Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

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

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

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

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

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

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

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

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

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

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

In-Round Intervention

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

Argumentation

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

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

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

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

Organization:

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

Framework:

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

Speaker Scores:

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

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

Good Luck in your Rounds!

I 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 am a parent judge with two years experience. Please speak at a normal pace. It is helpful when warranting is supported with evidence. I find signposting to be helpful as well. Weighing is important in helping me make my decision for who won the round.

Note: I am Native, so if you're going to read a set col/Native sovereignty based case, please do it well/respectfully and be aware (especially with respect to graphic impacts) that you are talking about my family.

Update for Yale 2023: I've judged less than 5 times since graduating HS in 2019. I will not be able to follow full speed spreading and I am not up to date on progressive debate norms. I will still sort of know whats going on with your progressive case, but I'm probably the best judge for a strong lay debate at this point.

Email for email chain: Cameron.chacon@yale.edu

#1 issue is being kind in round, especially if your opponent is obvious not as ready for a progressive round as you. Be nice to novices, small schools, etc.

About me- I competed mostly in LD and occasionally policy in Texas from 2015-2019. Now I go to Yale, and am on the parli team here. I competed in TFA, NSDA, and sometimes TOC circuits back in HS, mostly ran Ks.

Content and courtesy are the most important factors to me. I like to be presented with both the forest and the trees by the end of a debate. Focusing on details of your case, on individual points of clash and supporting your case is very important, as is not getting lost in the weeds and remembering by the end to tie everything up to a big picture view.

Please do argue forcefully and passionately - on both sides of the motion at hand. I find it very off-putting when teams try to win on the margins rather than engage with the substance of the motion/topic. So I really do not like overly narrow definitions and overly aggressive points of order where it's obvious you're just trying to throw the other team off and/or win on technicalities.

So with me you'll do well if you engage in detail and big picture with the actual substance of the motion and thoughtfully and respectfully clash with your opponents. This to me best shows engagement with and consideration to your opponents, me and the contest of debate in general.

I am an APDA debater who comes from a CT parli background. A few important notes

1) On equity. If you are going to make a clearly triggering argument (graphic descriptions of violence, sexual assault, suicide) please at the top of your speech say the type of argument you are planning on making, and give the opponents a time to opt out (online this might have to be in the chat), should a team opt out I have found that there is nearly always a way to make the argument without the triggering material, this usually looks like tweaking the impacting or finding an alternative way to prove the same claim. Just realize that the motion would not have been set if it could only be won with triggering arguments. If you have any questions at all regarding best practices for how to do an opt out, please feel free to ask me! Second, if you are going to make arguments about specific groups of people, act as if a member of that group is watching the round; sweeping generalizations, especially about vulnerable communities, while perhaps not malintentioned, can hurt people, as well as lack the nuance and rigor that we should strive for in this activity.

2) When crediting arguments and adjudicating clash I will always defer to the logic backing the statement, I do not give significant value to quotes from sources. Obviously specific knowledge you have on a topic is more than welcome (ie. France occupied the Ruhr region of Germany in 1923, Turkey is a member of NATO, the UK uses a Westminster political system, etc), and if used well in round, will be rewarded. Although I will keep an open mind to different viewpoints and arguments, please do not make me adjudicate arguments that are factually untrue.

3) On weighing and winning the round. I have judged rounds where one team wins far more arguments, but loses the round. This is because after I decide which side won each argument, I will then look into the weighing and impacting that each team did for me. Please impact and weigh your arguments, especially in rebuttal speeches, but really anywhere, I have not rarely seen teams weigh too much. If and only if there is no weighing or impacting from either team that has survived refutation, I will look for a combination of the least interventionist and most reasonable weighing, which may or may not be to your benefit. Tell me how to judge and weigh the round, and warrant it well, and you will not only win the debate, you will speak high.

4) On speed. I do not come from PF or Policy, although there is a fair amount of speed in my activity (220/230 WPM maximum). I will do my best to flow, but if I do not follow or write down your argument as a result that is on the speaker. Should people be too fast I may say 'clear', should I do this you do not need to stop, it is merely a signal that I cannot fully understand what you are saying. That being said, there are some situations where speaking fast is not merely unstrategic, but locks teams out of the round. If you notice that the team you are debating is newer, and not used to speed, I will award more speaker points if you make an effort to help your opponents engage with your arguments, and in egregious cases penalize speaks (but in the vast majority of these cases I will likely naturally give lower because there was less opposition to your arguments).

If you would like additional feedback after the round feel free to reach me (facebook messenger is the easiest!), or ask me before I leave at the end of the round and we can work something out.

Aside from that, I will judge the debate how you present it to me, do your best, and have a fun round!

Basic do's and don't:

DO: sign post, speak clearly, weigh

DON'T: speed read (spread), run theory other than abusive definitions calls

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

Parli Paradigm

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

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

Speech Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been a speech and debate coach for 3 years.

Please speak clearly and not too quickly.

Make your contentions clear and organized with supporting evidence.

Ensure that you respond to the opposing side's points/contentions. Do so in a professional manner-do not become overly defensive or argumentative.

Stephen Fitzpatrick

Director of Debate, Hackley School

I am primarily a Parli debate coach - that said, over the years I have coached and judged virtually every debate format.

As a former trial attorney, I am looking for clear, persuasive, and intelligible speakers - speed-reading from your computer screen will not impress me. If I can't understand what you are saying, either because of the speed with which you are saying it or due to a lack of explanation, reliance on jargon, and no explicit connection to the resolution, it will be far less likely to impact the round. Beware of reading cases you either did not prepare or do not understand. In Public forum, that will be especially evident during cross-fire. I will flow, but only to the extent I can follow what you are saying. Same goes for any Points of Information or other forms of interrupted speech in other types of format. Be polite, be direct, and be persuasive.

As for evidence, spitting cards at me without tying them explicitly to your arguments and the overall resolution will also have a limited effect. I pay close attention to cross-fire - ask good questions, be generous, listen to your opponent's responses, and respond accordingly. I reward debaters who have a solid understanding of the factual underpinnings of the case as well as basic knowledge of current events, historical precedents, and specific details directly related to your arguments. If one of your contentions requires specialized scientific, legal, or economic principles, make sure you can explain them to clear up misunderstandings and clarify factual disputes.

In a Parli round based predominantly on argumentation rather than concrete factual evidence, make sure you explain your logical connections clearly. None prepped rounds does not mean NO evidence - good examples from history, general summaries of common knowledge, and comparisons ore references to basic factual information all have a place in debate. Tethering your arguments to some sense of how the world actually works is preferably to entirely theoretical arguments that have little grounding in reality.

I will be open to persuasive, integrated cases, and critical impacts. In Public Forum rounds, make sure to summarize the round during final focus. I am not an overly technical judge, so I will take every speech into consideration and even consider arguments in cross-fire to be part the round when making my decision. Speaker scores will range based on a variety of factors, but speaking style, demeanor, and argumentation will all factor in.

Overall, I would be considered a FLAY judge - I abhor the phrase "tech over truth" - debaters who like to earn wins on technical conventions not actually in the rules or use arcane jargon that no one outside the debate world understands will be disappointed with my rulings if their arguments aren't clear and easy to follow.

Hello! My name is Jyothi and my pronouns are he/him. I like to see lots of reasoning and impacts in addition to your evidence. Do not just provide the evidence and assume that everyone understands the reasoning! Also, be sure to explain to why your world wins OVER THE OPP world if you are PROP as you have the burden of proof. Make sure that you are providing lots of clash to the other team to create a better and more educational debate. Try not to make abusive definitions or frameworks as it doesn't make the debate fun or educational. Please do not spread as East Coast Debating does not usually have this. Above all, have fun and be respectful.

national circuit PF for 4 years. Mostly northeast so I follow northeast conventions (you don't need to frontline in second rebuttal, etc). Defense should preferably be extended through summary.

I can flow fast, but I really don't want to. If you speak quickly I'll get mad and stop flowing seriously. You will most certainly be worse off if you spread. If you literally read LD or Policy style I may count it against you in terms of speaking points- you should have done a different activity. 

Speaker points will reflect your decorum in the round as well as your technical/rhetorical ability. If you're rude or unpleasant to judge you will lose speaker points. You will lose more speaker points if you're rude to the other debaters but you get no points for being rude to me. 

As long as there's time I'll give oral RFD with disclosure and answer any questions. I'll also fill out the ballot with key trigger points. If you have a question please ask but phrase it in a way that assures me you're not trying to get me to change my decision (I won't.)

Be lighthearted. If that means humor by all means go for it. If all it means is that you project confidence without sternness, that's also great. Please make the round fun for me to judge. 

Email for chain/questions: jonahlg20@gmail.com - if we can skip GCX and start the round asap, +0.5 to everyone. I have almost never seen anything important happen in GCX, and it probably shouldnt exist

i am flow. I will vote on the flow. I did HS PF and now college parli. run w/e you want but just don't be a dick. I have some experience with theory/Ks, but prob not enough for you to feel comfortable running them in front of me unless they are pretty intuitive (disclo, CWs, etc).

ANALYTICS ARE GOOD, PLEASE DO THEM. I WILL VALUE A VERY SMART ANALYTIC/LOGICAL RESPONSE AS MUCH AS I VALUE SOMETHING THAT IS CARDED WHEN THE WARRANT OF THE CARD IS NOT DEEPLY EXPLAINED. While I am tech > truth, I still need to hear the warrant behind the cards, and am receptive to the opposing teams calling out logical gaps in link chains. If you are reading a prepout on someone but cannot explain why your responses are true, I have a high propensity to drop your response, even if it might be dropped.

(stolen meme)

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, and please collapse early for cleaner rounds.

If I need to presume for some reason because there is literally nothing for me to vote on, I will presume to the 1st speaking team, not neg. If the reason isn't obvious, feel free to ask me why.

Ask me before the round about any other prefs or about APDA debate in college after round. If u want more feedback you can FB message me or just ask me after round.

Speaks - 3 ways to get a 30 from me:

1. Read a purely analytics rebuttal through FF. If you don't use cards and win, you certainly deserve it. I strongly encourage you to try this with me if you are confident, since I have a stronger propensity to pick up analytics than most TOC judges

2. If you win so hard on the flow you don't even need to do any weighing bc you are winning everything. If you think this is the case then just mention this part of the paradigm in ur speech and if ur right ill give 30.

3. win the round while using 0 prep time as a team - literally be ready to speak right after the preceding person (obviously does not apply if you used 0 prep then lost lol)

I will give speaks based on who debated the best, not who spoke the best. Basically whoever gave the round-winning analysis should be #1 always even if the other team spoke pretty

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

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

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

• content — good presentation of information, structure,
• strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
• style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

• RVIs on T,
• friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
• Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
• and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

This was written by Anna's daughter.

First, no jargon.

Second, do not spread; speak slower and speak clearly. English is not my mom's first language. If she cannot understand you, you get dropped.

And finally, lay judge.

Good luck.

Hi! I'm Katrina (I use they/them pronouns). I'm a current APDA debater, with multiple years of experience judging college parliamentary debate.

I'm usually okay with whatever rounds end up looking like, but I do have a few universal preferences/things to note:

1) Please be clear about signposting/tagging your arguments! It is a lot easier for me to keep track of arguments and keep my flow cleaner if you are clear about when you are making a new argument or when/what arguments in the round you are responding to.

2) I'm generally okay with speed, with the caveat that if you spread at me, I will likely miss arguments. I flow on paper, so while I may be understanding what you're saying, I usually cannot write fast enough to keep up with spreading, and it is a great way to have me (and the other team in the round) miss your arguments or not fully understand them.

3) Please weigh your arguments! Often when judging I end up at the end of the round with two distinctively different arguments from either team in the round that I am told are both true. If you do not weigh your arguments against the other team's arguments and tell me specifically why your arguments matter more or are more true than theirs, I will have to make that decision for you. While I may sometimes come to the conclusion that you want me to, I also might not, and if I have to weigh your arguments for you, you will speak lower. Don't just prove to me that things are true, prove to me why those things matter.

4) If arguments are dropped, I will consider them true for the round. I do not want to have to vote on dropped pull-throughs from first speeches, and I will not automatically weigh dropped arguments over other arguments in the round.

5) Last thing, on equity. Two things here: first, please be cognizant of the arguments that you are making about groups of people or people's lived experiences. If you are arguing about something that doesn't affect you personally, consider whether or not you would make that argument in front of someone who did have that experience. If you would feel uncomfortable saying your argument to a group of people mentioned within it, that is a clue that you should probably either be rephrasing the argument or cutting it entirely from your speech. Second, please content warn any content in your speech that could be triggering to another debater or judge in the round, and give both judges and debaters the option to opt out. If you are unsure what should be content warned, a general rule of thumb I like to use is that if you are mentioning violence, death, illness, or explicit descriptions of sexuality, those things should be content warned. If you are unsure about if you should be content warning or how you should go about doing so, feel free to ask me and I'm more than happy to help!

With all that said, I am always super happy to give feedback after rounds, so feel free to reach out to me and either ask for general feedback or ask me specific questions! I'm looking forward to getting to judge some great rounds :)

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.

I have been judging debate rounds for the last 7 years, and high school debate rounds for the last 3 years.

I judge by deliberating on the overall presentation of the debaters, including arguments and delivery.

I prefer a slower round of debate, that allows for a more involved, persuasive style of debate.

I prefer less debate technicalities, and more common sense arguments to make your points.

Experience: Two years of policy in high school, in fourth year of APDA/BP in college at UChicago.

Theory: It's annoying, I will vote on it if necessary but will be looking for other places to vote, so be convincing if you do run it.

I am tech > truth, but please still substantiate and warrant your arguments, if they are not warranted then it will reflect in speaks and decision and will impact how the round is weighed. Dropped arguments are absolutely conceded, but make them good arguments to begin with. Crazy arguments are fine if you give warrants (e.g. you must convince me that the U.S. has one billion nukes, instead of simply asserting it). I will not vote on good arguments for which warrants were not given if I can help it.

Evidence: I am of the mind that evidence should support your arguments, they should not be your arguments. That is, you can say "X will happen because Y source says Z occurs, and Z causes X." This is a fully fleshed out argument, and then you can weigh X against other impacts. Obviously the way your arguments and evidence is constructed will probably vary a lot, and that's fine. Being convincing is the most important part so this is not a hard and fast rule.

Framework: Give one if you want, otherwise I just use cost-benefit analysis. Conceded frameworks are taken as true and I will use them to vote on the round; if you're giving a counter framework then you must prove why yours is better.

Generally: My average speaks is a 28. Collapse strategically and on what you win on; my ballot is decided by what are in the final speeches. If you talk about something in those speeches, I take that as a sign that you want me to vote on that issue. Some speed is ok if you're clear, if I can't hear then the things I didn't hear just won't be on my flow. Do not spread. I prefer live docs with speech docs/evidence pasted before each speech, including rebuttals and summary. On crossfire, I am not flowing but I am listening, and if you want to use a crossfire response in your speech then by all means please do.

Don't just say the name of a card. Have a very brief summary of what the card says because that is how I remember it.

And weigh, weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

Be nice and respectful, use the proper pronouns, give content warnings where needed. Just be a decent person please; not being a decent person will be reflected in speaks and/or in decision. And of course, have fun :)

Email: samuel.johnson.fop@gmail.com

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

I am a parent of a debater. I am looking for clear definitions and frameworks. Clash is extremely important.

I am the Parli debate team advisor for Horace Mann School. Attention to style is as important as substance: do not rush your speaking points and be courteous to your opponents. A winning team will make clear and concise arguments, follow through on points, use real-world examples if possible, and thoughtfully counter the other team's assertions.

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

*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*

I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.

Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.

You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.

Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.

Here is a very brief summary of my high school debate experience and how I vote. Please ask me at the beginning of round if you have any follow-up questions and I'd be more than happy to elaborate. I apologize for the brevity of my paradigm, and I would've liked for you to have the opportunity to enter your debate round with the most informed approach possible, so I will do everything I can to make my judging stances clear to you at the start of each round, if you only ask me.

Three years of Parli, one year of policy, one year of PF experience.

The best parli rounds to me have strong warranting, consistent extensions and weighing, and organized signposting. Please be polite to one another. I can handle speed. Theory is fine.

Tech over truth. Since your sources aren't available during the round, I will be convinced of your evidence (or convinced to discredit your opponent's evidence) if you can use logic to explain to me why I should (or shouldn't) reasonably believe you. I am not persuaded to believe the validity of your argument if you just tell me your source is reputable.

(Real paradigm here)

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

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

Some notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

Q: Are you okay with PICs?

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

Q: Do you like theory?

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

Q: Do you enjoy POIs?

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

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

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

Dear Debaters,

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

Some more specific suggestions for you as you debate:

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

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

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

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

Hey everyone! I've done high school debate for a few years, so I generally know what's going on. That being said, some things I appreciate from debaters are as follows:

Please explain your points clearly - this extends through the overview, the impacts, and more importantly, the warranting - tell me why something matters, but also why something is true.

Signpost and address arguments directly - it makes it easier for everyone.

Weigh - weigh.

Be respectful - we're all hear to learn, so a good display of sportsmanship is always nice to see.

Good luck in your rounds!

I'm a current college senior. I did public forum in high school, but haven't competed since (aside from judging every now and then).

When I debated, my partner and I were considered fairly "traditional": We argued the resolution as it was written, spoke slowly, and engaged with our opponents' arguments directly. Additionally, we generally preferred quality over quantity when it came to evidence. I realize norms around this have changed significantly over the past five years, but I do really appreciate it when teams give me the full citation for the evidence they're using — not just a last name and date — and explain why the evidence is credible. I don't expect you to do this with every piece of evidence — and of course you don't need to change the wording of your case — but if a piece of evidence becomes crucial to the debate as it debate progresses, I'd love to hear arguments not just about what the evidence says, but why it's good evidence.

My name is Kathy Nalywajko, and I am a parent judge for parli.

A few things I like in debaters are when they speak clearly, absolutely no spreading (what’s the point?).

No K's or theory.

I like debaters to be analytical and thorough. I'm not driven by teams trying to sway my emotions.

Follow through with points you make, and refute your opponents contentions.

Be nice, treat your fellow debaters with respect.

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

I am the advisor for Parli at Dalton School, in New York City and have been since 2015 when the New York Parliamentary Debate League was founded. I welcome arguments of various sorts, but would appreciate that any teams from the West Coast understand that the majority of my experience is with the tournaments and debaters on the East Coast. I would also ask that all debaters avoid explaining the rules to me. I do, in fact, know the rules.

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!

Note: Any judge's paradigm is not the way they actually judge but the way they think they judge so take this paradigm for what it is.

I have debated various forms of parli for 6+ years. I come from Connecticut which is a pretty lay region in parli and that background frames how I judge. However, I think I do judge the flow fairly well.

I won't intervene in weighing unless neither team weighs.

If you give me a clear path to the ballot using your arguments and the other team doesn't I'll be more inclined to vote for you even if you individual arguments may not be as developed.

I want your rebuttals to TELL me why you win, you can be explicit about it.

I can understand theory arguments but don't run them frivolously. I may intervene and drop you.

Warrants + Stats > Warrants > Stats

If you exclude an opposing team with speed then I will drop you.

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.

1. Please make sure you signpost your contentions.

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

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

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

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

I am not a former debater. I'm a debate parent, coach, and Middle School Debate League administrator. I've been judging for around 10 years. For me to flow you well, don't spread or speak too quickly. Of course I try to be a blank slate and I won't tell you what arguments I think you should have run. I appreciate examples and illustrations, including hypothetical ones. I'm not a fan of repetition. I am a fan of clear definitions, plans, frameworks, models. I award speaker points based on clash, not style, but of course your delivery will make your clash more or less effective.

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

Arguments must be clear, persuasive and understandable.

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

Attention to style will count as well as substance. Please do not rush speaking points and be courteous to your opponents. A winning team will have clear and concise arguments, elaborate on their points thoughtfully, which may include real world examples if available, and will thoughtfully counter the other teams assertions.

Amanda E. Sawyers

Director of Debate, Mock Trial & Leadership

Various Schools

I am a debate coach with a background in Leadership, Politics, and International Relations. I look for succinct, organized, persuasive speakers with a cohesive case that understand the underlying theme of their case and understand what must be stressed to their target audience. I expect speakers to stress the impact of their case on a micro and macro level. I expect speakers to have anticipated and prepared for the challenges that will be posited by the opposition. I expect speakers to understand the key points that must be stressed in their case. If a speaker reads from a sheet and it is clear that they are unfamiliar with the prepared case, they will not be as persuasive as a speaker that clearly understands the message they wish me to take from the round. I look for students that have prepared to challenge the opposition and do so in a precise, assertive (not aggressive) manner. If you present a plan or counterplan, I expect it to be transparent, solvent, and sustainable. I look for logical refutations delivered at strategic moments throughout the debate. Credit will be given to students that make use of stylistic devices. Lastly, I expect civility and etiquette throughout the entire round. Debate is not a screaming match; it is an opportunity to analyze two sides of an issue and attempt to persuade eloquently. I am honored to adjudicate and look forward to seeing what you bring to the podium.

Experience:

3 years of HS debate, I've been judging intermittently for 2.5 years

I'm mostly familiar with east coast parliamentary and extemporaneous policy debate (CT Debate Association). I have also debated at a few west coast parli tournaments.

General Stuff:

Just stating statistics doesn't mean anything. You need to show why they actually support your case.

Weighing is important

Humor is appreciated

Be respectful (Don't discriminate based on race/gender/sexuality; don't personally attack your opponents (physically or verbally))

West Coast Parli Stuff:

I have debated in a total of about 20 rounds at West Coast tournaments, but I did not encounter theory or K's in any of those rounds, so I'm very unfamiliar with them actually being used in rounds. That being said, I have an idea of how they work (although I don't know all the terminology), so you are welcome to run theory or K's, but I would advise only doing so if you think it's necessary and if you can clearly explain everything. If you're running theory/K's just to exclude another team, I will drop you.

Don't spread. I can handle a decent amount of speed, but not to the point where you have to alter your breathing patterns.

I would like you to be courteous to each other. The team with the better constructed argument and clearer communication will be the winner. Please use a moderate speed to deliver your arguments. Furthermore, please use discretion when calling for cards and please have cards ready upon request. Excessive card calling without a clear purpose will be noted negatively against you.

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

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

General

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

Contentions

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

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Other

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

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

I debated for 4 years in highschool, parli for 3. I was relatively successful, my partner and I won UOP, Polygon, Nueva, States, and qualified to TOC twice. We mostly did lay debate, but I'm familiar and comfortable with most styles.

Just keep it clean, theory and PICs only if necessary, not very receptive to Ks but run what you want. Speed is cool but not full-on spreading, most importantly though adjust your speed to not spread your opponents out of the round. If you are going to use jargon make sure you understand the words you are saying. If I or your opponents look super lost we probably are and that isn't great.

Don't let your opponents get away with with silly points just cause they sound confident, call them out, I probably agree with you.

If you run dumb stock arguments run them well at least, and make it clear that it connects to the resolution.

Don't be rude, please. My threshold of when theory is being abusive is quite low.

If you have specific things or questions ask me before the round.

Good luck y'all.

Pronouns: He/him

Hello - I have been judging debate for over a decade. Please be clear and concise in your language, have your cards easily available if your opponents ask for them, and please stick to the topic of the debate. In other words, please do not allow the debate to devolve into focusing on minutiae

Finally, excessive card calling without a clear purpose is strongly discouraged.

Lincoln High School '21

Haverford College '25

he/him pronouns

Parli @ Yale Invitational 2021 Specific: This tournament is very national in the way that it brings people from many parli circuits that have different styles and techniques. I intend to respect this and expect all debaters to, as well. This doesn't change what arguments I am open to (see below), but it means that I don't expect responses to always have perfect structure. Please try to make your arguments understandable to your opponents and try to respond to all arguments even if you don't exactly know how.

Basic Stuff:

I competed for four years in the Oregon parli circuit. Some rules specific to the Oregon parli circuit are 15 min prep, no online access, a bit of theory, and next to no K. I also did IEs, some PF, and some Worlds. I invested most of my time in parli, though, and that's where I got most of my results, most notably octos at the NPDL (parli) TOC. I take on a tabula rasa, tech > truth, etc. judging style and will listen to any argument that doesn't blatantly fabricate evidence or isn't hateful or violent (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic). Kindness is key and your enjoyment is probably the only thing you'll remember about a round years after it. Big fan of off time roadmaps to organize my sheets (although I will adapt to tournament rules) and SIGNPOST. Please please please weigh, collapse, and tell me what arguments are important at the end of the round. The round is almost always less clear in the judge's head than the debaters' heads.

Speed:

I am slightly comfortable with speed. A quick pace is fine, but a full spread is probably too fast. Be ready to respond to a clear from me. Not responding reasonably to a second clear from me or your opponents will deduct speaks.

Theory/Topicality:

Big fan. Theory was a key part of my strats in high school and I think it can be a very powerful tool. That said, like any tool it must be used properly. Friv t is susceptible to RVI and more t. Well organized shells are useful. Making the t/T round specific (including the voters) is key to success. I'm also open to 30 speaks theory.

Kritik:

I like Ks, but I debated on a circuit where they were extremely uncommon and so I am inexperienced. As a result, if you want to run a K slow down, don't be overly technical, signpost a lot, and don't cut corners. When responding to a K, please actually engage with the K. A generic theory saying K's bad will probably just prove why the criticism is valid, but theory can still be a suitable answer.

Plans/CPs:

I think many resolutions are clarified and strategic advantage can be gained with plans and counterplans. I'm always down for a PIC and theory that should basically always be run against it.

Speaks:

If you say "uh oh Spegetti-Ohs" in your speech you will get +.2 speaks. Overall, I will focus on clarity and coherency, not how pretty or loud you speak. As said earlier, I'm open to 30 speaks theory. Problematic language, rhetorical styles, or arguments, as well as ignoring requests to slow down, will very quickly lower speaks to the tournament minimum.

Final thoughts:

I wanted to cover my thoughts and experiences on some more technical stuff, but by no means does anyone have to run techy args. I love a good lay case debate, especially with well-formulated, creative arguments. I'm open to talking more about the round. My email is leopold.f.w@gmail.com.

Parli: Parli was my main event in high school. Some rules specific to the Oregon parli circuit are 15 min prep, no online access, no points of order, no points of clarification, a bit of theory, and next to no K.

Shamelessly stole with permission from my brother/partner

Lincoln High School '21

Carnegie Mellon University '25

he/him pronouns

TLDR:

1. Impact and link even when it seems like the most obvious thing possible. I will not do any work for you.

2. Tech>truth but if you say something that I know to be false, I will call a card or in parli discount the argument

3. Anything hateful or violent will result in loosing the ballot and the lowest speaks I can give

Personal Background

I competed for four years in the Oregon parli circuit. Some rules specific to the Oregon parli circuit are 15 min prep, no online access, a bit of theory, and next to no K. I also did IEs, some PF, and some Worlds. I invested most of my time in parli, though, and that's where I got most of my results, most notably octos at the NPDL (parli) TOC. I take on a tabula rasa, tech > truth, etc. judging style and will listen to any argument that doesn't blatantly fabricate evidence or isn't hateful or violent (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic). Kindness is key and your enjoyment is probably the only thing you'll remember about a round years after it. Big fan of off time roadmaps to organize my sheets (although I will adapt to tournament rules) and SIGNPOST. Please please please weigh, collapse, and tell me what arguments are important at the end of the round. The round is almost always less clear in the judge's head than the debaters' heads.

Speed:

I am slightly comfortable with speed. A quick pace is fine, but a full spread is probably too fast. Be ready to respond to a clear from me. Not responding reasonably to a second clear from me or your opponents will deduct speaks.

Theory/Topicality:

Big fan. Theory was a key part of my strats in high school and I think it can be a very powerful tool. That said, like any tool it must be used properly. Friv t is susceptible to RVI and more t. Well organized shells are useful. Making the t/T round specific (including the voters) is key to success. I'm also open to 30 speaks theory.

Kritik:

I like Ks, but I debated on a circuit where they were extremely uncommon and so I am inexperienced. As a result, if you want to run a K slow down, don't be overly technical, signpost a lot, and don't cut corners. When responding to a K, please actually engage with the K. A generic theory saying K's bad will probably just prove why the criticism is valid, but theory can still be a suitable answer.

Plans/CPs:

I think many resolutions are clarified and strategic advantage can be gained with plans and counterplans. I'm always down for a PIC and theory that should basically always be run against it.

Speaks:

I consider a good speaker in debate to be someone who uses the verbal medium to clearly make their arguments. Yelling/speaking loudly makes me not want to be in the round so don't do it. Overall, I will focus on clarity and coherency, not how pretty or loud you speak. As said earlier, I'm open to 30 speaks theory. Problematic language, rhetorical styles, or arguments, as well as ignoring requests to slow down, will very quickly lower speaks to the tournament minimum.

Final thoughts:

I wanted to cover my thoughts and experiences on some more technical stuff, but by no means does anyone have to run techy args. I love a good lay case debate, especially with well-formulated, creative arguments. I'm open to talking more about the round. My email is ames.westrey@gmail.com.

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC theory comes before 1AR/2AC theory
• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Meeting the interp is terminal defense
• Theory comes before substance
• Fairness and education are voters
• No RVIs

K Debate: Sure! I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist nonsense that amounts to inclusive oppression or do nothing. Cap debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.

• Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• Stock issues are not my favorite path to the ballot
• I don't judge kick counter plans unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it
• Either flash analytics or slow down/clear because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• I evaluate most tricks like theory interps

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
• K's bad theory gets you 25 speaks.

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Not voting on cap good
• Not voting on heg good
• Not voting on racism good
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• Give me pen time

Current debater at the Claremont Colleges Debate Union (Scripps '25) and former debater at Phillips Academy Andover ('21) and Edgemont High School (2016-2018).

Debate formats I have experience in: Extemporaneous Parliamentary, British Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, World Schools, Oregon-Style

I'm open to most arguments, as long as they are explained clearly, sufficiently warranted, and have an explicit impact. Please, please, PLEASE talk about the crux of the debate and weight of the impact - tell me how and why you won the round, why your argument matters more than your opponents', etc. Doing so well enough will win you the round, given that I am a very tired college student who is more likely to remember impactful words in the last speech than technical analysis in the constructive speeches. I will still listen to them, but it only matters so much unless you tell me why they matter in the grand scheme of the debate. I also really appreciate stakeholders -- many topics in debate are often centered around issues that have real implications on people, particularly marginalized groups, and demonstrating which stakeholders you support and how you support them will benefit you. While this is pretty performative, debate is a pretty performative activity as a whole and I still appreciate that you understand and consider the voices of those most affected by the issues presented in the topic.

Other Do's and Don't's:

- DO: signpost, be argumentatively consistent, and keep your own time

- DON'T: spread or be problematic or rude

Note on spreading for LD debaters: Since I haven't debated in the circuit in years, I am no longer used to understanding words when thrown at me at a hundred miles an hour. Because of this, please only spread if you enunciate *very* clearly, send me speech docs so I can follow along, and signpost a lot. I'm not gonna lower your speaks if you spread because I inherently think that spreading is bad, but because if I can't understand your spreading, then I can't flow your arguments or rebuttals, can't consider them in the round, and thus can't vote on them in the end. For your sake, please don't spread unless you're confident that I can understand; I will make sure to give visual and verbal cues such as "clear" or a hand up if it's still too unclear for me.

NOTE: If you are at all racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, fatphobic, anti-semitic, or any other form of prejudice or offensiveness, your speaking points will automatically be deducted, you will most likely lose, and I will be having a conversation with you after the debate. Just don't do it. Honest mistakes are ok - debate is a learning environment - but debate should also be a safe space for everyone.

TL;DR: Make my work as a judge as easy as possible. Make flowing easy, make deciding easy, make understanding arguments easy, etc. And don't be problematic while doing it.

Email me at yang_leina@hotmail.com if you have any questions or would like extra feedback. I'm always open to giving advice and providing further thoughts on debate and non-debate matters :)