I am a parent judge with multiple years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging parli.

Please do not spread or run theory/K arguments.

Please speak as clearly as possible, defining any technical terms to your best ability (make sure a "lay judge" can follow along). Other than that, make sure to signpost and present a flowable speech.

The most important part for me as a judge is to be able to clearly understand each of your arguments and their impacts.

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

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

Please put brand@responsible.com and lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain

Long, long, long ago; back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth, I was a regional finalist in High School impromptu and parli.

Now I am merely a parent judge and no longer have a dinosaur to ride, so instead I judge IE and Parli (and now Policy).

SQUALS 2023: I am a lay judge and have been judging debate for four years (two years for policy). Please, please, please don’t spread. I’m not going to vote on anything completely absurd like squirrels not having proper scuba gear leads to extinction. I will try to be as tech > truth as I can be, but my biases in terms of truth will probably influence decisions even if I don’t intend that to be the case. I have expertise in 5 areas of science and engineering.

Please read an actual plan in 1ac. We are not here to debate about the value of debate or try to attach metaphysics to real and important earthly problems.

Topicality: I will understand topicality and vote on topicality if you can prove that their plan has made the debate significantly unfair.

Kritik: Don’t run these with me, they’ll confuse me and I’ll mark against you for them if I’m confused.

CP: Love counterplans, bonus points if they are unique and well explained.

DA: Please don’t read some generic link, make the link specific to the aff, and make sure to explain impact link chain clearly.

Case: Love case debate, if you can prove you know the aff better than the affirmative does and then prove its a bad idea I will be very impressed and give you good speaks.

Cross-X: I flow cross-x, don’t be overly aggressive or rude, it will reduce speaks. Strong cross-x which will increase speaks include: any question that highlights a missing link in the argument or an inconsistency in the argument.

+0.1 if you tell me what your favorite dinosaur is before you speech

In IE, I particularly look for

* good transitions

* cohesion (does it sound like a single talk instead of unrelated series of short monologs)

I strongly dislike when the enthusiasm to show emotion interferes with diction and severely treble shift voices.

In Parli,

* I have difficulties when people speak too fast. (Especially if it is faster than my pet dinosaurs used to run.)

* I am generally not persuaded by "theory" in Parli.

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

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

2) Prefer No Theory or Ks

Be courteous in your questioning and speaking.

Hi, I'm a parent judge.

Likes:

- signposting

- clear speaking

- off-time roadmaps

Dislikes:

- spread

- running theory

Good luck!

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

Pretty simple-

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

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

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

Will weigh advantages/disadvantages.

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

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

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

Lay judge, slow on speaking, discouraging tech debate. Be confident in your speaking and be nice to your opponents. Make sure to impact out your points and relate back to the standard of the debate.

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

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

- Critical thinking about the arguments and supporting your arguments

- Rebut your opponents

- Don't go in circles and keep repeating

- Be logical and realistic with your arguments

- Eloquent communication of your arguments

Good luck and have fun.

Hi I am an experienced parent judge. I have a pretty good understanding of the world and economic systems. I value probability over magnitude for the most part but can be convinced otherwise. I do not want every debate to be about mass extinction or how one economic policy leads to nuclear war. I can understand theory but am not likely to vote on it unless clear abuse in round. No Ks. No speaking fast. I prefer logic over straight facts. Repeating your point does not mean that you responded to their point. Do not say that a team conceded an argument when they clearly did not. POIs are fine but do not ask more than 2 and do not be obnoxious while doing it will drop your speaks. It is fine if you choose to decline a POI but between the two partners, you have to accept at least one. CPs are fine even PICs but if you are running CP you have to prove that your CP solves better. I do buy mutually exclusive arguments through net benefits but you have a harder job to me proving that the aff does not just do the same by perming the CP. If you want to perm do it as a test of advocacy as that is easier to understand as a judge. All advocacy/rhetoric is binding do not try to kick anything. Try not to run new contentions in the second speech. I do not protect the flow. Try to use less jargon while actually debating. I can understand some of it but not all. Have fun.

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

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

Please speak clearly and concisely. I'm not a fan of spreading.

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

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

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

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.

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!

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

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentary Debate

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

Overview

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

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

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

General Paradigm

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird Aside on Evidence

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

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

I have been judging high school debate for several years, but I'm not super experienced in fancy debate terms so please articulate your arguments in a way I can understand.

I'm a lay parent judge with little judging experience. I will flow and take notes.

1. please signpost

2. no spreading please, I'm not good with speed

3. Be courteous - no profanity

4. Make well-explained arguments that are warranted and have clear impacts

5. Give me a clear reason to vote for you (weigh in your last speech)

6. You can try theory but it has to be really well explained (explain the abuse) or I'm not voting on it and please no Kritiks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a lay judge. Please speak at a normal conversational speed. It would be helpful to me if you clearly signpost. Please explain the "why"s and not just the "what"s. Thank you.

Please don't utilize spreading, theory, or K's - mainly emphasize coherent, well-linked arguments.

Hey everyone! :) My name's Vidushee and my pronouns are she/her/hers. I am a second-year at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach for Berkeley High School. During high school, I competed for Irvington for 4 years and some of the highlights from my debate career were: three-time TOC qualifier, state qualifier, semis at Cal Parli, semis at Stephen Stewart Invitational, etc.

General notes:

- From David Gomez Siu's paradigm: "Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. Also just as important, if not more - if you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). I am an empathetic judge; my threshold for voting on that theory is based on how much abuse is present to me, and trust me when I say I usually know when people are being abusive in round. But I'm not perfect nor can I see all forms of violence, so, help me help you make sure that teams who read abusive and violent arguments lose the round. Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Ignoring them / deliberate misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people in any sense / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab."

- I'm usually tech over truth unless someone is being problematic in round.

- I appreciate weighing arguments, collapsing (especially in the rebuttal speeches), IMPACTING, and being organized/sign-posting throughout the debate!

- Tag-teaming is fine but I only flow what the speaker says. This means that if your partner is tagging for you, then you have to repeat what they said in order for me to write it down and evaluate it.

- I don't like intervening in debates unless it's absolutely necessary so if you're going to be reading a blippy argument that calls from judge intervention, I probably won't buy it. If you do want me to intervene, make sure to explicitly JUSTIFY it.

Speed:

- I can flow moderately fast speed, but if you aren't clear I likely won't be able to understand you. If you want to go extremely fast then please make sure you're clear. I will tell you to slow or clear if I can't understand you, and if you choose not to, then I won't flow what you're saying.

- Also from David's paradigm: "If you are using speed to exclude your opponents from the round and/or refuse to make your speed accessible to the other team, I will not hesitate to vote on theory against it. Inclusivity is important. Interps/texts twice, please. I will almost 100% of the time ask for a text. PLEASE HAVE ONE WRITTEN FOR ME AND YOUR OPPONENTS."

Case:

- I loved case debate, so I prefer it, and I appreciate unique/interesting arguments that go beyond just general links and blocks of uniqueness that can be recycled for all of your rounds.

- Please make sure to pay particular attention to weighing, impacting, and signposting here because a messy case debate isn't fun for anyone!

- I prefer if you cross-apply certain arguments after explaining why they're relevant in a new part of the flow rather than repeating the same things over and over again.

- I'm fine with basically any CPs but please don't be annoying about small things like funding, time frame, consultation, etc because all that does is take away from the quality of the debate (unless it's a legitimate issue, of course). Also, PICs are cool. :)

Theory/Topicality:

- I ran and debated all kinds of theory and topicality so I'm familiar with most arguments and I think that they can definitely be useful in round.

- I don't think that trying to win on frivolous theory is a good debate strategy, especially if you're running it against a team that's inexperienced in answering it. However, if both teams like debating with lots of shells and are comfortable answering them, then that works for me too!

- I default to competing interpretations, but if you want me to vote on reasonability please give me a clear definition of what that means and reason to do so.

- I will vote on potential abuse if the argument is articulated well but I prefer if there's proven abuse.

- I don't have a preference for either fairness or education; it really just depends on which one is argued better.

- If you want me to drop the debater and not the argument then you need to give me a strong reason to do so, otherwise I will default to dropping the argument.

- RVIs are fine, they just need to be articulated and argued well.

- Remember to weigh the theory and tell me how to evaluate it in relation to other arguments, whether that be compared to case, Ks, other theory, etc.

Kritiks:

- I didn't really read Ks when I was debating, but I've hit and listened to enough of them to know that most people don't really understand the literature that they're talking about. That being said, however, I'll evaluate them if they're read.

- If you use a K to exclude someone from the round, I will NOT hesitate to drop you.

- Performance-based Ks are fine, but I never read one myself and I've only ever hit one before.

- I really don't like K affs unless there's a really good reason for you to do so (which obviously needs to be articulated in the PMC).

- I'm probably not the best judge to read super confusing or high-level Ks on because I might get confused, but if you think you can explain them well, it should be fine!

Some parting thoughts, that were also taken from David's paradigm:

"Be a civil and respectful human being and we'll have a great debate.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you! I am more than happy to stall the round a little if talking through non-debate related things makes you more relaxed and able to compete at your best. If I have done something that you find problematic or has made the space harmful for anyone, please do not hesitate to either let me know or let the tournament know so that I can fix it for future rounds."

Please feel free to reach out to me via email (vidusheemishra@berkeley.edu), Facebook, etc. for anything at all! Debate was a huge part of my high school experience and I'm very familiar with the feeling of not knowing anyone on the circuit or having a coach to ask for help, so I'm more than happy to help you out in any way that I can! :)

*Small note about my judging history: I don't always vote aff but that's how my ballot ended up being at the SCU 2020 Invitational, so don't worry about that.

4/8/2022 Update: I haven't judged tech debate in a while so I'm not as used to it as I used to be, so take that as you will.

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.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

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

some random things about my judging methods:

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

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

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

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

- case debate:

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

- theory:

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

rvis are cool.

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

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

- kritiks:

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

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

good luck!

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.

I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and explain your arguments thoroughly.

PUBLIC FORUM:

I have some public forum experience, but not that much. Make sure you clearly tell me what your impacts are, otherwise i probably won't value your argument much even if you win on clash. Don't just vomit out a card, be sure to tell me WHAT the card means, what the logic is behind it, and how it links up with the rest of your argument.

PARLI:

I don't much parli judging experience but have judged LD and Public Forum for a few years. I'm pretty flow, so if new arguments are made in rebuttal i won't consider it. I can handle a bit of spreading as long as it's articulate. I want to hear arguments with clear WARRANTS AND IMPACTS. If you do not provide impacts I won't consider the argument valid. Meme cases are fine, if there is enough warranting. I love unique arguments. I value POIs relatively highly so if you provide a really fire one I'll be more inclined to vote for you. Tag-teaming is chill.

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

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

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

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

I appreciate civility, but being too nice is awkward. 

Good luck!

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!

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Background

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

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

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

Judging Style

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

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

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

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

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

Speed / Speaking / Signposting

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

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

Signposting is preferred, but not critical.

Debater Expectations

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

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

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

I am a parent of a student at Bishop O'Dowd.

This is my second year judging high school debate. I am not a fan of frivolous theory or kritik debate. Just a little about me, I am the Chief Administrative Officer for the Cardiovascular Research Institute at UCSF. I did my undergrad studies at UCLA.

Please speak clearly, explain all terms, be mindful of time, and be respectful of others.

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

Few things that influence my judging :

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

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

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

I'm a parent judge with about two years of experience. With a PhD in English and a career at a policy institute (PPIC), I'm very familiar with analyzing arguments, weighing evidence, and maintaining an objective outlook. I will flow the debate, and I won't insert my own views or knowledge into my decisions.

I'm not that swayed by piles of statistics, especially if you can't explain why they matter. I'll consider any well articulated argument or point of view, but do your best to be sensitive -- and please don't weaponize the suffering of others to make a point. Trigger warnings are a good habit.

Peeves: spreading, unexplained jargon, and unnecessary use of theory. Also ploys like, "Their argument is clearly absurd!" Don't tell me something is wrong -- show me.

Be clear, courteous, and have fun!

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.

I debated parli for around two years for Los Altos. I'm at ucla now.

Speed: Don't worry about being too fast; you just need to be clear and coherent. I have attention span issues, so if you're going too slow, I might not understand your argument completely.

Organization: I prefer off-time road maps; I think they're a good way of helping both the judge and the debaters visualize the direction of cases.

Arguments: Any seemingly problematic arguments will be noted. These include any of the "-isms." I don't like Ks. Not because they're bad or anything, I just don't know what they are. :) Don't run Ks. I don't know them.

Things I value in the round: clarity, volume, and lots of sources. If you provide no warrants for a central claim you make, I won't write it in my flow and you'll risk low speaker points. If you have many warrants for many claims, high speaker points. Try not to be combative or patronizing with your opponents. Don't have your camera on and laugh/make faces during speeches; it's kind of distracting and a lil rude. Debate is fun, and the goal isn't solely to win but to be a better debater. If I see sportsmanship, I'll think about it when deciding speaker points.

treat me like a lay judge

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.

Updated September 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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