Hello debaters,

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

A couple of personal preferences for the debaters:

- Please signpost.

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

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

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

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

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

I have been involved with debate for a long time. Probably longer than you have been alive. I am not going to go into to much detail because my paradigm has changed as often as debate has through the decades. i have not been involved with debate on a regular basis for over 3 years and only judge a few tournaments a year. Just some random things.

1. I only judge a few debate tournaments a year my flow and my hearing won't be used to the super fast robotic delivery that top POLICY debaters are known for. Only judged a handful of Parli debatees, but haven't had any parli debaters that I couldn't keep up with yet.

2. I have voted for plans, counterplans, interpretations, FW, T, performances, alternatives, permutations, presumption, theory and even on a SPEC argument once or twice.

3. There is judge intervention in every round. Making the judge intervene so it benefits you is for you to figure out. My preference is to not debate the round for you, so make your arguments to write my ballot.

4. If you aren't winning the thesis of your argument, why does the line by line matter?

5. You don't need to win every argument to win a debate. If you try to win every arg, you probably need more coaching. I know some really good coaches that do private tutoring.

6. If my RFD doesn't make sense, it is probably because I was confused during the round. That is never fun and I like to have fun.

7. "We are winning the (insert argument here) which wins us the debate. Even if they win (insert opponents arg here)....." is probably a good way to win most judges ballots.

8. I am pretty obvious with my nonverbals. Sometimes even verbal. In very extreme situations I might stop a round.

9. I've been labeled a K hack recently. Not sure why and don't care really. Policy vs Policy rounds are so much easier to judge IMO.

Anything else, just ask.

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps a dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

==============================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=79197

she/her

email (feel free to use either one, i look at both):

isabellacastmor@gmail.com

icm2122@barnard.edu

hi i’m bella! i did four years of parliamentary debate at washington high school. i broke at a few tournaments (including TOC woohoo) and got some speaking awards but upfront i am not a huge fan of speaker points as a concept and i will rarely give you low speaker points unless a truly staggering circumstance arises (ex. you were bigoted, in some way overtly excluded your opponents from the round etc.). but honestly, i don't care at all about the way you speak the only thing i care about are your arguments. throw around some jokes, toss in a few swear words if u really want to. just have fun in the round!

i ran a lot of kritiks throughout my last two years in debate and i LOVE them!! if you run a kritik i will probably be happy (for more details on that, head over to the kritik section of my paradigm). that being said, im not a k hack so don’t expect to win on a badly run k you don’t know the lit on just because i like k’s. i think kritiks are most valuable when used as a way to gain access to a debate space that is often inaccessible (which is why i am less excited about super highbrow kritiks that not many people know the vocabulary for). additionally, they can just be super valuable for bringing non-topic-specific education to a debate space that usually prioritizes and benefits people who fit certain categories and benefit from the societal structures surrounding policymaking. tldr: love kritiks but know ur stuff and run it for the right reasons

i’m now a first-year student at barnard college with an intended major in history with a concentration either in money, markets, and labor or in colonialism and imperialism so if you have any college questions feel free to chat with me! if the other team is late im so down to just chat with y’all -- ask me about college applications, ask me about my classes, ask me about new york, ask me about debate, anything!

overall i have very few preferences and would like to put as little restrictions on you as a debater as possible. of course, if you are being overtly bigoted (being racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) i will have no qualms about dropping you immediately and your speaker points will reflect the contempt i hold for that kind of abusive behavior.

now onto the good stuff:

• first and foremost, please use content warnings! it’s just good practice and also makes me as a judge feel more at ease.

• on speed, i am ok with spreading if that is truly your heart’s desire. if it really becomes an issue or i think the other team is being disadvantaged, i will yell slow or clear. if the other team yells slow/clear and you do not accommodate them that will probably affect your speaker points. i understand having many points to go through but also try to manage your time well! if there are times in your speech where you can slow down, do so! it’s better to speak a little slower and use up your time than to speak incredibly fast with minutes to spare and nothing else to say (imo).

• call the point of order. i will do my absolute best to protect the flow but everyone makes mistakes! so please do so! don’t be gratuitous with it, though, unless the team you are challenging is being gratuitous with new arguments (it can just end up being such a barrier to someone’s speech when they are being barraged by poi’s or poo’s and as someone who has been on the receiving end of that many a time, it can get annoying, so just be considerate)

• off-time road maps are cool and i welcome them, they make things a lot easier.

• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost!! tell me exactly where u are on the flow throughout the round because it makes my life a little less complicated. im going to be flowing on a laptop for online tournaments and when i don’t know where ur at it becomes far more difficult for me to evaluate the flow at the end of the round. so….have mercy on me and signpost.

• PLEASE PUT TEXTS IN THE CHAT (online) PASS TEXTS (in person)!

• i will also try to be as tabula rasa as possible. i won’t inject my own personal biases into the round and won’t fill in for any gaps in your arguments unless it is absolutely necessary for me to have any sort of comprehension of the round. but point is: don’t have gaps in your argument in the first place so i can remain as non-interventionist as possible!

• if you are encountering arguments in the round that from a technical standpoint you have little experience with, please let me know in round and let me know how i should thus be evaluating your arguments and i will try to adopt that framework to the best of my ability. (ex, you are encountering a k and you have never responded to a kritik before, let me know! i would hate for a k, or any other argument, to be used to exclude people from a round)

• i default to net ben/util unless someone in the round tells me differently.

• tag teaming is fine

• please do not take more than 10-15 seconds to ask your POI. please.

• make it easy for me. tell me where to vote and why.

• if you have any questions at all about the contents of my paradigm please ask before the round and i will be happy to provide clarification!

• im also perfectly happy to be postrounded!

case debate:

• love it. when i was not running k’s, i stuck to good ol’ case debate. i think there is a lot of value to debating in this manner so i welcome you to have fun with it!

• i have a lot of fun evaluating tricky CP/plan texts that give you some unique offense but i also would not hold it against you if you went for generic arguments - it probably just means i won't be as excited by the round.

• links are probably the most important thing to me. if you don't have links i have no real reason to care about your impacts (which should be terminalized).

• also EXTEND. I won't make the extensions for you, it is up to the second speaker to extend points on the flow.

• also weighing is super cute. PLEASE do that. if u say the words magnitude, probability, and timeframe i will be very happy

• i default to probability in regards to impact calculus unless you tell me otherwise

kritiks:

• as previously stated, i LOVE kritiks and the kind of education they bring to the debate space!! please just be mindful of the reasons behind running your kritik. are you utilizing dense and inaccessible literature so u can get an easy win or are you trying to use the k to spread education and/or point out abusive behavior in pursuit of making debate more accessible/more socially conscious?

• most familiar with marx and other cap k's as that was my particular preference when i ran k’s in high school.

• please do not have generic links or i will cry and also not be so willing to vote on it.

• i am inclined to believe you should not run k's that hinge on making assumptions about the identity of your competitors.

• i would ask that you tread lightly when (or honestly just avoid?) running k’s that revolve around a group that you do not in any way belong to when you have another plausible way of winning the round without defending something morally reprehensible

• if you truly want to go for some really obscure philosophical stuff, explain it to me WELL ....if i hear the word hyperreality again with no explanation of what it means....i think larger philosophical discussions in the debate space through K’s can also end up being pretty exclusionary if the team running it does not explain it very well so just tread lightly and make sure you know your stuff if you’re going to run it.

• if you’re running a k on the aff please disclose to your opponents before the round starts. im also still trying to figure out how comfortable i feel with aff k’s so i may not be the best judge to run it in front of. that being said, if u run an aff k i will still evaluate it to the best of my ability but there should be a good reason you as the aff are not being topical.

theory

• is also cool. i honestly strayed away from theory a lot as a debater mostly because i did not use it as a strategic move but rather out of necessity when someone was obviously being abusive in the round. that being said, if u want to use theory as a strategic mechanism go for it.

• not a very big fan of frivolous theory especially when you have arguments you are able to go for. but if you do good work on your theory i will vote on it even if i don’t like the fact that you ran it.

• in regards to the above statement, if u are running theory on something that could have easily been answered in a ten-second poi.........eye roll. debate rounds, in my view, are meant to be educational and if y’all end up spending the entirety of the round arguing over some technicality that could have been clarified/resolved easily i will not only be a little annoyed but ill just be bored:(

• thus this is also a warning for teams who say “ill take it at the end” in regards to poi’s, maybe take some during your speech!

• ALL OF THIS BEING SAID…even with my dislike for friv t, if you are the team that is tasked with responding to it, PLEASE RESPOND TO IT. i won’t hack against friv t SO give me a counterinterp. give me responses on the standards, voters, all that jazz. or else i will literally have no choice but to vote for the friv t.

• open to hearing RVI’s

most importantly, have an educational debate and have fun! or else i'll be forced to tell a joke in the beginning of the round to lighten the mood and i am not that funny.

Welcome! I hope your soul is doing well! Debate is a beautiful thing! I'm so excited to hear all the cool things you come up with!

MOST IMPORTANT: this is high school debate (maybe middle school). your wins and losses do not matter. the only thing that matters is learning and enjoying yourself. so be RESPECTFUL. don't be exclusionary. learn as much as you can. have fun!!!!

TLDR: weigh, good strategy, run what you want, be inclusive, be kind

Me: 4 years of HS parli for Bishop O'Dowd (NPDI& stanford sems, TOC octos), on my 5th year of coaching/teaching (camp, MVLA, Menlo School), considered myself a flay (comfortable w parents and experienced judges) debater. Medium-flow judge? (I guess you can decide that for yourself)

Case (Contentions, a plan, a counter plan... not Kritiks or Theory): I love a good case debate. your links are prob the weakest part of your case, so bolster those a bunch. terminalize impacts (why do I care about the economy or climate change? prob bc they relate to death and dehumanization). Ok with tricky CPs if you know your opponents and know they can engage, be prepared for the theory debate. If you don't weigh your impacts (probability, timeframe, magnitude, reversibility) I will cry. and I'm an ugly crier

Theory (what you run to argue about the rules of debate, trying to stop debaters from being unfair in rounds... or to be silly) : i love theory debates. If you're running theory and the other team doesn't know what theory is, EXPLAIN IT!! I love when teams help other teams learn!

Ks (Kritiks!): I am in no way a K debater's dream judge, but I do love hearing them! I 200% have not read your lit, so EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. If your opponent is confused you better be answering a bunch of questions. try to make your K accessible.

Tricks: If a 5 year old can't understand your argument, I won't either. WTF is a grain of sand. I don't know. People have spent hours trying to explain this stuff to me and I STILL don't get it, so you prob won't be able to make it make sense in 8 mins. But good luck, you do you

Style: do whatever makes you most comfortable. stand up, sit down, do a little dance, take your shoes off. I don't care. My speaks are on strategic moves, fun arguments (I like some passion too). Strategy is VERY important and is probably the fastest way to my ballot- by the 2nd constructive, you should have a clear story/ start weighing. PLEASE signpost (number things, tell me when you're moving on to the next advantage). I don't go below 28 unless you intentionally spread someone out of the round or say something offensive. I <3 jokes

Speed: Medium speed is fine. Don't spread (when ppl talk SUPER fast), but you can talk pretty fast. If I can't understand you I will yell clear/slow and if you don't I will put my pen down/ stop typing. Go at a speed that makes the round accessible to everyone (even if that's slower than your ideal). If someone yells slow and you don't slow down I will be very annoyed. On that note- advocate for yourself! ask your opponents to slow down! I vote very quickly on justified speed theory (what you run when someone has spoken so quickly that you're shut out of the round).

Call the POO! (I will do my best to protect on my own but if it's sketchy I prefer you call it)

If you have debate anxiety or are stressed, LET ME KNOW! I've been there! the panic attacks? Nausea? want to cry? You're still an amazing debater (I was too!). we can spend a min or two before the round talking about why learning is most important, maybe doing some breathing, mini dance party if that will help you. You deserve to be in this round as much as anyone else does!

I AM SO GLAD YOU ARE HERE! I AM SO GLAD YOU DO DEBATE!! YOU'RE GONNA DO GREAT AND LEARN SO MUCH!!

in the words of the wonderful Riley Shahar -"If the round, or this space, is inaccessible for you for any reason at any point, please let me know and I will do whatever possible to help."

I tried my best to explain everything, but if you don't know one of the terms in this paradigm, shoot me an email! Parli jargon is weird and I know it can feel hard to ask what things mean! RFD? POI? RVI? MOI? TTYLXOX? what's with all these acronyms?!? (cc your partner or another adult and include a link to your favorite cat video)! aldenor@stanford.edu

Hello debaters,

My name is Leena (she/her) 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:

- I would appreciate 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, a debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun!

I was a varsity parliamentary debater for my last two years at Cleveland Humanities Magnet, in my senior year I was a team captain and after graduating in 2021, I was hired as the assistant debate coach.

Please signpost. Take at least two POI's, and do not badger the other team with POI's.

No tag teaming.

If you're giving me an off time roadmap, stick to it.

I will disclose after the round as long as I am allowed to, and if you have any questions about my RFD please feel free to ask, or ask for any advice. If I am not allowed to disclose, I will provide general feedback.

PICs are fine, just be prepared for a T-Shell, and if you're going to run either one of these, or God forbid a K please be clear and specific. Don't do it if you're unsure of how to do it.

Go as fast as you want, but I will ask you to slow down if I can't understand what you're saying. Please make sure your speech is structured and easy for me to flow. Also, if you run out of things to say, just end your speech. Don't talk in circles. It wastes my time and everyone else's time.

If it's an online tournament, please do your best to have your camera on and unmute to say "POI" when you have questions.

Be respectful. Use everyone's correct pronouns or just call the other team by Aff/Neg.

If I see you laughing during the opposition's speech, I will lower your speaking points. Being disrespectful to the other team pisses me off, and if your actions are egregious, it will cost you the ballot.

Anyway, have fun and do your best!

- 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!

I will be looking for clear thought process, balanced views and assertive speech with respect for others opinion.

Presentation skills and examples are desirable.

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.

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!

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

I am a first-year studying Comparative Literature and Molecular Environmental Biology @ UC Berkeley. My pronouns are they/them.

PARADIGM

TL;DR: don’t shake my hand. Would like offtime roadmap. Make sure your [link] story is clear. Weigh.

Grace periods don't exist.

If you are going to talk about East Asia, particularly China or South Korea, you'd better be representing the facts correctly. I have a unique amount of knowledge in that area.

POI:

I’d like it if you take at least one POI if asked, especially if it's framework-related. I'm usually not cognizant of protected time, so make sure you know the tournament rules!

Case & CP:

Have a clear plantext with adequate specification and solvency (I care about this a lot).

Fine with small affs.

If you’re running a CP, explain why it’s competitive. Perms are a test of competition so either explain to me clearly why the CP is competitive or why it isn’t. If the CP isn't competitive then you can make that your advocacy. I don’t mind multiple CP’s but explain to me why you can contradict yourself if you do. I love PIC’s (but it doesn’t mean I won’t vote on PIC bad theory if you run it well). Also, I like advantages to CPs.

Generally, I don't like PICs but I love the theory debate over them.

Make sure to ask CP status, always.

Defaults on Case:

Presumption flows to the side of least change.

Probability > magnitude.

LOR/PMR:

Weigh your impacts because I won’t do it for you. Don't make your weighing "this is better because it has highest magnitude". Give me more than that.

Collapsing is preferred, but not required. Even in a round where you're winning on everything, collapse please (it makes my job much easier). But, if the round gets messy (T, K, case, etc), collapsing is VERY necessary.

The LOR shouldn’t be the MO. I’ll flow only the aspects that make up a voter’s speech.

Tie everything to your weighing criterion.

I default to probability.

POO:

I will be deciding right then and there if it's new or not because it could seriously affect the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with friv--but it has to be explained really well for me to buy it. Make sure I see the actual merit in it. If you run something that could've been answered with a POI (or with online tournaments, flex time), I don't like it and I think you're honestly normalizing abuse in debate.

Thirty speaks is fine but (see below) I give 28-29 anyway.

Please have text ready. In online tournaments, put it in the chat.

Kritik

No K Aff unless the resolution absolutely begs for it.

I'm not amazing with speed so if you're going to run a k, run it "slowly". If your k can't be explained at a normal speaking speed, then you are being non-inclusive to not only me, but likely your opponents as well. Make sure to slow and clear when your opponents tell you to.

Not a fan of bad k's or running k's just to run k's. I can tell the difference and you also have to explain your k very well to me. I have a high threshold. However, I also understand that ks are often necessary as a survival strategy and some topics absolutely need to be critiqued. Unfortunately, I think that most people abuse the existence of the k.

Dislike postmodern ks.

Speaker Points:

I don't care about eye contact or stuttering or anything like that.

Miscellaneous:

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible but if you are blatantly incorrect, that flies out the window (this especially applies for topics I'm very knowledgeable in, e.g. China topics). However, it is impossible to be tabula rasa so perhaps it's more appropriate to say that my aim is to be objective.

Tagteaming is fine. I’ll only flow what you say.

I will vote against you if you have very problematic rhetoric during your speech. Don’t be hostile.

Provide a text if the team calls for it, preferably immediately. (Since we're living in the age of online tournaments, I expect you to be able to provide a text immediately in the chat. Always put your interps in the chat!)

I don’t care whether you stand or sit.

Don’t pay attention to any of my facial expressions. Sometimes I'm about to sneeze.

Don’t pay attention to my flowing. Just focus on your speech.

You can always ask me questions about the debate, your case, etc. after the round.

If you say or do anything problematic during the round, we will have a discussion with all parties present after the round is over.

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and do not run theory shells or kritiks.

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

TOC-Specific

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

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

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

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

Preferences

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

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

I evaluate the round systematically.

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

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

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

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

Some things that always make me happy

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

Defaults

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

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

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

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

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

T

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

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

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

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

K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks

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

Speaker Points

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

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

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

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

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

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

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

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

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

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

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

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

Misc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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