inaccessible.

For College:

I would self-describe my style of judging as somewhere in between a "flow judge" and a "truth judge." While, in most instances, I will vote on the flow, if one team goes line-by-line and fails to address the thesis-level of the debate, I might break this norm. If the debate involves multiple conditional positions, I find cohesion in the round (slightly) less important: this makes the thesis of the debate less important than the line-by-line.

Theory is always an a priori issue to any other positions in the round. If you go for theory, collapse to theory.

I enjoy K debates and will be happy to hear them on either the Aff or Neg. I am also interested in your advantage/disadvantage debate, it’s whatever you think fits the round best or whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am less familiar (although somewhat familiar) with Lacan and Freud-based Ks, but I enjoy most other critical arguments and have a particular penchant for Foucault.

For speaker points, I will evaluate your content over the style in which it is presented. Speed is fine, but I could be persuaded to vote on a speed argument. Using language that is violent or degrades your opponents could also result in a reduction of speaker points.

Ask any questions in-round if you have more!

Hi Everyone!

I'm David, I'm a former Parli debater and I'll be your judge today. If you have any questions about my paradigm just ask me before the round starts:

Things I like:

->Warrants, warrants, warrants. I will not vote on arguments that you made if I don't believe them. I am not "tabula rasa".

->Debaters having fun! Debate is supposed to be a game. Please don't ruin the fun for anyone else.

->Accessibility. Debate is (in)famously exclusive. My favorite debates are highly technical yet free of lots of jargon, and where teams make an active effort to be clearly understood by the other. My recommendation is try not to talk to fast, take a few POI's, and generally avoid Kritiks and frivolous theory arguments (I can evaluate these arguments I just don't like to, usually)!

Things that make me sad :( :

-> When ppl make their entire case in their 30 second grace. Guys please, don't do this.

->Arguments with no impacts. Please, please, please tell me why I should care about your arguments more than your opponents.

->Asking if "everyone is ok with an off-time road map" and then not waiting for me to say "no" and starting to present your roadmap that I didn't ask for.

->When debaters say nasty things. We often debate sensitive topics but in my experience there hasn't been a single valid time a debater has said something severely problematic and it was justified in the round, if you think something you're about to say could be in any way possibly seen as yucky, don't say it.

->When debaters are condescending. Don't call your opponents' arguments dumb and don't smirk while your opponent speaks (I'm watching you). This tends to specifically be a problem from boy only teams being rude to their female opponents, but it's a common problem in debate. Everyone is here to learn, just don't assume your better than others because when you lose to the people you thought you were better than, the only person smirking will be me >:)

Things you can read if you have time (but totally don't have to):

->I'm generally towards the left end of the political spectrum (shocker). That being said, I won't believe your "socialism/communism is utopia" argument unless you give me as good as a warranting as Marx himself.

->I love answering questions about the debate or my decision so please ask if you feel like it!

->I love to yap. I usually deliver my RFD verbally but I can write it down for you if you really want me to. I think rounds are recorded though so please don't make me write anything.

->I'm a math major at UCSD! If you think you might wanna go, feel free to ask me questions about it.

->My email is: davidgol3p@gmail.com feel free to email me with any questions you might have!

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.

Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.

Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I served as NPDL Reporting Director in the 2022-2023 season. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns. I really love debate.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace (for formats with a grace period). I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

I do not especially like frivolous theory (tropicality, note the r, makes me sad) and will do my best not to vote for it.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that (I would actually encourage you not to take more than that).

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

For me arguments are most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of clarity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. I tend to frame it like this: I prefer articulation over information. I've heard many brilliant cases made that unfortunately ended up going over my head because they were delivered at a dizzying pace. The flows that tend to be the most effective are slightly more measured.

For me, ideas and concepts that can be explained to anyone who just happens to take an interest are more effective, in my experience, than overly technical language or abstruse rattling off of sheer data. As a judge, I value transparency and accessibility above anything else. This informs my judicial philosophy and shapes my attitude towards what makes for an effective debate.

This paradigm does not apply to New Haven UDL students.

I was a parliamentary debater in the New Haven Urban Debate League for four years, and I've debated on the YDA for the past two years.

For Policy, I have no experience, and I'm not used to fast debate. I also strongly value clarity, both in terms of speaking and in argumentation. Respect your opponents, especially during CX.

For LD, I can handle a reasonable amount of speed, but please do not spread. I value framework pretty highly. You can certainly still win even if I accept the other team's framework, but you'll have an uphill battle. Please provide explicit voters for the round, and be sure to weigh these voters in your rebuttals. I'll be flowing regardless, but this makes my job much easier. Do not use theory.

Good luck and have fun!

I do Parli and love it, and as long as you try your best I'll continue to love it. I believe in you!

Update 01/28/22

*Currently in a place where the wifi has been blippy so I might have my camera off but that doesn't mean I'm bored or unimpressed*

Novs,

1. I really want some sign posting (tag/number/letter arguments)

2. Be nice to opponents

3. Use evidence, if you don't and you say stuff I am skeptical of, I will double-check. If right, cool. If totally wrong, it might hurt your speaks and probably the evaluation of the round

4. If you won't don't want feedback or a disclosure, let me know because I will default to revealing the two unless tourney rules tell me otherwise.

5. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round, but the answer will be reiterated to opponents not asking (ie: if you show up to the room early and they don't)

Vars,

Be funny (will get higher speaks) but don't mean or violent in that humor

tech>case>bad tech (I also consider it bad tech if you use good tech against opponents who have never done it before/are clearly unfamiliar. If I notice it, you should to)

(I plan to update this later for when I know I'm judging var anytime soon)

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.

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 probably 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." You said your first words 12-18 years ago. That's a long speech. 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."

d. Eggs>Easy.

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.

I value clear speaking and good speaking style - don't talk too fast, good speaking style is essential.

Make sure you have good content with with both evidence and reasoning. When it comes to these two elements, reasoning is more important. However, make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.

Make sure to impact out your contentions, and signpost clearly throughout your speeches.

Please respect everyone in the round. Be polite to your teammate and your opponents - I will dock speaker points if I observe someone being unnecessarily rude.

If you choose to run a counterplan, make sure that you explain why it's a better solution and link it to your points.

hi everyone!

my name is tristan (she/her) and i competed in parli for uc berkeley for four years at the collegiate level. during that time, my partner (and best friend) brenna seiersen and i won four national championships.

june dense says it best: never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed. i'm down for whatever, barring a few of the things listed below.

cowardice: i understand cheating has become somewhat of a norm in high school (and college) parli. if you feel the need to cheat, keep two things in mind. one, get good. two, i will be more than happy to intervene and drop you (and take any additional steps needed to ensure competitive integrity) if a rules violation occurs. note: this only applies in cases of copy-pasting prep or accessing the internet in round, not like you rejecting the res or being condo lol. i did not give myself carpal tunnel by hand writing every word of prep for you to decide to copy and paste.

trigger warnings: probably a good thing to read. if you forget to give one and get called out on it, just apologize and move on. i would prefer not to evaluate a tw collapse unless the instance is egregious.

speed: go as fast as you want, but please, give me pen time (or keyboard time, rather) when we are switching between sheets. i will slow or clear verbally as needed. i can hang.

theory: i default to competing interps and will vote on any sheet if won. however, i find the trend of frivolous theory vacuous and boring and, if you have a choice between spending two minutes reading tropicality or spending two minutes reading case-turns, i would prefer the latter. however, my commitment to non-intervention outweighs this stylistic preference. t violations should be derived from the text of the advocacy, unless the plan is the res.

condo: condo good. reading condo bad also good. if i have a bias here, im not aware of it.

kritiks: i probably don't have the best understanding of your lit base, but i feel comfortable enough evaluating most positions. throughout my career, my partner and i primarily read occultism, dual power, killjoy, some eco stuff, and some neolib early in our career.

aff ks: i don't mind if you reject. do what ya gotta do. if I have a bias re; aff-k vs fw-t, i am not aware of it.

and lastly, if lay debate is your thing, don't let this scare you. i will do my best to accommodate your style, just make it easy for me by telling me how i should vote and which impacts are the most important.

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

Background – Debater for over 6 years and an experienced judge in multiple formats.

General Notes for speakers:

· I)I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn’t matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.

· II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID: - a) condescending behavior to opponents, b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals, c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior, d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.

· III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.

· IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished

· V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.

Arguments and Cases:

· I) I do not have any preference in terms of which Type of arguments matter more, however I sit with an open mind for the speakers to convince or sell argument want me to buy through their Persuasiveness. (you should be able to sell a comb to a bald person)

· II) Analysis to the arguments- simply stating a fact isn’t enough until and unless you prove :-a)why a particular fact matters more than others, b) how it is relevant, c)Implication of the argument, d) evidence to support the facts, e) Analysis to core issues and trends to support the consistency and applicability of an argument.

· III) Give taglines to flag out your arguments – i.e. while giving a speech which includes *why pollution is bad* - the taglines can be a) Pollution is bad because it has health hazards to humans , b) Pollution is bad because it impacts climate change and c) Pollution impacts economy. These headlines can further be analyzed.

· IV) Counter proposals/ plans – if you wish to introduce counter proposals, try to analyze and extend the comparative of the benefits of your opponent’s plan and your counter plan. For eg. You can compare it by means of feasibility, efficiency, cost benefit analysis, time saving etc.

· V) Comparative – be comparative and weigh as to why your impacts have stronger stance than your opponents. Make the specific links of “where your side is comparatively better and how?”

· VI) Uniformity – it is important to establish a clear stance of the team and becomes easier to follow. Any inconsistency in form of contradiction, doubts or hesitation shows non uniformity of the bench which reduces the integrity of the case. Insofar as the contradiction isn’t huge enough which might change the entire meaning and impacts of your case, it doesn’t impact you much with respect to speaker score, otherwise you might attract certain penalties based on the degree of contradiction.

VII) Engagement - Rebuttals and clashing is very valuable to judge the closest teams in a round. Simply reading prewritten cards aren’t enough to win a debate, you need to modify and adapt in order to outweigh your opponents. Prove why you are right and disprove your opponents. Weight your benefits with theirs, compare your harms with theirs and tell why your world is still better than your opponents.

Speaker scores

The ballots reflected will be based on following criteria

· 1) Overall performance in terms of arguments, analysis and engagement.

· 2) Quality of speeches irrespective of whether you win or lose.

· 3) Any form of racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia seen in your speeches will tank your scores.

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary for the past 3 years. I appreciate clarity and logic above everything. Make sure that you thoroughly address your opponent's points. Don't speak too fast, I find that debaters often lose out on content and emphasis from "spreading."

I prefer case debate, but if you must run more technical arguments, make sure to explain them thoroughly. I will require more explanation and convincing for arguments that are further away from the topic.

I have a basic understanding of topicalities. Not too familiar with theory (dislike frivolous theory) or kritiks.

Have fun and good luck!

You can consider me a lay judge. I've had judging experience for about a year now; I've judge at around 3 tournaments. Kritiks, disadvantages, etc. are all acceptable but make sure you explain everything thoroughly so that your argument comes across right.

Have fun!

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.

Judging Experience – In the last several years, I have judged at numerous debate (mostly parliamentary) and IE tournaments throughout the country. I judged at a few IE tournaments prior to then.

Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.

Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.

Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.

Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.

Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”

Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.

--CX/LD--

-Email me your speeches at lin.andy@berkeley.edu

-Prep ends when the speeches are sent, and talking outside of it will lose you speaker points.

-Spreading is fine, but if you're incoherent I'll let you know only after your speech ends so watch yourself.

-I'm fine with any argument, and I'll almost always weigh tech>>truth, but you'll have a harder time convincing me of the solvency of your kritik alt than with a well-argued disad. If you lose the solvency debate on the kritik, I'm going to treat it like a very weak disad.

-If you read a k-aff, I will default debate is a game unless you convince me otherwise.

-If the flow is unreadable and there isn't enough clash on either side, I will default neg - the 2AR has a chance to clean up while the neg doesn't.

-If you clip cards, that's an immediate loss and zero speaker points.

I'm extremely flow-oriented. Good clash and line-by-line will make your rounds 10x more winnable with me. If there's clash, good weighing will also be necessary to win debates, you'll make me very happy if you do good impact calc on every flow.

Theory- I'll judge theory debates based on the flow, but will ignore it altogether if an in-round impact isn't substantiated. (I always enjoy a well-argued Topicality argument, however.) Don't flood the debate with a laundry list of theory offense though because it will immediately lose you speaks and potentially the round because I'm much less inclined to weigh any of it.

History- I debated for 3 years in Highschool and am starting debate in college as a 2N. I am, however, currently unfamiliar with the literature in this year's topic so I will be judging your evidence on substance rather than otherwise staple tagline arguments.

--Parliamentary/Congress--

-please don't read topicality unless you think it's a very convincing and easy sell. Specifically for parliamentary, I think it's almost always a waste of time.

-Points of privilege and points of order are unlikely voting points for me

-Spreading is fine, but clarity should be prioritized

-If you have time, answer POI's or I'll probably dock points.

-One well-supported link chain is better than several convoluted ones.

I am a new parent judge. Please talk clearly and slowly. Have fun and enjoy the round!

For all debate events- I don’t encourage spreading, though it is allowed. I prefer to have debaters speak at a normal pace so that I am able to hear all of your arguments and use them to help make my decision.

Hi -

1. Please speak slowly & clearly.

2. Please be respectful of your co-debators and judges.

3. Enjoy you experience.

4. Please don't lie & fabricate evidence to make victory.

5. Don't interrupt others & be disruptive.

6. NO racist or sexist or hateful arguments.

Look forward to being a judge!

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. Please don't speak too fast. Please stay within time limits. I don't usually disclose results immediately after rounds.

Thank you for your participation and good luck. I am a non-practicing lawyer — I am a businessperson in a highly-regulated industry. I am not a former (or current) debater. This is my second year judging parliament format debate. Few things to keep in mind:

1) I am primarily focused on the strength of the argument. Please focus on your core arguments. Make sure that the logic works.

2) This is a communication exercise. Please focus on clarity. Speaking quickly and providing a lot of facts is typically not an effective strategy with me. A slower, clearer, and focused approach is the way to go. You are leading me through your arguments and the limitations of your opponents arguments. Making one or two points really well is a lot better than trying to “machine gun” multiple points.

3) I care a lot about tone and demeanor. Again, this is a communications exercise. You are “selling” a position. Please be respectful of your opponents. No personal attacks. Watch your comportment when the other team is speaking. Think about the most effective communicators that you know or have seen. How do they engage the person or audience.

4) I am focused on the arguments. I find arguments about theory or process distracting. I also find interrupting the other side to ask a question or make a process point — other than time — to be distracting and not helpful. Please consider logging the points you would like to make, or the lack of clarity of the opponents argument/factual assertion, in your rebuttal.

Thank you and good luck. For what it is worth, while I am not a former debater, I wish I were. This is a tremendous program to build effective communications skills. Have fun.

Hi! My name is Lily (she/her) and I am a freshman at UC Berkeley. I tend to be pretty nice, but I have a very expressive face and may be staring at you during your speech like you have just said the most insidious thing. I am likely not thinking anything negative, that is just my thinking face.

Please abstain from spreading and using jargon unnecessarily. I am a feeble minded gal and won’t understand nor do I find it particularly charming.

If you are going to run a Kritic or other theory take a step back and think: “Is this going to leech academic value from the debate?” If your answer is yes, reconsider.

Be respectful to your opponents. It is supposed to be fun. If you are especially rude to your opponents, I will shamelessly talk smack about you to my team. Also, it won’t make me want to vote for you.

Most importantly, warrant out your impacts.

<3

I prefer and value clear and elaborate speaking with good content instead of rushing and squeezing in information into the time. Don't speak too fast! I value speaking style. Make sure that your content is good and logical instead of packing statistics and spreading in your speech. Have enough evidence to back up your claims but reasoning and logically explaining your case is more important. Impact out and link through all of your contentions to show the value of your side. Remember to weigh and clearly show how you win over the other team on specific points. Signpost throughout your speech and remain organized with your points, refutes, and counterarguments. Do not be abusive and make sure your content is not hateful. Please respect everyone in the debate including your opponents and your teammate. In the end no matter the loss or win, have something to take away from the debate as it is essentially a learning opportunity and have fun!

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging : None

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

Talk clearly and slow. Make eye contact. No stalling. No Public Forum jargon.

What sort of things help you make decision at the end of the debate?

Who most effectively argued their position. How they handle counter and interactions

Do you take lot of notes or flow the debate?

Flow the debate

Clothing / Appearance - Somewhat (5)

Use of Evidence - Weighed Heavily (10)

Real World Impacts - Heavily (8)

Cross Examination - Somewhat (5)

Debate Skill over truthful arguments - Weighed Heavily (10)

Parli experience only – I did some (informal, not circuit) in HS and marginal APDA/BP in college. I have coached and judged with the New Haven Urban Debate League for two years. Here is the document I give our judges at NHUDL. I think it's a fairly accessible and helpful (if basic) look into how I judge a debate round (just read first 2 pages).

I judge traditional debate. I am not familiar with West Coast or techy styles and don't know my way around theory and K jargon. If you start throwing words and acronyms around without explaining their use I will assume you're just having fun with fancy toys. I am apprehensive about tech because I see debate as useful only insofar as it helps you think and solve all those real-world issues you claim to care for, not as it helps you win debate rounds. That said, if you can warrant your higher-level, meta arguments and explain why I should care, I'll take them into consideration.

Explain explain explain. Talk to me as you would talk to an invertebrate. If you overwhelm your opponents with many silly points I will penalize them for not responding, but I will rarely ever vote for something I think is a bad argument. You do need to have a bare minimum of being proactive: explain to me how you won, how your opponents failed, and weigh the two sides. Most contentions are bad. It is your job to parse which ones are least bad, not mine.

To flow, I write on paper in cute little columns. If you spread, my columns will be strained, and I will be unhappy. I do not have object permanence so you need to hammer things in, clearly.

What strategies do I like to hear? Anything under the sun but especially creative arguments. Be kind-hearted and sincere, nothing edgy please. Be respectful, especially toward your partners. You can't affect anyone's performance but your own.

Hi, I am Manish Modi, I am a parent(lay) judge.

Here are some preferences I have:

- speak slow and clear, I will say slow/clear once if you are going to fast

- likes factual arguments with many supporting warrants/stats

- I don't like it when people self proclaims victory

- ex. Judge, we win this debate because...

- I love well written foreign policy arguments

- please make your contentions structured (TULI or CWI)

- signpost and give roadmaps

- Don't like frivolous theory argument

- I do not understand Ks

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

Lay judge. Please speak at a moderate pace and clearly. I like POI's and discourse, while being respectful towards each other!

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

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

Short Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

I am new to judging so please speak at a normal pace; My judgement will be purely based on how much I understand from your speeches, not the amount of information.

Voters: Weigh the arguments very clearly for me, and don't let me guess. I look for impacts and framework.

Violations: If you don't POO, I'm going to act like it never happened. If your opponent goes overtime, I will continue flowing until you call POO.

Theories are interesting, but I'm not familiar with all the literature, so I highly prefer if you run them in moderation, if at all. Also, I discourage K's.

Other

I will try my best to understand you, but if you want to be safe, don't spread.

Make sure to signpost. I don't want to guess all of your arguments. Make your contentions very clear.

I like to see clash. Address all points on both sides so that I don't have to guess how it all plays out in the end.

I don't care how you POI, but most debaters seem to like for their opponents to just unmute during their speech.

You don't have to have your camera on.

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

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

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

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

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

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 am a parent judge but I did Policy debate all four years of high school and in college.

I will flow but expect you will signpost appropriately.

I'm not a fan of Ks but I will hear you out if you argue them.

I'm fine with spreading but make sure you are being understood.

Strong rebuttals carry a lot of weight with me and I will vote on a clear summarization of contentions, links and impacts.

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I flow the debate. I have been judging debates for 6 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

Logic and reasoning are key in parle.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

Isabella Perry (She/They) Please use my pronouns; straight-up refusal will get you dropped. If you have any questions before or after the round, email me isabella7perry@gmail.com or Dm on messenger at Isabella Perry.

Experience: former varsity Campolindo debate member, three years experience. Most familiar with K debate but run whatever you want.

If you have any questions about the jargon that I use feel free to ask and I will happily help you out with it.

If you include a reference to I will eat raw I will like you and give 30 speaks.

This first block is for JV parli:

If I can stress one thing and one thing only it is to weigh your impacts, if you go up there and say that people's quality of life is decreased but then the other team says they cause death how am I supposed to vote for either side. The only way I can vote for either side, in this case, is to either vote neg as it is a draw or to flip a coin. TBH you will most likely win the round if you impact weigh.

Second most important thing:

If you do not refute an argument I deem it to be true, if the neg goes up and says that the sky is purple and the aff doesn't refute it then in the context of this debate the sky is purple, you can and will lose the round by dropping points. As well most of the JV rounds that I see are lost and won by dropped points.

Signposting makes my job as a judge SO much easier. Signposting is clear labeling/separation of argument i.e "unk point 1, unk point, 2 moving onto link 1, link 2" and so on and so on

Also PLEASE run all of the tech arguments that you know how to run, I love watching an interesting tech round, if you can explain how we should launch all of the gold into the sun I'm all for it.

Now for the tech stuff:

TL:DR: By default, I will evaluate the round Theory>K>Case. Will judge as objectively on the flow as possible. Read whatever you want as long as it isn't violent. don't be a jerk; if you are violent, I will drop you and give minimum speaks without hesitation. I don't care about the presentation of your arguments. I care about the quality of them.

Philosophy: I want to minimize judge intervention as it allows for external biases to have a far greater effect on the round. You do you, don't be violent, and you will be fine.

Anything past this point will be going into depth on what is stated above and their implications on the round. If you would like to read Junes paradigm as I am literally using the same headers as them, as well our philosophies on debate are similar.

Links: I use links to find the probability of an impact, as well as the overall truth of your argument, Ex If a link is conceded, then it has a 100% probability.

Speaker points are just imaginary bonus points that some people care about a lot; if you win, you get max speaker points; if you lose, you get one less than max.

I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multi condo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, etc. I will evaluate these arguments equally, but I will allow your opponents to read theory against you.

In order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer K's, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. I hope to keep my personal preferences aside whenever I judge. However, they will always affect me to a degree.

Delivery/Speaks:

I'm comfortable with speed as long as you are somewhat clear and are not spreading at a college level, but I know speed can be used to skew people out of the debate space. If your opponent asks you to slow or clear, please listen to them. (I literally lost an elim round because of people not speaking clearly.)

Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

Counterplans:

Not much to say about your average counterplan; make sure that it is competitive; always explain your mutual exclusivity well, as well I rank the strength of competitions as: Functional>NetBenifits>textual

Not gonna lie; I love "abusive" counterplans, go for condo consult, go run ddev about launching all of our gold into the moon. However, I will evaluate MG theory just as any other shell, so don't be surprised if you get called out on it.

I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions

Theory:

Theory is great. I have a low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I will be down for reasonability if given a bright line and reasons to prefer it.

Drop the debater by default, but will drop the argument if you give me a reason why; also tell me which argument to drop if it's not obvious, ex must accept a poi.

I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

I have a high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

RVs:

NO RIV's by default, but I have a VERRY low threshold for RVI's at least in comparison to other judges; I have no problem giving a team the win off of an RVI.

Kritik:

K's are by far my favorite part of debate; I can't stress how much I enjoy K's.

I haven't had very much experience with anything besides material revolutionary theory. However, I am open to voting for Pomo k's or k's that I am not familiar with if they are well explained.

If it's relevant, the Ks I'm most familiar with are Cap k, maoism, imperialism, ableism and a little bit of D&G/Body without organs.

No opinion in round between, optimism vs. pessimism, micro vs. macro-political action, etc.

I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm.

By default, I evaluate theory as being a priori to the K, But I have a low threshold for arguments for why the K comes first.

Other:

Presumption flows neg by default; I don't really care for side bias arguments as both sides are pretty equal, if not, then slightly favoring the neg.

I will protect the flow however call your own POO's, don't call excessively though, any more than 2-3 incorrect POO's and ill start to get annoyed. However, if you are correct call as many as you want, I will rule on the POO in round.

I Will vote for IVI's, but once again, you have to explain it well.

The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new.

Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

tl;dr: I am open to almost any argument you want to read and will do my best to judge the round the way you lay it out for me.

Background

I’m a first-year at UC Berkeley now competing in NPDA as a 1A/2N and am currently coached by Amanda Miskell, Will White, lila lavender, and June Dense. I competed for EVHS for four years in NPDL debate as mostly a 2A/2N, but I have some experience with 1A/1N when I mavved at NPDI ‘21. My thoughts on debate so far have been mainly shaped by Trevor Greenan, lila lavender, Will White, Amanda Miskell, so feel free to check out their paradigms - I’ll probably evaluate rounds in a similar way.

General

My decision is based almost entirely and primarily on my flow (i.e. tech > truth), however if intervention is inevitable, I will try to find the easiest, least interventiony path to the ballot. In a similar fashion to Trevor, I will prioritize (in roughly this order): conceded arguments with weighing/framing, conceded arguments that are otherwise extended, arguments with substantive warrant analysis, arguments with implicit framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of. Speed is fine, although be mindful of “slow/clear” calls (see lila’s paradigm for the steph stew 2022 incident - I have very similar thoughts on speed). While I do protect, feel free to call your POOs.

Case

My 1ACs/1NCs for the first half of my career were typically two advantages or DAs with large uniqueness blocks and impact work. Given this, I tend to believe strong uniqueness and on the flip side good defensive analytics make arguments compelling. A structured approach to answering case arguments by section with an overview, signposting, and a good collapse is your best bet to beating back these arguments.

I default to fiat being durable, utilitarianism/net benefits as the moral framework, and counterplans being conditional, but am open to arguments to the contrary.

Read any counterplan you want, cheater or not, but I’ll also vote on MG theory here if it’s won.

Theory

Have fun - I lived for theory and I am generally a fan. Collapse to what is strategic - just bc you think I’m a theory hack should not mean you poorly collapse to theory for the hell of it. In fact, I now think bad or unnecessary theory collapses typically lead to a boringish debate compared to a similar quality K or case collapse (still means make strategic choices! if theory makes sense go for it).

My view on theory is that it boils down to case debate with a slightly different structure. This means UQ, links, impact analysis, and collapse should be a big part of any theory debate.

I default to competing interps, and need a good warrant to prefer reasonability + a brightline. Theory is you upholding a model of debate through your interp vs any counterinterp, so you want to do comparative standards and voter work in your collapse.

I did go for MG theory frequently in high school so I will respect your decision to read/go for MG theory, but poorly read multiple sheets in the MG will make me sad.

Kritiks

Since getting into NPDA, I’ve almost exclusively read variations of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) on both the aff and the neg. In high school, I got a lot more into kritiks in my junior and senior year, with a lot of Buddhism, and some MLM and Baudrillard. I find these arguments to be a valuable and fun tool in debate and am happy to evaluate these debates to the best of my ability.

Don’t assume I know your literature and esp in high school if ur reading smt nuts then take questions (it’ll help me too!).

Specific links to the aff are much more compelling than generic links or those of omission, which I will hold a higher threshold on.

I enjoyed K affs a lot more in my senior year and I’m down to hear them. I think FW/T is good when done well - I personally like the “we lead to better versions of ur aff bc truth testing is good” version more than the “drop them!! they didn’t fulfill their burden!!” complaining version but you do you.

Random Specific Thoughts Post NPTE 2023

Genocide seems pretty bad! The PMR seems to exist! Topicality and spec seem to be different things!

I have similar thoughts to Tim: The PMR should probably get to read new offense against the block’s rhetoric bc how would the MG predict that the block was gonna say slurs. IDK seems to make sense to me. And I will not randomly intervene to decide what rhetoric is “reasonably egregious” or not, ESPECIALLY if I’m a CIA-employed Zionist imperialist actor (to clarify which I am not). That seems pretty bad to me idk!

I have no idea wtf extending the perm means. I feel like if you want to extend a perm to get rid of an unconditional counterplan then you have to either read or pick some kind of terminal defense to get rid of your own competition. For example, you need to say “extend this defense” which means the counterplan doesn’t work and so the world of the counterplan solely is the status quo. Then if you extend the perm that makes sense to me because then the uncondo counterplan is the status quo so the world of the perm vs the CP is the same as the world of the aff vs the status quo. If you don’t do this then the only way you can get rid of offense on your counterplan probably seems to be actually kicking it. But I am slightly iffy about this so explain how extending the perm gets rid of the uncondo CP please thx.

Everything seems like fiat based on my understanding - if fiat is saying that we “should” do something and then imagine the consequences of that action then almost everything seems like it fiats an action. This also extends to the pre/post fiat distinction since either smt that is prefiat is saying their speech act has done something to change the world in which case I don’t know why I have to vote for you uniquely if that impact has already occurred, or my ballot will do something in which case the “pre” vs “post” fiat distinction seems mildly blurry to me but idk. This probably does not change the way I evaluate rounds, since I’ll assume the traditional fiat = policymaking fiat paradigm until someone tells me that fiat is what it rly is, in which case you can do a lot more weighing with the policymaking 1AC. This still doesn’t preclude framework analysis, in which case I will default to epistemic modesty over confidence (this means impacts = probability of ur framework being true x ur impact).

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on Instagram (@tejas.prabhune), Messenger (Tejas Prabhune), Discord (papaya#8124), email me at prabhune@berkeley.edu, or ask away before the start of round!

I’m very down to be postrounded at the above places as well - I encourage you to push me to be a better judge.

I am a parent or lay judge with a few years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, oratory skills, and respect for your team mate and opponents. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. I look forward to an educational experience.

Coach for Head-Royce HS, undergrad at UChicago

Did flex stuff in HS, tend to get preffed into clash or KvK debates but have voted pretty close to even in FW debates, good for T vs policy affs, fine for sketch impact turns, not great for CP competition debates

4 years of varsity parliamentary debate. Currently a college Junior.

If you say one sentence of theory on it I'll give everyone max speaker points.

I dislike theory (unless like a 5 year old could understand it) and hate overly technical jargon. I can only promise to write down things which are signposted, and won’t write it down otherwise.
I dislike speed strongly but will still flow it.

I like emphasis of what you regard as important points and direct clash. Since I love clash, please don’t turn down POI’s unless absolutely necessary. Keeps it fun.

I'm in the navy and an electrical engineer/math major, that being said I'll only consider points brought up in the debate, but if you screw up geopolitics/describing semiconductor theory (for instance) you will put me in a very bad mood.

Tbh? Just keep me engaged and clear on what’s happening. I will only disclose if you ask first. Good luck!

I am a relatively unsophisticated parent judge, whose son is a high school debater. I have judged a number of Parli tournaments over the last two years, including novice, JV, and open divisions, along with elimination rounds. I am not particularly knowledgeable about theory and/or critique arguments, even though I am aware of them, so your focus in persuading me should be primarily logic and reasoning, and responding to and addressing the opponent's arguments and why theirs are weak and/or why yours are better.

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

Over 10 years of collective experience as both an NPDA college debater and coach.

Case: I mostly prefer case debates involving arguments surrounding the core topic literature of each side.

Theory: Theory is best used as a protection against abuse or your opponent attempting to gain *unfair* advantages. That said, I generally have a high threshold on theory debates and prefer theory be reserved for legitimately egregious situations.

Kritiks: K’s can be a useful strategic option assuming you have strong link arguments that connect well to the topic, and you are able to explain how your K controls the internal link to the harms of that particular topic.

Personal Identity: Please do not run personal identity based arguments in front of me as I very likely do not know you or your identity personally and cannot verify (or disprove) any of the claims you make about said identity.

General tips:

• Rebuttals are best used for comparison of impacts and warrants/supporting evidence.
  
  
• Impact out your arguments using Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, and Reversibility.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

hii i'm anika! i'm currently a junion at san jose state majoring in business management. i did debate (parli only) all four years at washington high school and broke at a few tournaments such as Stanford and TOC:) i was an assistant coach at MVLA for 2 years as well!

some random things about my judging methods:

- content/ trigger warnings please. also please feel free to announce pronouns in the beginning of your speech/ the round if you are comfortable doing so!

- talk as fast as u need to but make sure you're breathing. i'll yell slow/ clear if need be and if the other team yells it more than 3 times & you don't stop, i'm receptive to theory arguments relating to speed.

- weighing is so so important to me. a good rebuttal is important and i really need there to be a clear analysis of how i need to vote or i will have to think a lot and i don't want to!!

- DO NOT be rude, bigoted, etc. if you are, i will stop the round, kill speaks, drop you, and/ or put in a formal complaint.

- case debate:

even with all the time i spent in debate, i've always preferred case debate over everything. just make sure to be organized and structured, make sure to sign post, have clear link stories, and terminalize your impacts!! try and have good evidence and warranting too if possible. the more interesting the argument the better, it'd just be more fun to listen to but generics are cool too if you really want/ need them for your strat.

- theory:

when used right, theory is great. i liked theory in high school so i'll be responsive to theory arguments. fair warning: i am not a fan of friv T personally but if you run it and win on it, i'll vote for it. HOWEVER, i reserve the right to drop your speaks if you run friv t and the opposing team makes the argument that you were unfair/ creating an inaccessible round. basically, even if i have to vote for you on the argument, i still reserve the right to drop speaks.

rvis are cool.

have good interps pls, i struggled to come up with good interps for a while so i like seeing people do what i could not:D

PLEASE make sure that you weigh/ layer the theory against wtv else is in the round. don't make me have to think it all through and compare it for myself bc that means judge intervention and that's bad.

- kritiks:

honestly, i've never run a K. i've watched rounds with Ks in them and have gone against a few but idk how confident you can feel in my K knowledge. with that being said, if you really want/ need to run a K, go for it. make sure it's clear, organized (if u don't sign post i WILL get lost i promise), and make sure your links are really strong and clear. if you're running something that gets really deep in philosophy, you need to do a very good job of explaining it and the connection to the round. PLEASE DO NOT USE Ks AS A TACTIC TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE OR GROUPS IN ROUNDS. basically don't be immoral.

overall, i know this isn't super in depth so if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round begins!

good luck!

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).

I'm from Prospect High School and have been competing in Parli since 2018. I have stuck to case debate for basically my entire time competing, and I am definitely the most comfortable with it. As long as you make sure to weigh your impacts and make it clear where I should be voting for you, I'm fine with any arguments you'd like.

I am fine with moderate speed, but if you spread too fast, I probably will not be able to keep up. Feel free to spread as you normally do, and I will ask you to slow down if necessary. Please only spread if you actually need to in order to get through all your arguments.

I strongly prefer that theory and Ks only be used when there is a legitimate need for them, rather than as a win condition. If you feel they are appropriate in the round, feel free to use them, but I strongly prefer that you stick to debating the resolution unless theory or Ks are truly needed.

To state the obvious, be respectful of everyone in the round at all times!

Please be clear and concise. Do not spread as I will neither pretend I understand nor strain my brain to humor you nor flow at rocket speed just to satisfy your whim. Do not rant for too long about how abusive someone is as I am experienced enough to usually see when they are abusing you.

I am currently a high-school debater in junior year at Berkeley High.

1.Rebuttals and Impacts

The single most important speech in any parli debate round from my perspective as a judge is the rebuttal, yes it is important to make well warranted arguments, clash with your opponents arguments, and refute them. However, as a judge the first thing I look at is the rebuttal, it is where you should tell me why your side should win, compare your opponents arguments and impacts to your own and explain why yours are bigger and better. I see a lot of debaters talking about specifics in their opponents arguments in rebuttals, that is not what rebuttals are for, talk about your arguments and why you win. In gov rebuttals especially, I often see people going line by line through their opponents arguments, and yes responding to the main new points brought up is important. However, you don't have to respond to every single one. Pick one or two of their most important ones, but still explain clearly why you win, not just why they lose. That being said, you need impacts that you can quantify or tie back to the standard and weigh against your opponents impacts, for example, just telling me free speech is harmed in a net benefits round is not really an impact, saying that violating free speech rights of citizens will cause riots or destabilization of US democracy which has major negative impacts like death and economic harm is a much stronger impact, and will make your arguments much clearer in the context of the round.

2. Jargon

If you are going to make an argument in the round, don't use jargon, just explain it to me in a way that anyone can understand, I won't drop you outright, but it will hurt your speaks and odds of winning

3. Theory

I will vote on theory if there is an actual problem in the debate round like a plan that doesnt affirm the resolution or a non topical counterplan. However I hate frivolous theory as it tends to be a way to skew opponents out of the round. I will probably just drop you if you run frivolous theory, that being said if you are the team frivolous theory is being run against don't worry about it too much. Just call out that it is frivolous and why it is frivolous, and move onto your case, if you find yourself spending more than a minute on a frivolous theory just move onto case, I almost certainly will not vote for the other team because of it, I just need a reason to ignore their frivolous theory (I will probably just vote against them.). Also, if you are going to run theory as I said above please refrain from using jargon

4. Kritiks

I won't vote for you unless you give me a really good reason why, and even then I might vote against you so just don't run them unless it seems abundantly necessary

5. Evidence/Reasoning

In all honesty I really don't care if you cite a source in a debate round as long as you can give me a logical chain as to why something is true or will happen, furthermore if you give a logical chain and reasoning and your opponents bring up some source or study that disputes that, unless they explain the logic behind the study or source, and why your logic is flawed, I really wont care and you will probably end up winning that argument. Also DO NOT MAKE UP EVIDENCE it really doesn't help your case, as I said above, if you give a study and cant explain the reasoning behind it, it wont help you much. If one side brings up a piece of evidence that you think is fishy or not well explained, don't be afraid to point that out to me, if it truly is a weak piece of evidence, I only need a small reason to eliminate the piece of evidence.

6. Organization

Being disorganized doesn't inherently count against you in terms of winning or losing the round. That being said I am not all powerful, if I cant tell what you are talking about I will miss many of the arguments you make and be unable to write them on my flow. The more organized you are, the more I am able to understand every point of your argument.

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

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

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

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

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

I am a first-time parent judge.

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my third year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. I'm fine with CP's as long as it has solvency. PIC's are a great strat. Don't run conditional cps. TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. Don't read K's. Not a big fan of theory either but I default to reasonability. On framework, I enjoy util.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real-world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic, and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win. Please weigh in your last speeches.

I'd like the debaters to craft their contention well and provide multiple arguments to support their position. I will also evaluate how well they deliver their speech, during the debate.

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to d
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

I did not participate in speech or debate in high school.

I value organized and logical argumentation. Apply your argument, logic or theory to the facts of the topic.

I value the clear expression of ideas. The intent should be to communicate to your audience, not spray out as many arguments & points as you can. I do not do spread.

I value the targeted rebuttal of your opponents idea's.

I value respectful behavior. If I believe the intent of a question is merely to interrupt or knock your opponent of their stride and not a legitimate question, I will penalize such a question.

I do not want to hear debate about debate. Debate the resolution.

Hello!

I am a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience in parliamentary debate.

Case Debate:

Please clearly articulate your arguments so I can understand them. I love impact analysis in 3rd speeches, especially if you've extended them through all 3 speeches. Please do PMT analysis (probability, magnitude, timeframe). Call POOs if you spot them, but do not be excessive since it is disruptive to the speaker. I protect the flow. If there are any topics with necessary background information or context, please provide it for me at the beginning.

K or T:

If you are running any technical arguments, please explain them so I can understand. I do not like kritiks since they are very difficult for me to understand. I understand theory on a very basic level, so please only run it if you really must (I do not like frivolous theory), and even then, explain every aspect clearly and slowly. I appreciate strong reasoning and analysis to make it clear for me to decide who wins the round. Good luck, and I look forward to a great debate!

Hey guys I'm Kai Teigen! I use he/him/his pronouns and I'm the captain of Berkeley High School Speech and Debate. I have a few judging preferences you should be aware of:

1. I think Theory is a cool concept but is often used unnecessarily to beat down less tech oriented debaters, so T shells are fine but unless you have genuine ground for abuse it won't make much of a difference in weighing the round. I have similar feelings towards Kritiks; I won't outright ban but I'd strongly advise you not to run them especially in Novice. Ks and other hypertechnical debate styles tend to be pretty inaccessible, and if you do end up running one please explain it clearly and succinctly. The other team must have some chance to actually debate your Kritik or I won't vote for you, regardless of how many fancy sounding words you use.

2. As a general rule I think jargon is pretty silly; use it if you'd like but keep in mind that if it doesn't seem like you actually know what you're saying I'll probably disregard it. I also think speaker points are outdated and unnecessary, so I'll give you the tournaments average speaker score unless you're being condescending or rude, in which case expect to be dropped to the lowest possible speaker score.

3. I judge Tabula Rasa, so if I flow an argument and it goes unrefuted I'll assume it to be true. If new analysis is made in rebuttals, I will expect a point of order and without a point of order that analysis will factor into my decision as if it had been made in constructives. Make sure to weigh your points if you want to influence my verdict; tell me why your contentions matter and what I should be voting on. I have seen incredible teams fall apart in rebuttals just because they failed to weigh. Please don't let this be you. If neither side weighs, I'll weigh using my own political biases (I am no longer nearly as far left as I used to be but still economically and socially progressive) Just make things easy for all of us and weigh the damn points.

4. I'm not a stickler for perfect organization (I tend to be a little all over the place myself) but please keep your speeches as neat and clear as possible. If I don't understand where you are on the flow or I find you repeating a point, I'll take my hands off the keyboard and stop flowing your points until you tell me where you are or move on to a new point.

5. I tend to prefer actual logic over facts: facts can be great kickers to back your point but they're not real warrants on their own. If you want strong links you need to extend the fact, tell me what it means, and tell me why it makes sense and supports your case. Nine times out of ten I'll vote for a team with no facts but excellent warrants over a team that just rattles off university studies and doesn't extend their points, so prioritize reasoning over citations.

6. The last thing I have to say is that debate is supposed to be fun, safe, and inclusive. Don't laugh or smirk at your opponents, don't belittle or demean them, and don't trivialize tragedy. Trust me, none of these look good. IF ANY RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC OR OTHERWISE EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IS USED, I WILL DROP YOU IMMEDIATELY. Please be respectful and kind, because in the end debate is just a game and we're all here to learn and enjoy ourselves. I'll give a verbal disclosure and some feedback at the end of the round, feel free to ask questions but respect my decision because it is final. Good luck!

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 am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.

Few things that influence my judging :

1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.

2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.

3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.

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!

I am a parent judge with no debating experience. Have been a lay judge for the last 3 years. I may not be familiar with certain jargon that you use, so where necessary please clarify.

I take notes throughout the round and will try to flow. I like logical, reasoned and well-developed arguments and normally vote heavily on impacts. So let me know why your points matter.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge.

I value argument reasonability over articulation. Don't think frivolous arguments have a place in debate.

I have some experience with parliamentary judging, for other formats, please explain the format before the round.

Please speak clearly - even if you are policy - especially if you're policy

Good afternoon

my name is Jack Wilan (pronounced Jaaaaaack Wilan) and I have about three years of parliamentary debate experience garnered from my precious time on the Berkeley High Speech and Debate team. I am really quite handsome and if you mention this at the start of your debate (the fact that I'm really quite handsome) I will be quite overjoyed and give you an instant "Jack Point" (my own currency) that won't help you win the debate but might look great on college applications.

My Specifics

Standards: I think standards are quite important in the round and will vote on whichever team's impacts and reasoning better holds up to the standard. Aff should always set one in the first speech, if they don't then Opp Is welcome to set a slightly abusive one but it might be kinder to set one that both sides can argue equally under (or just the expected one). Don't set incredibly esoteric standards (like "spears of truth") just go with ones that make sense and make sure to explain how your impacts relate to it in your last speech. 10 Jack points if you set the standard as "net benefits to Jack" (that said it's probably an abusive standard)

Theory: theory can be fun, theory can be silly, but don't make the entire debate about it. Theory should be used to make sure that it's a fair debate but I don't want to see any preprepared briefs or T shells that will invariably confuse me and your opponents. Your theory arguments don't need to be under a clear T shell and I don't want to hear ridiculous sounding jargon and cliche phrasing ("for the education of debate"). Try to cover all theory at the begging of your speech to make flowing easier and just explain it clearly and quickly so we can get on to the real debate.

Kritiks (not sure if I'm spelling that right): Don't run a kritik. They have a stupid name and kind of end up making for a pointless debate. I'll listen to what you have to say and if you're really convincing and you have good reasoning for it maybe, but don't run one just for the sake of it. 5 Jack points for telling me how to spell "kritik" before the round.

Using Statistics: In Parli your arguments shouldn't be centered around statistics but logic and reasoning. You'll probably only have like twenty minutes to prep and if you find a statistic that looks really good for your side then you should definitely include it in your case but don't make the whole thing about it. Just because one side doesn't have a direct statistic to prove something and you do, doesn't mean they can't win that point. Don't make up statistics or 'facts"; if it sounds really wrong I might just not consider it, besides that would be a pathetic thing to do and you would need to live with the horrendous knowledge that you lied to Jack for the rest of your life and would most likely never be able to sleep again.

Organization: Please use contention/advantage structure to organize your arguments and try your best to mention it when making refutations as well. I'm not the fastest at flowing and find it to be very helpful and I'm sure you and your opponents will as well. I'm not going to vote against you just because your structure was bad but try to make it good. Don't spread; I will not hear your points and you will not be able to articulate your arguments as well.

Jargon: I kind of like jargon, it's like a special debate love language, but don't use it for confusion purposes.

POIs and POOs: Not a huge fan of POIs, use them if you're actually confused about something they said and need clarification but not so much as method of offense. You can make whatever that offensive point is in your own speech. If you hear someone making a new point in a rebuttal speech then please do use a POO and they can give a little time to defend themselves for me to judge whether to strike it or not. 50 extra Jack points if you say you have "a poo" you want to make when making your point of order.

Tag teaming: I don't want you tag teaming. If you freeze when speaking or need to formulate a point better then graciously take a little bit of time to compose yourself instead of getting your teammate to help.

Being an asshole: Don't. 20 extra Jack points if you're not an asshole (the easiest way to gain Jack points)

That's all, god bless you and debate your heart out!

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

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary Debate for three years. During the round, make sure to clarify any terminologies or debate jargon that is utilized, and I generally enjoy arguments that are well supported with reasoning and logic alongside evidence to back it up. Make sure to also address all arguments made by your opponents during the round, and don't forget to weigh in the last speech. I am also not a fan of spreading as that often causes the debate to become messy and inaccessible.

Case debates are strongly preferred, but if technical arguments must be made, please explain them clearly. Only utilize Theory if it is against a problematic or abusive argument (I will not vote for frivolous theory), and I am also unfamiliar with kritiks.

Remember to respect one another and have fun!

no longer active in debate! if you're interested in reading my paradigm for some reason, email me at eugxu@sas.upenn.edu and we can talk.

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley Flay Judge

How many years have you been judging?

I've been judging for 3 years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude. I do enjoy the more technical and meta side to debate, but it usually isn't like an all-or-nothing situation where I'll give the win to one team if they argue the technicalities better than the other (unless it becomes a major part of the debate).

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not in a flow format. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.

I've judged multiple Parli rounds including some rounds on the national circuit. I likeb analysis more than speed and breadth. Rebuttal speeches should articulate in simple term. The debaters should stay calm, even and respectful.

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.

Lay judge, first tournament. Please speak slowly and don’t run Ks. English is my second language, please enunciate and do not be monotone. I appreciate speaker who are interesting, passionate, and make things easy for me. when referring to pass arguments please explain them, don’t just reference them in one or two words or by their author. Good luck to all!