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

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

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

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

Good Luck in your Rounds!

Hi, my name is Amrita. While at Menlo-Atherton High School, I was ranked #10 in the nation for parliamentary debate, and my school was ranked #1. I was a quarter finalist at TOC my senior year of high school. I've debated at Berkeley for NPDA and Debate Society of Berkeley. I have a significant amount of judging experience in the Bay Area among elementary, middle and high school debate tournaments.

These are some of my thoughts on debate: I am as tabula rasa as humanly possible. If I know things are false I won't intervene implicitly, (but I might subconsciously) so don't lie or do anything problematic. The best advise I can tell you is that you do what ur best at. I always liked judges who were flexible so I strive to be that as one. If my preferences don't align with your strategy, don't try and change them to make me happy it will most likely lead to worse off debate.

Add me to the email chain: amritabhasin@berkeley.edu

TLDR: Tech>>>>>> Truth, Go fast, read anything, but have fun.

Pref Shortcut:

1 - Theory/LARP

2- Base Kritiks/Phil

3- Pomo Kritiks/Identity Kritiks/Tricks

4/Strike - Lay Debate?

Evidence ethics: Clipping Cards or misrepresenting evidence is a no-go for me. I will follow along on the doc from time to time, however I believe that it is on your opponents to call u out. Clipping is skipping 3 or more words multiple times. If someone bring up an evidence ethics challenge, the round ends there. If I think you are clipping (video proof is most likely necessary) you'll get a L25. If you accuse someone and are proven wrong you'll receive the same punishment. If you feel uncomfortable bringing up an evidence ethic challenge, you are still welcome to read theory on it.

Speed: Go as fast as you want. I don't care if you spread people out of a round especially if you're in varsity. Clarity is very important. I will call slow and clear as needed. If I call clear you're better off repeating your last line as I most likely didn't catch it. I will have the speech doc up while I'm flowing however, make sure your spreading is clear. I think going 80% speed is often more persuasive and will lead to higher speaker points, than going at 500 wpm and everyone barely understanding what you're saying, but you do you.

LARP: This is what I mostly did. This can be really fun to judge so make it a good. Make sure your card says what the tag says (I will check). Its pretty clear if you don't understand your case in CX (or if ur reading something that someone else wrote), so don't put yourself in that situation. I love impact turns and think they are super underutilized in debate. I find that the weakest part of most advantages tends to be the internal-link debate so having good internal-links will reward you with higher speaks. Make sure you have tons of weighing, especially SOL, otherwise I will be mad. I think cheaty-CP are strategic but they definitely justify a lot of Aff flex in answering them. I think 0% probability on an arg is a thing, but the bar for me is very high. In my opinion it is much more strategic to read impact framing args than impact or link defense. Remember, defense does not win you rounds.

Kritiks: I am down to hear any type of Kritik. Kritiks I am familiar with (Cap, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Securitization, Fem Killjoy, Fem IR, Curry, Afro-Pess, Set-Col, and probably more). I like post-modernist Kritiks , however I don't have the best understanding of the lit base, so if you're spreading through densely cut DnG cards in the NC, you better have an amazingly clear explanation of what your K does in the 2NR. If it is a Kritik I haven't seen you most likely need a lot of explanation. Topic specific links are always good (esp if you quote lines from the 1AC) and have a well fleshed out alt. I find that a lot of alt solvency cards simply explain what the alt is rather than how it solves the impacts of the Kritik. I'm also down for Aff K's, but I'm more than fine voting on T against them. For the neg I think the strongest strategy against Aff K's is T + Cap or another one-off K (like afro-pess or something), but I think people should spend more time line by lining the aff. If you straight up concede the Aff as I have seen happen multiple times, the debate is prob gonna be over in the 1AR especially against good K debaters. I'd say I lean 57-43 Neg on Fw vs Non-T K aff, but its possible to change my mind.

Theory: I love in-depth theory debates and even the more frivolous ones. I default to Competing Interps, drop the argument, and No RVIS. I'm pretty neutral on RVI's if you're winning the flow i'll vote on it. I think I-meet RVIs are kinda sketch but if you win one ill vote on it. I'm fine with a bunch of blip theory pre-empts in the 1AC, but make sure they are easy to catch/flow. As long as a shell has its 4 parts (Interp, violation, standards, and voters) I will vote off of literally any interpretation you can think of. I'm neutral on issues such as conditionality and PICS, but I do believe that you should be disclosing on the wiki so it might be slightly harder to win disclosing bad in front of me. Any out of round violations (other than disclosure) are a no-go for me, my ballot is not a referendum on a competitor or person. Down with all theory tricks such as OCIs, and skep comes first. I enjoy meta-theory and weighing between standards and voters (I prefer in-depth strength of link debates over vague fairness vs education debates). I am not the biggest fan of plan flaws, but I will still vote off of it its won. I just need a reason why it is a voting issue. I am highly skeptical of 2ar theory (and will probably intervene against it in most cases); a good rule is that the abuse should be so egregious (lying about the status of a cp) that only one standard should be enough. I am fine with paragraph theory especially for time crunched 1ARs. I have a good understanding of Nebel T and other semantic arguments, but I think that T plurals is often a better strat. Fairness is a voter

Tricks: I read tricks a little bit competitor but my views have changed significantly when I judge. I don't think they're fun to judge or watch especially in front of novices or people who don't have experience answering them. I will still vote on them because being Tab is way more important, but I most likely won't be that happy speaks wide. Tricks are kind of subjective to define and I think reading Phil is totally legitimate, but I have a hard time justifying why I should evaluate the debate after the 1AR or some garbage like that.

Phil: I'm fine with phil debates. Especially more obscure philosophy. The more out there your NC/AC is however, the better the explanation should be in the 1AR/2NR. I have a comfortable knowledge of Kant, Util, Virtue Ethics, and Skepticism. I also get most analytic philosophy. I think that often times, the weakest part of Phil is the contention level offense so a good strategy for going against weird ac/nc is definitely to link turn their offense and concede their framework. I also have no problem voting on calc indites and think they can be incredibly strategic against LARP debaters. I think these debates can really be awful if ur NC is full of random spikes/a prioris/ skep triggers, so pls take them out. If you don't I'll still vote for you, but I will be really annoyed and have a low threshold for what a response is.

Speaker Points: I give pretty high speaks as long as the debate is flowy and interesting. I should average around a 28.6 esp at circuit tournaments. One way to get really high speaks in front of me is to have strong last speeches (2NRs and 2ARs). If you make strategic arguments and I enjoy judging the debate there is no reason why you shouldn't be getting around 29. I think 30 speaks theory is kinda bs, but I give pretty good speaks so it shouldn't really matter.

I am a lay judge. I have limited experience, but I've received training, and consider myself generally knowledgeable about current events. I also did policy debate in high school, and now work as a communications trainer. I appreciate good organization, so I can follow the flow of the debate.

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 am a lay judge. I generally take notes on my computer while you are speaking. I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments that are well supported by citations to evidence. I don't find spreading to be helpful to the speaker.

My experience is in MSPDP/HSPDP, a parliamentary-style format sponsored by Claremont McKenna College.

I am a current member of the Debate Society of Berkeley, which primarily competes in BP tournaments.

I am a big believer in not incorporating any of my own personal knowledge into a debate besides what is safely considered common knowledge. Similarly, none of my personal opinions will make it into the debate room.

As far as strategy, I encourage debaters to consider the exact wording of the topic. Ex: "X does more good than Y" and "X does more good than harm" have very different burdens.

Please respect protected time and do not be disruptive to the speaker (pass notes instead of whispering).

Other than that, I encourage a fair and fun round!

Hi,

Please just don't spread and I'll do my best to give you a fair round.

Good luck!

Brennan

My Background: I've largely competed in the WSDC format at competitions like EurOpen 2020 (Octofinals), Saskatoon WSDC, Oxford WSDC, Macau WSDC 2021, Gulf Debates, Modern World Debates (Finalist). Former member of UAE National Debate Team.

Some ground rules:

1. Debates are judged in terms of the use of clear argumentation and persuasive rhetoric - ad hominems and disrespectful language are not at all tolerated.

2. Mention your pronouns prior to your speech along with how you would prefer your POIs to be asked - make sure you respect and use the correct pronouns of your fellow debaters.

3. I will be flowing the entire debate - good organizational structure and clarity of thought in your speech would be helpful

4. Aim to take at least 1 POI within your speech.

5. Dropped arguments are not a guaranteed win or validation of the arguments - if the other side does not respond to a particular argument, tell me why the fact that the argument is still standing wins that point of clash (and successively the debate) and what this means for the debate.

6. Aim to engage with your opponents as much as possible - unfairly framing the debate so as to make it nearly impossible for the other side to debate or use of unreasonable definitions is highly discouraged. Being charitable (accepting the other sides' premise, and still showing why you win) in addition to showing why you win within your framework is key to winning messy definition debates.

UC Berkeley '22

I am excited to be your judge and I love to see everyone’s individual debating styles. Make sure to respond to points of information and to interact with your opponents arguments. Don't talk too fast and avoid being excessively technical, I will focus on the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity. Speak not to impress but to convince.

I have four years of experience judging and competing in parli debate at high school and college levels (APDA and BP).

I take careful notes on paper. I tend to privilege reasoning and analysis over sources and evidence. I take a tabula-rasa approach and like when all assumptions are stated. As for behavior, just be respectful.

Signposting. I like speeches that are well structured (numbered or otherwise distinct arguments). A dropped argument does not mean an automatic loss.

Points of Information. They can make for a more vibrant and engaging round but I do not keep count of them.

Point of Order. I try to ignore new arguments in the last round but pointing them out to me via POO is helpful.

Speed. I do not enjoy high-speed speeches.

Tag-Teaming. In an online debate, tag-teaming is too messy.

Theory. I am open to theory if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is unfair or abusive. Theory must be well explained.

Kritiks. I think that kritiks are almost always poorly applied.

Topicality. Your interpretation of the motion should be reasonable.

One good argument can outweigh several bad ones. I don’t come into the round with a defined set of ethics - I like debaters to explain why a given outcome is good or bad.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Hi! I'm Trevor Fox and am a freshman here at UC Berkeley! I participated in High School Parliamentary Debate for 3 years and was the Co-President and Debate Captain for my team, so I've definitely had some experience.

I, personally, like it when debaters speak at a relatively normal/slow pace and are clear with their contentions, impacts, etc. And of course, please be nice to each other! You're speaking more to judge than you are your opponents. Looking forward to hearing you!

Don't drop anything, treat each other with respect, use a road map, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun.

Don't be afraid to employ humor, pathos, or any other tool that creates a connection to your audience.

I'm not a fan of speeches delivered at ultrahigh speed.

If I'm looking down and not at the speaker, it's only because I'm flowing.

Retired journalist, Cal and LSE grad, some public speaking.

Helped coach the Benicia High team, mostly as a resource on issues.

Email: jgainesy@yahoo.com

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.

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

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

Please do not spread.

- Clear and concise communication. I am more likely to vote for you if you nail your delivery with confidence.

- Sign post.

- Explain your case as if I know nothing. I want detailed speeches, refutes and impacts.

- For any wondering, I announce winners right after round to spare anticipation.

Hello debaters,

My name is Nitin (he/him) and I am a "lay" or parent judge who knows the basic format of parliamentary debate. I will do my best to pick the team that argues most efficiently and effortlessly in the round.

A couple of personal preferences for the debaters:

- Please signpost.

- I would appreciate it if when speaking, not to speak super fast so a regular person couldn't understand what was being said. I am unfamiliar with most debate jargon and would prefer it if someone explained terms and definitions to me in a simple way.

- I am a fan of persuasive speaking. If you can break down a complex argument in basic understanding, it will be a lot easier to work on.

- As for theory, I am not experienced when it comes to matters of debating about the debate itself. If you happen to want to run theory, prepare to explain it in great detail, as there is a risk of my misunderstanding.

- Please be respectful during the debate. Don't be mean or disrespectful in language/behavior throughout the round, or it may result in lower speaker points.

Above all, the debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun!

I am a lay parent judge so please speak clearly so I can understand all of your contentions/arguments.

I also prefer that voter issues be included in your final speech.

In general, I don't recommend progressive arguments unless you feel they are absolutely necessary.

And finally, please be courteous to your opponent(s) and enjoy the experience!

Background:

Hi, I did two years of high school PF. During my time as a debater I competed on the national circuit, breaking to elimination rounds regularly and winning a few tournaments. Also, I have experience with parliamentary debate in college, having both competed and judged APDA.

My Preferences:

- Speed: I can follow fast speeds so feel free to go off, just make sure to slow down on argument tags so I know where to flow. That being said, I want this activity to be accessible so if your opponents say "slow" or "clear" I expect you to slow down. If you don't I'll dock your speaks and probably be more forgiving about dropped arguments.

- Signposting: Please do it

- Points Of Information: I don't expect speakers to take a minimum number of these, everything else in the round matters a lot more to me.

- Points Of Order: Even if a new argument isn't flagged by the opponents with a point of order I'll protect the flow. So, if you believe your argument to be in a grey area you should probably justify why its new even if a point of order isn't called. However, if both teams agree that they don't want me to protect the flow I won't do so (just tell me before the round). I think its better for debate if I do but it's ultimately your round.

- Tag Teaming: Ok with it for POIs only.

- Theory: I am open to theory if you can demonstrate your opponent is doing something that is actually unfair or abusive, but be aware that I have little experience with it and vastly prefer topical debate.

- Kritiks: I'm not a fan, but I am open to you running it. I'll evaluate it like everything else in round, but you should have a very very strong link to the topic or the other side's advoacy, and I expect you to take POIs in order to ensure that the Kritik is understood.

- Topicality: I would prefer debates not to become a bunch of topicality arguments, but if you feel Gov has an egregious interpretation you shouldn't be discouraged from calling it out. I will go with whoever makes the stronger argument in the case of competing interpretations. I'm inclined to believe topicality should be an RVI but you need to make that argument explicitly.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Also, if you need it, my email is aashrayekhanna@gmail.com

"Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - My coach and professor Dr. Mungin.

I founded the Debate Club at Benicia High School in 2015 and became the program’s coach in 2017 after graduating from Benicia. For the past seven years, I have coached Parliamentary and Public Forum. Likewise, I competed in Parli, Extemp, and Impromptu at Solano Community College. Later receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science — Summa Cum Laude and a Master of Public Policy and Administration at CSU Sacramento. I now work in the California State Legislature as a Legislative Assistant. Similarly, I have worked on several political campaigns.

Need to Know:

I don't tend to have strong preferences for how you should debate. I instead prefer to see the diversity of styles out there.

My feedback normally consists of what I believe you didn't adequately respond to and how you could have gone about doing so. This is more so to aid in future rounds than anything else.

Spreading:

I don't spread but I do talk at a fast pace. I recommend you do so also or slower when you prefer so I that I can flow.

Speaker Points:

One time in a PF round evidence was read that there has only ever been one successful coup. Later that same team asked during cross: "Name one successful coup? No, wait name two. We know there's only ever been one." A good joke increases your speaker points dramatically.

I'm a lay judge, requesting respectful debate and valuing quality over quantity. Appreciate a slower pace, please.

I have a bit of judging experience within the Debate Society of Berkeley and I am going to be a judge at the Yale Debate Tournament in November 2019! I would recommend not speaking too fast and making your points cogent and clear.

1. I have a moderate amount of experience as a  judge. Try not to run procedurals unless absolutely necessary.

2. Avoid spreading and keep your arguments as neat as possible.

3. It is helpful to me if you use sign posts.

4. I will be awarding points for eloquence.

I am a lay judge, so I will decide based on my understanding of your arguments. If you use jargon, please explain. Explain your case clearly; your warrants should include what it means and what the impacts are. If I cannot understand you (spreading), I will be not be able give you credit for your arguments. Please be respectful, speak clearly, number your arguments, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

Hi, I am a parent judge.In case you are presenting technical arguments, please explain a little bit to help me understand. Thank you and best of luck!

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.

I've never judged before. Please talk slowly and explain thoroughly. Good luck!

I prefer to not be in a room with a lot of dust. I have no preference for or against arguments. I feel strong in my knowledge around business as that's my major at UC Berkeley.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

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

Short Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! I'm Gratia (she/her). I'm currently a sophomore at UCLA. I did parli at Bishop O'Dowd, where I competed for 4 years and coached novices as a junior and senior.

tldr: I'm down to evaluate any debate but am more familiar with theory and case than Ks. With that being said, I'll try my best to evaluate whatever debate you want to have.

General:

You can read any arguments (as long as they're not racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, or violent in any other way) but I can't promise that I'll know your lit base so explain them well. I love theory. Please use impact calc! Framing and layering are/should be your best friends. I love clean collapses. You can talk fast but please don't spread, it's been a while since I've really been involved in debate.

Debate is for YOU (the debaters) so I want you to have whatever debate you want. Please don't exclude your opponents or read harmful arguments in the process of doing so, but other than that I will listen to any debate. If your opponents say/do anything that makes you feel unsafe or is violent I am more than happy to do whatever I can to help.

If you have any questions about anything here or the round feel free to ask or email me (gratiaorafferty@gmail.com)!

TECH>TRUTH

Case:

Please please please have warrants and explain why they're important, don't just read a quote. Be sure to do impact calc in your last speech AND tell me why I should prefer the impacts you have over the impacts your opponents have (ex: why magnitude matters more than probability or vice versa).

CPs are fine, but please spend time actually explaining them (don't just read the CP text and move on). I also love theory so I'm willing to listen to CP theory.

I love nuanced and specific link and internal link scenarios!! If you have some and use warrants within them I will be so grateful. I'm also a big fan of good brink scenarios.

Theory:

By far my favorite argument as a debater, I'm willing to listen to any theory argument (some of my favorites to read were framework and no neg fiat if that gives any context). Please explain how you access fairness/education and do weighing within the theory debate!!

I default to competing interpretations and drop the debater unless you make arguments for something else. If you're going for reasonability please provide a brightline. I think RVIs are okay if you have sufficient justifications and can respond to your opponent's RVIs bad arguments.

I'm okay with conditionality but also willing to hear condo bad and vote on it if done well.

Ks:

I am the least experienced with Ks but ran a few and hit a fair amount (and loved reading framework). I probably don't know much about your lit base (unless it's cap or set col) so you have to explain your arguments. That being said, I'm definitely willing to vote on Ks. Take questions!! None of us are going to have fun if the other team can't engage in the debate because they don't understand your argument. Ks and K lit can be confusing and isn't accessible to every team so if you don't take any of your opponents' questions I will give you low speaks (and I honestly probably have the same clarifying questions as your opponents).

Speaks:

I don't give speaks based on how "pretty" you speak, but rather based on your strategy. For example: if you have really great links in the PMC/LOC, cover your bases well in the MG, collapse well in the block, or give a clean collapse in the PMR, I will give you high speaks.

I will give low speaks if you don't slow/clear when asked, say anything violent/ offensive, or otherwise make the debate unsafe and inaccessible.

- placeholder

Hello,

Novice judge here! Do not have any strong preferences, as long both teams agree with the rules and are respectful to each other.
Prefer that we avoid technical arguments and stick with the substance of the debate.
Looking for a strong understanding of the topics and arguments that are supported with examples and facts.

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

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

This is my third year judging high school speech and debate as a parent judge. I enjoy judging debate rounds.

Some things that you might want to take into consideration in your rounds:

· I would prefer you avoid spreading and avoid technical arguments (Theory, Ks, etc). Stick with the substance of the debate.

· Being aggressive is fine but be respectful

· While I am not a flow judge, I'll do my best to follow you, you can help by signposting and highlighting the key points

· I value a strong understanding of the topic, arguments supported by reasoning/evidence/facts and like a great Cross-Ex or POIs

· Provide clarity and summarize the round in your final speech, explaining why your side should prevail on the key issues

· Speaker Points: I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there

Have fun, it's your debate.

UC Berkeley '23

Don't spread.

I don't see the need for anything off-time.

You can run theory or kritik but you better have a really good reason.

I am a lay parent judge but sophisticated enough to judge.

Please do not run theories.

Please talk slowly as I need to understand and write down the notes at the same time.

Respect the opponents.

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.

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).

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'm a parent judge with no experience as judge. Logics and being respectful are what I pay attention to. Please speak clearly.

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

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

Other miscellaneous things:

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

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

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

I'm a parent judge. I know most of the basics (uniqueness; links; impacts etc.).

I'm focused on the merits of each argument and find it distracting when teammates comment on other's performance. I prefer logical arguments that have connection back to the topic. If you are interested in running theory, I prefer theory shells that are necessary for regulating the debate; not superfluous rules.

I look forward to hearing your case. Good luck!

Hello,

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

It's been a hot minute since I've updated this so I figure now is as good a time as any.

Background:

Nathan (they/them)

Experience: 4 years hs debate @ Bonita High School, i've done parli, ld, pf, so I will somewhat know what's going on. In my fourth year debating for UC Berkeley's British Parli / American Parli team, and have mostly judged parli tournaments.

Email: nwong1721@berkeley.edu

tl:dr: warrant everything and be comparative. I don't like being interventionist as a judge, so please make my ballot as easy for me as possible by making your wins on every clash explicitly clear, and outweigh your opponent on everything that's left on flow.

Full paradigm:

I've been debating for a while in mostly parli, so I'm fairly well versed in the game at this point. I make my decisions based on who can access the strongest impacts within round. Make sure everything you say has strong, believable mechanization and realistic impacts. Be comparative and charitable to your opponents. I don't like to have to insert myself into round too much, and I am more likely to vote for you if you do my work for me!

Case/Speaking:

Speed: I will flow as best as possible, but I recognize I'm not the fastest. Err on the side of caution with speed. I can handle it (I speak decently fast myself) and will flow it up to a certain point, but if you're unintelligible, I will miss things and I might accidentally judge-screw you. Signposting will help with this, so if you are going to go fast, make sure you slow down at tags and emphasize your impacts.

Evidence/Warranting: Specifically for parli tournaments that allow evidence from online prep: please please please do not just read me a card. You'll give me flashbacks of my pf days. Contextualize your evidence well and give me a mechanism behind why that evidence is true. If you're giving me a piece of evidence about the US about to go into recession and spitting out economic metrics at me, you better be explaining what is foundationally causing the US to head into recession and how y'all solve.

Impacting: If you mention nuclear war in a social justice round I will cry (make your impacts reasonable I beg of you).

Weighing: Every speech should at least implicitly weigh the impacts that your side is presenting with the impacts that the opposite side is presenting. Terminalize your impacts and provide tangible reasons (probability, magnitude, timeframe, reversibility, etc. ) why I should believe your impacts matter more than your opponents.

For parli whips: I should be able to find every substantive point that you're making on my flow somewhere. I'm usually pretty generous to whips on POO's, so as long as you've said something related to the point you're making in the prior two speeches, you should be fine.

Framework:

For almost every parli round, give me:

• Definitions
• A way to weigh impacts (weighing mech)
• A model (what happens on the aff side that doesn't happen on the neg?)

Framework debates: If aff is proposing a framework that is never contested, I will default to that framework and both teams should weigh and whip with that framework in mind. I am receptive to counterframing, but neg has to provide a good reason as to why I should prefer their framework over the aff framework. Neg, if you wish to get into a framework debate, you better bring back your counterframework during your MO/whip speech, otherwise you have just wasted some of your time.I advise both teams to weigh and win on both the aff and neg weighing mechanisms,as I've seen good cases lose because they failed to weigh on the more reasonable weighing mechanism.

Theory

I adjudicate theory before case. The threshold for winning on theory for me is very high, so if you are running theory, bring a strong case to go along with it. I advise against running parli theory unless your opponent is doing something blatantly against the spirit of debate (incredibly absuive definitions, discriminatory statements, etc.).

On topicality: Run it if aff is running a framework that the neg could have never anticipated (e.g. aff is running that the entirety of communism = the Israeli kibbutz system), but understand that if the aff is being even relatively reasonable with their definitions, I will likely side with the aff. If you do run the T, propose counterdefinitions and pray that I buy them over your aff.

On ks, I'd generally advise you not to run the k with me judging. For some topics its warranted, and if you really believe in it, go ahead. But I'll warn you that I've voted for very few ks.

On RVIs - I don't find them compelling. Even though I don't like ks, I think there is a place for them in a debate. If your opponent's k is frivolous, explain why it's frivolous, and win on case. I'm not going to vote for you solely because you beat a k.

If you don't know what any of the above terms mean, don't worry about it, you'll learn about them when you need to.

Conclusion

Last thing. Be kind to your opponents please. I really hate the style of debate that a bunch of people go for where they say that their opponent's arguments are "ridiculous" or "non-sensical." I think it keeps people out of the activity yadda yadda yadda. But honestly, I just really didn't like going against people who did that, and I still don't like voting for teams who come across as uncharitable or rude. Don't be that team pleaseeee.

Okay, that's enough with the serious stuff. Parli takes itself too seriously sometimes. Just go out there and have fun, and you'll probably have me vote for you! I like wild arguments, and parli as a format lends itself to those types of arguments. Good luck in round! <3

p.s. if you email me for feedback, add your favorite emoticon to the end of the email and I'll add it to this paradigm!

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

I am currently a BP and APDA competitor at UC Berkeley and one of the exec members of the Debate Society of Berkeley.

I flow very carefully. I am fine with any speed, but preferably not too fast. Please be clear and calm, and sign-posting/a clear roadmap for your speech is critical for me.

I weigh arguments qualitatively. A strong argument with clear warrants and real-world impacts, in my opinion, outweighs a few weaker ones. Stating a claim doesn't make your argument valid even if your opponents don’t point it out.

I want to hear the comparative analysis of two sides in the final speech. Explain clearly to me what is most important in this round and why your explanation on that matter becomes your path to victory.

Please be respectful to everyone in the round. I encourage you to be confident, but not overly aggressive.

Hi, my name is Anisha!

anishay2016@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview (if you don't feel like reading everything):

I’m in general tabula rasa, but don’t try to convince me that genocide is good or that slavery was economically beneficial.

My general principle is YOU DO YOU. Obviously, I have preferences, but I'm always willing to be flexible.

ANALYSIS! ANALYSIS! ANALYSIS! Honestly, tech> truth (but I'm more of a FLAY judge rather than a circuit one)... but please warrant. Love phrases like "prefer my warrant over their card because...".

I will flow as thoroughly as I can. In general, I dislike spreading, but if you decide to do so please know that it's been about 2 years since I've debated, and anything that I can't understand (whether that be due to speed or enunciation) I will not flow.

I REALLY DISLIKE voting on someone's identity, so I would appreciate it greatly if you don't put me in that situation.

No to Ks and theory (refer to the LD section of the paradigm for more details)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF Debate:

Remember to frame!!! And please connect back to your framing (a lot of PF debaters forget to do this). If you win framing, you will win how I view the round and possibly the debate.

Please WEIGH! I don't really have any preference in the sense that probability>magnitude or magnitude>probability. You should convince me which one to prioritize, time frame or severity, or some other niche weighing can be a good tiebreaker.

Tell me WHY you won the round. Voters are a thing.

Don't bring anything up in Final Focus that wasn't elaborated on in Summary. And don't drop an arg and bring it back later(if your opponents call you out and it matches what I see on the flow... I will not be inclined to vote for you).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Debate:

Trad Stuff: On the framework level, don't tell me which value/vc is better, but rather who achieves their value/vc. Be sure to know your arguments. If you do all of the basics well you'll probably get my vote (weigh, signpost, voters, etc.).

Note: I was originally a trad LD debater,I am in no way a professional LD circuit judge. What I have listed below are just general overviews of common argument types and my evaluation for them; they are ordered from my most comfortable to least (it's not perfect... but Plans, CPs, Disads, and PERMs/PICs are all equal in terms of comfort).

I accept plans, CPs, PERMs, PICs, etc.

Plans: Plans that go outside of the resolution but are still topical are great. Please give me some sort of solvency.

CPs: Provide me with the competitiveness of your CP. These should be independent advantages.

Disads: Give me a direct link to the resolution, not a vague one. Additionally, though I don't have a problem with unquantifiable impacts, if you go up against an opponent who gives me numbers, and you don't weigh at least within the 1 NR/2 NR or 1 AR/2 AR... it will be difficult to vote for you.

PERMs/PICs: Totally valid. Each side can try to convince me otherwise!

K Debate: Nope. The premise of a K is to get people to care about a more existential problem within society. So if you care enough to run a K, then you should also care enough to NOT turn the concerns it addresses into a means to get a ballot. That, for me, cheapens the entire point of a K and the conversation that it hopes to inspire. Now, if you wish to truly raise awareness for such social issues, you can decide to lose the ballot, and promote an in-round discussion instead, I would love to participate in this and be sure to inform your opponents prior to the round regarding such plans. So, if you're a debater that loves running Ks please strike me (sorry).

Theory: Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it's done well and downright painful when it's done poorly or unnecessarily. If you are going to claim abuse and play with rules, I will listen but don't spend your time there. I like to believe that abuse isn't just a catchphrase to get a ballot. If you run theory that points out LEGITAMENT abuses in the round (NOT, "oh their definition is abusive"), I will vote on it. On the other hand, if the theory you run is of the latter quality (whining about some debate rules that might/might not matter), I will not vote on it. So if you're a debater that loves running theory strike me (sorry).

Phil:*shrugs*, like all things explain it.

Trix/Performance/etc: Please no. But if you must, I will stay for the ride. Whether or not I vote for you will be a separate battle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Random General Notes and Pet Peeves:

Please do not state that if judges don't vote for your arg, we are now ableist, sexist, racist, etc. If you still do, I won't drop you as a debater (though it will be tempting)... but your speaks will be nuked.

Love clash! Ships passing in the night are boring.

I am a non-interventionalist judge. I will not make links, args, connections, impacts, etc., for you.

Speaker points: I award speaks based on content, structure, strategy, and actual speaking ability.

Extra speaks if you can make me laugh.

I don't flow CX. If something important goes down there you have to bring it up in the following speeches.

FINALLY: Make sure this remains fun for both me and you (no ad hominem debate, please!). I wanna keep it open for you folks; however, if u have any specific questions, ask me in the round. I will be happy to answer them!

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at elizzhou@berkeley.com