I have been judging pf for the last 6 years.

Make sure your arguments are well thought out and extended properly for me to vote on them.

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

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

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

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

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

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

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

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

Parent Judge, for about 2 years

K's/ Theory

• Not too familiar with either, but if you run them be very clear

No Spreading, If I can't understand you, I cannot judge you

I judge with a blank slate, explain and develop all points

Signpost Please

Be respectful and have fun :)

disclaimers for preffing:

- i competed four years at archbishop mitty high school, policy for two years and parli for two years after, won chssa parli 2021. went to nats in congress three years in a row, was a semifinalist sophomore year and quarterfinalist senior year.

- i'm cool with the common k's (cap, neolib, security, etc), as a debater i have experience with running antiblackness, orientalism and queer k's. im good with anything, but im probably not familiar with ur niche lit base so just explain it well. if you're a super high level k or theory debater however, consider preffing me low lol

- spread if you want, i'll say slow or clear if i need to

my judging preferences:

1. if u cause harm in the debate space ill drop u immediately

2. tech over truth unless you don't warrant

3. organize uq/l/il/mpx and signpost

4. impact everything out or it doesn't matter; if i'm judging parli, everything should be centered around your weighing mechanism

5. im down for friv theory, unless u make the debate completely inaccessible to your opponents EDIT: if you are going to run theory, please for the love of god, run it well. don’t give me shitty theory shells to evaluate instead of substantive k/case debate. you may not suffer but i do

6. everyone gets a 29, make an atla/aot/jjk/shadow and bone reference and i'll give you a 30. speaks end up being arbitrary and ableist/sexist anyways so just have fun

7. stick around for feedback, i'll always try to disclose. email me at nishita.belur02@gmail.com if you need anything else

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.

Brett Boelkens

Background

LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)

LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)

Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)

Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)

TLDR

-Put me (brettboelkens@gmail.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)

-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool

-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.

-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space

-Signpost please

-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.

-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.

-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be

-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool

-Write prep down on Zoom chat

-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview

-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded

-Quote I stole from Gomez:

I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.

-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something

-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”

-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.

Disadvantages

-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense

-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp

-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more

Counterplans

-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun

-Its probably best to functional and textual competition

-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato

-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate

-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to

Kritiks

-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me

-Ks should have specific links to the aff

-Links of omission aren’t a thing

-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery

Theory / T

-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.

- Current thoughts on common theory issues

-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable

-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's

-Condo good

-PICS good

-International fiat good

-Consult Process CP bad

-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations

-PIKS bad

-Word PIKS bad

-RVIs bad

-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on

-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful

CX Specific Notes

-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that

-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate

LD Specific Notes

-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.

-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments

-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified

-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please

-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR

-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge

-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.

-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I'm Sourav and I am a parent judge.

My preference is for debaters to focus more on the impact of their arguments and apply it to real world scenarios. Along the same line, i prefer debaters speak at a moderate pace and making sure the impact of their arguments sink in. Follow the same importance of impacts in your refutes. Finally, make sure that the arguments are structured end to end.

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

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

I'm parent judge and former high school policy debater, and won a few local tournaments during my senior year. I did not debate at the college level. I have some scattered past judging experience, both high school and college level, but most recently, my judging has been limited to several tournaments during 2021. I judged elimination rounds at three or four tournaments this year and have always voted with the majority.

My suggestions:

Be persuasive. Explain the voting proposition and why your side merits the vote. I generally vote based on overall persuasiveness of the presentation. Some arguments are accorded more weight than others, and you do not automatically win simply because your opponent drops an insignificant argument. Quality of arguments is far more important than quantity of arguments. I am unlikely to vote based on technicalities or procedural error.

Be logical: I am most persuaded by arguments that make sense and are consistent with your position overall. I'm prone to notice unexplained inconsistencies in arguments, although I like to think this will not affect my voting unless the inconsistencies are identified by the opponent. In most debates, there is merit to both positions. I am more inclined to be persuaded by debaters who recognize this and make a nuanced explanation of why their side is preferable rather than just trying to steamroll over the opposition.

Be creative: I am open to any arguments, and particularly appreciate an argument that I have not heard before. If your argument is rooted in debate theory, please explain the theory rather than just labeling it, and explain how it should inform the vote.

Be relevant: Tailor your arguments to the specific issues raised in the specific round. I find it frustrating when debaters make standard -- particularly disadvantage -- arguments without much effort to tie them to the specifics of the round or respond to specific issues raised by their opponents. If you want to use the same "millions will die" argument every round, that's fine, but please connect it well to the topic at hand.

Be on topic: I prefer debates that focus on the assigned topic. Although I will consider novel arguments, arguments that stray far off topic defeat the purpose of the debate. Debates about topicality also defeat the purpose of the debate -- so if you make a topicality argument, make it and move on. Along those lines, I'm all for a good creative counterplan, but not if it appears that the counterplan is simply an effort to reframe the topic or thwart the purposes of the debate. Counterplans that are similar to government plans with minor adjustments frustrate the purpose of the debate. I'm open to -- but not a huge fan of -- and not sure I always understand kritiks, so proceed with caution (or very clear explanation) if you go there.

Be organized; I track every argument in writing. If I can't follow your presentation, I'll have difficulty tracking your argument. I don't object to spreading, but please be clear so that I can follow your presentation. If you're all over the place, or just ticking off lists as quickly as you can with no development of arguments, I will likely stop flowing. It is easier to follow presentations when arguments are clearly numbered or labeled, and the labels are used consistently throughout the debate. I have no objection to roadmaps and signposting, nor do I expect off-clock roadmaps. It is your argument to organize and present as you wish -- but do be organized.

Points of information/points of order: I'm generally indifferent to points of information. Make/respond to them or don't, as you deem appropriate. Good points of information can help clarify or focus the argument. Overdone, they're annoying and rarely helpful. You should have a good reason to interrupt someone's speech with a POI. If you have a good reason, by all means, go for it. But don't make a POI just for the sake of making a POI. A POI should be used to get information or clarification, not to usurp your opponent's platform. Regarding points of order, feel free to make them, but keep them brief and focused. I will take them under advisement. You don't need to make a POO about new arguments first raised in rebuttal.

Speed: A brisk rate of delivery is fine, but be reasonable. If you talk too fast, I will have difficulty tracking your arguments. Fewer, carefully chosen words that focus on important arguments are generally more persuasive than rapid-fire presentations that fail to highlight what is most important.

Be polite. Be respectful. Being witty, funny, or occasionally sarcastic is fine, even welcome, as long as it is not rude. Although presentation is not as important as the strength and substance of the argument, it is noted and much appreciated.

varsity high school parli with MVLA except now i'm in college on the other side of the country????

from Riley Shahar's paradigm: 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.

also september 2021 update: I last updated this like a year ago and it's kind of aggressive?? I am sorry. i think i wrote it initially for a novice tournament so idk. i know a lot of people who have better paradigms than i do (specifically vivek chudasama). i am in college now and currently do not have time/energy to write a good paradigm. :'(

*to sum up my main principles:* be nice, be ethical, have logical, organized, warranted arguments. and have fun!! wow! debate!!

On case, I guess:

1. Please, please, please have warrants. I will not buy an argument unless you give me reasons why it is true. That means having more than a precarious logic chain. I mean examples, statistics, warrants.

2. You must have a specific link story. You need to explicitly tell me how your plan does something and how that specifically causes your impacts. That is the whole point of having a resolution and a plan. Otherwise, there is nothing to vote on if I have no idea how your impacts happen. The case should be a story in itself to begin with - isolated arguments don't get you anywhere.

3. Rebuttals are meant to tell me why you win. Don't turn it into another constructive or spend the entire time responding to their case. Give me an overview and boil it down to the most important aspects of each case and the debate as a whole. Try to strike a good balance between broad and narrow analysis. Tell me why your warrants, impacts, etc. outweigh theirs and provide analysis on why you win. You should be telling me how I should evaluate the round. You need to clearly flag arguments in the rebuttal so I know what you're going for.

4. CPs: there have been too many debates I've seen where the CP gets way too messy. Be extremely clear on why I should prefer the CP over the plan, or on the aff, a reason why the CP is specifically bad. And please, for the love of god, don't try to make it competitive on funding. I will drop the CP if you do.

5. Take the POI. Or at least try to acknowledge it. Call the POO. I'll try to protect against new information anyways.

7. Run theory when the other team is being abusive. Be clear on all sections of the shell (signpost! this goes for everything else too. I can't vote on arguments if I don't know where they go on the flow). friv theory is kind of a vibe but usually kind of sort of wastes time. proceed at your own risk.

8. I am not much of a technical debater so if you run a k, just be *really clear* and *really organized*, and please try to keep your speed under control.

Other preferences:

I will judge the round based on the arguments you make and nothing else (except when something you say is blatantly false, oops).

I'll mostly dock speaks for being disrespectful. Good speaks come from making good arguments, not necessarily speaking eloquently.

Off time roadmaps should be short!! No "I will be covering my opponent's case and explaining why it is wrong, then going over my own case with this advantage, this advantage, and this advantage and expanding upon a few other arguments." just say "aff, neg." that's it. Or you could go with "(# of sheets) on, (# of sheets) off" format. And I don't need a whole speech before your actual speech thanking everyone who's there and how we're doing a such a great thing by debating today. I appreciate the sentiment, but I got it.

If you're going to ask about everyone's "readiness," just say "is everyone ready?"

Try to be relatively quiet during other people's speeches. (covid-19 update: mute yourselves)

I don't need to shake your hand. Sorry. But I still love and support you <3 Also I will not shake your hand because there is a pandemic and it is not physically possible over the internet. I will wave at you probably.

I am lay parent judge. I am good with progressive and critical arguments within right context.

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or your opposition has gone off topic. If you make this kind of argument, explain the your theory in plain English. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

A few quick notes

- Avoid jargon and spreading

- Signpost clearly

- Truth over tech

- Be respectful and polite

- Have fun

Quality of arguments. No intimidation tactics. As debate progresses want to see quality of counter arguments. Facts can be presented but not basis to win argument (more about logical flow and follow through). Talk at a pace that is understandable and short summary at the end always helps.

Hi, I am a parli debate judge

This is my first time judging so please be patient as i am trying to understand how this works.

Please avoid spreading and keep your points organized.

Hello debaters. Though I've had a few rounds of judging under my belt, I'm still very much a lay judge. Jargon will lose you the round.

Things I Don't Like:

Spreading, theory shells that rely heavily on structure, kritics, arguments that rely heavily on philosophical ideologies, assuming that I know what you're talking about (because chances are I don't!), being rude to your opponents, unclear speaking, monotone speaking.

I'm pretty tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean you can falsify information and get away with it. I don't vote on POOs or POIs unless something said in them was really abusive. No frivolous theory, if you run it, stick with it. Same goes for conditional CPs. Don't drop your arguments halfway through the round just because it's not working out.

Things I Do Like:

Well explained arguments -- not just in terms of logic, but explaining the argument in a way that the average, non-debate experienced person would understand. Be aggressive, have good clash, but don't overstep your boundary as opponents. I also like emphasis in speech and confidence. Crack a joke, lighten the mood. Nothing is worse than a tense, boring, hour-long debate that makes me want to yawn at the end. If you can golden turn in your last speech, I'm going to vote on it -- but this doesn't mean that you can let that argument slip through the cracks until the end of the round.

Give me an interesting round, but stick to the basics. You'll lose me with the complicated stuff. This paradigm was written by my daughter :)

I competed for 4 years in LD debate during high school at both a lay and circuit level, but predominantly in lay debate. I also competed in 2 years of collegiate NPDA parli, predominantly at a circuit level. I generally prefer a lay style of debate but can accommodate circuit type arguments and some speed. I am generally not fluent in many critical positions, though I understand how kritik structures work. You are welcome to run them but clarity is important as I won't necessarily understand the author's arguments unless well-explained.

Spread is a cancer on the body of debate which must be excised. If I can’t understand what you are saying, how can I vote for you?

If you run a lot of theory, you need to convince me why I should care - I am not an expert. The last time I took a debate class, you weren't born yet.

Skeptical of Kritik, but if you can persuasively tie to the actual topic, it could work with me.

I want to see engagement and clash more than anything else. This should not be two teams talking about two worlds. To win, you need to address what the other team is saying. This is a simple point, but sometimes overlooked. This happens most frequently when the negative team has a Kritik that they have clearly practised and polished. If you can't relate it persuasively to the actual topic and what your opponents are saying, it's not going to work no matter how smooth your canned speech is.

I strive to be a tabula rasa. If you tell me the moon is made of green cheese, it is, until the other team refutes it. However, the blatantly fabricated statistics in use by some teams are tiresome. Once you get into "pants on fire" territory, I am going to start docking speaker points even if I have to give you the win. FYI, for the team faced with the "pants on fire" argument, you have to point it out to me. It may not take a lot of evidence to refute an argument postualted without warrants, but you still have to call your opponents on it. If you don't, they win the point by default.

I am basically a "flay" judge, meaning I am a lay judge who attempts to keep a flow chart. If you help me by making your arguments easy to flow, you are more likely to win.

I'm a relatively lay judge that values truth over tech. I have experience in judging parli, and am pretty much new to PF and LD.

I majored in philosophy at UC Davis and am a autodidact with a love for languages, music, and knowledge in general.

I value well-reasoned arguments and logic over emotional appeal. I have a dislike of sophistry, but understand the value of being rhetorically competent, viz. how well you present your points, etc.

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.

As a parent judge, it would be helpful to me if debaters can adhere to the following:

1. Please speak slowly with clarity.

2. No spreading during the tournament.

3. Please do not run Ks.

4. Only run theory if necessary with explanation.

I competed in college parliamentary debate, and have 5 years coaching public forum debate in Beijing, Taipei, and now back in the United States. Under my tenure in Beijing, we won the NSDA China National Championship two years in a row.

I am a flow judge. I expect debaters to provide evidence for their arguments and responses, but if they do not, it is the responsibility of their opponents to highlight a lack of warrants.

I do not flow crossfire, so any significant information gained in crossfire should be brought up in later speeches.

I am focused on content over style, but do believe there is a necessity to communicate major issues clearly and convincingly when the debate is coming to a close.

I am okay with spreading, as long as the debaters are speaking clearly.

If the topic is complicated and less in news, it is OK to spend a few moments educating the audience/me (judge). If providing context helps you build foundation for your arguments, go for it.

Quickly listing your position/arguments during the debate a few times is a good strategy. Ability to list, at a high level, your arguments and what you have covered helps the judge and you. It also reflects a methodical approach on your part.

If you have limited number of arguments, it is OK. You can explain why your argument(s) have the weight and why your argument(s) matter more than the number of arguments that the other side may be making.

If you notice that the other team introduced a new argument late in the debate and/or cited a source, when sources are not to be given credit for (say, in late rounds), I would notice that too. You are free to point out. I would prefer that you make your point quickly, and move to discussing substance. Also, you are free to tell me what arguments "flow" and what do not. As I am listening, I am making up my mind and such suggestions form the speaker do not generally make a difference in how I perceive the debate.

Above everything else, I look for:

* how you assign weight to your arguments,

* how critically you think about the impact of both side

* do you acknowledge obvious weaknesses and weigh them against the benefits

* how well you address what your opponents bring up

Many times, I do not know immediately at the end of the round who the winner is going to be. I take notes aggressively during each round. I review my notes after the round, some times agonize, and then decide. Regardless, of when I make up my mind, I do not prefer to share the results immediately after the round with the teams.

Talk slowly

No more than 2 POO

Looking for argument with max net benefits.

Good luck.

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

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

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: 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. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

Please do not be late. Do not speak too quickly, be as coherent and clear as possible.

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

- Sign post.

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

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

Hello! My name is pronounced Hiwad (HUH-wahd). My background is in Parli Debate, where I competed for 1 year each at the high school/college levels and I now coach.

I weigh Education and Organization heavily. I enjoy when the second constructive speeches add new information to the round.

On Speed, I prefer when debaters are strategic and quickly go through important points and slow down for arguments you want to emphasize for me/your opponents. I do not prefer spreading as it is usually tough to flow; if you do, I welcome the opposing team to call “slow” in chat or aloud if needed.

I reward Theory when it is carefully and thoughtfully run, but not when it amounts to filling time. It is okay to run Theory and not collapse to it in the end, it is just like any other argument and only a priori if you argue that it is.

For kritiks, be prepared to send your opponents the main text upon request: Role of the Ballot and the Alternative. I find round-specific, as opposed to canned, kritiks to be the most compelling, effective, and educational. I have limited exposure to aff kritiks, FYI.

Provide quick off-time roadmaps. Always weigh your impacts. Don’t hesitate to use POIs and POOs. When you collapse to the argument you want me to vote on, please do so clearly and ideally more than once.

Good luck and have fun!

Logic-
When Judging debates and presentations, my number one criteria is logic. I appreciate art, but I prefer logic driven arguments over well-delivered ones. If your points make reasonable and logical sense, I will be inclined to side with you. To me, content and reason matter the most during a debate. Regardless of how eloquent you are, if your logic and reasoning do not flow well, I will be hard pressed to vote for your side.

Evidence-
I find it a kind of joy to be able to examine the evidence presented by both sides of a debate. The integrity and quality of the evidence both come into consideration when I cast my vote, so please be honest and thorough with your evidence. Truthful and honest arguments from both sides will make the debate more enjoyable for all parties.

Signposting-
Without being excessive, please do signpost whenever possible. When done effectively it often helps me to track your arguments, thus making it easier to see and understand the reasoning behind your points.

Have Fun!-
Prepare, but also relax and have fun! Take this as a great opportunity to work on some skills that will be useful in your life no matter what you do and be gracious!

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

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

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

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

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

Pace of your speech matters to me so I can follow you thoroughly and apply the standard criteria below in making a decision. You can always check in with me during the event. Laying out the standard criteria I apply in decision making.

What I consider primarily to make my decision

• Strength of arguments

• Claims, reasons, and supporting evidence

• Refutation of opponent’s arguments

Secondary considerations in case primary considerations are turning into a tie

• Presentation skills or style

• Pronunciation, accent, or reading fluency

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

What I prefer:

-TYPE OUT PLANS IN CHAT (counterplans and alts too)

CLEAR STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION IS A MUST! Give me any type of roadmap and FOLLOW it so I can flow.

-All of your impacts should have relatable explanation; ensure that your impacts are relatable to your judge and audience.

-Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

-Clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view and judge the round).

-Plans and counterplans are great, but if you're using mandates, I prefer ones that have been done before (in the news, or have at least been proposed) instead of some random plan that you think is good.

-Round Etiquette: I will call you out and stop your speech if you go beyond 10 seconds past your allotted time and speaking over your time will of course lower your points. Be mindful of rudeness towards other debaters as well as to your judge.

-Style: I like clear speaking, good reasoning, and good logic. I especially love when debaters show more animation in their voices, but nothing too over the top is necessary.

What I don't like:

-FILLER WORDS/pausing your speech to make a side comment (verbally checking the time, clearly reading communication from your partner non-discreetly, the list truly goes on) will absolutely detract me away from flowing your speech

-Pacing- I am fine with however fast you wish to speak, I will be able to flow. However, if your opponent asks you to slow down, then listen and slow down- be accessible.

-Dropped arguments

-New arguments in rebuttals- even if your opponent does not call you out, I do not like them and will notice.

Hello,

My name is David Kleiner and this is my first year of judging.

- Weighing is less important to me, usually

- I favor arguments backed up by numbers and sources

- I'm not well-versed in theory so cases are preferred

- Please speak relatively slowly and clearly

Best of luck!

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

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

Need to Know:

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

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

Spreading:

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

Speaker Points:

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

I expect the Debaters to enunciate clearly and straight to the point without beating around the Bush. Be respectful to other opponents.

Please speak at a normal pace

No Theory or Kritiks

Please explain everything

Please Signpost

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

I am a parent judge.

I will drop you if you spread or run theory. I cannot evaluate circuit LD.

Signpost so I know where you are on the flow. Make sure to impact your arguments well.

Be respectful and courteous to your opponent.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

TLDR: Your round! Run whatever framework you want and make my job easy.

I am a graduate student studying Communication Studies at CSULB, where I also teach public speaking as part of the program. I have been coaching speech and debate at Palos Verdes high school since 2020 and at El Camino College since 2023, where I also competed for 2 years in parli, impromptu & extemp, DI & POI, and IPDA.

Communication: Pass notes or talk to your partner it's up to you, just don't be disruptive. I'll flow whatever is said but don't egregiously speak while it's your partner's turn.

Impacts: Please have impacts. Tell me why the thing is bad don't just say it's bad and don't elaborate.

Speed: I've gotten worse with speed over the years but generally I don't mind it. I might clear you if you're unclear.

Kritiks: Mostly I include this section because I'm just waiting for the day that someone runs a K in front of me at a high school tournament. It happened once and it was so fun. Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear framework for evaluation, a K without framework is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I ran anthro a lot when I was debating and I love a fun cap K. I'm not an expert on any given advocacy, treat me like a lay judge who happens to understand framework and theory.

Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as it's properly structured (interpretation violation standards voters). If I vote on T, usually it's on articulated abuse. I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory.

RVIS: RVIs are fine when they are justified (your opponent is egregiously racist/misgendering/queerphobic/problematic or they run 7 blipped theory shells and kick all of them). I have never voted on an RVI, but I could. Usually, I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt or work it out on the flow, but if you gotta check someone you gotta check someone.

Signposting: Use taglines and tell me where you are on the flow "they say this, we say this" "judge go to advantage 1 and look at their solvency"

Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but ensure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

Hello

1) Talk slow so I can understand

2) Not more than 2 POO

3) Looking for arguments with maximum net benefits

4) Pls put the camera on

Good Luck

Hi, I'm S. Menon, a parent judge from Washington High School.

A good debater needs to ensure that the topic is properly introduced, with sufficient background information and useful definitions.

I would want a convincing case with:

- An approach to the debate in the context of a wider, real world discussion.

- Proper use of evidence to make a well-structured, clear argument

- Intellectual sophistication (sophisticated ideas/arguments NOT sophisticated words)

- Persuasiveness, passion and animation (as opposed to aggression)

- Relevant questions to opposition

- Addressing the weaknesses in the opposition's arguments with evidence

- Response to all arguments and clear refutations

- Intellectual flexibility to respond to different lines of argument instead of continual re-emphasis of one point

- Appropriate body language

- Volume and diction; do not talk too softly or too fast

- Courtesy and politeness to the other side

What I do not enjoy and appreciate in a debate are....

- Aggression or bullying (Passion and animation are good. Aggression not so much).

- Unnecessarily large words; these do not prove intellectual sophistication and instead complicate the case

- Do not get so stuck arguing about the word choices of your opponent, that focus shifts away from arguments/evidence.

- Unnecessary use of POI's in the middle of the speech; use when necessary and only necessary. They distract not only your opponents but also the judge's train of thoughts.

- I do not like to hear statements that start with words like "We will win this debate because...", "Our argument is better because" etc.

I am a lay judge, so I would appreciate it if the debaters used as little theory as possible. I will accept theory if I deem it necessary and it is clearly explained to me.

Background

My name is Rishabh Meswani, a former high school debater, and a UC Berkeley alum.

*Generally prefer less theory type debate*

Kritks: I am most likely not going to vote on Kritiks. I understand how they work, and you are free to run one, but I would much prefer a debate focused on the topic, using evidence, and reasoning. You would have to be extremely convincing to win on a Kritik.

Speaking: Speed is fine, but be reasonable. It is in your best interest if I am able to understand and write down all your arguments properly.

Other than that, off-time roadmaps are great, focus on terminalizing impacts, have clear and powerful voter issues, utilize evidence, and be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to some great debates :)

Let me know if you have any questions - you can reach me at rishabh@fremontdebateacademy.org.

I'm also the CEO & Co-Founder of a non-profit called Fremont Debate Academy, and have been running it with my team for the past 7 years.
Here is a quick description of the non-profit:

Fremont Debate Academy (FDA) is an international 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to create a debate & civics program in every school and every district across the world. Over the past ~7 years, our team of over 200+ has impacted ~5000 students, has programs scheduled in 19 states & 8 countries for this fall, and is training teachers from Teach For America and Broward County (Florida)! Our volunteer team has aggregated 20,000+ volunteer hours, and FDA is a certifying organization for the Presidential Volunteer Service Award (PVSA).

If you're interested in a leadership opportunity as a high schooler or college student, please reach out! Would love to discuss more or answer any questions.

My name is Leo Mutarelli, and I am a former HS Parliamentary Debater.

I do not believe I have any particular judging preferences which would strike you as abnormal; however, I'll briefly go over some of my preferences.

Fact Checking: I did Parli for 4 years and I understand Parliamentary debaters can often times have a unique relationship with the truth. With that being said, I will not generally fact check unless a piece of information becomes so important that the result of the entire debate is contingent on the veracity of the fact.

Theory: I am perfectly fine with theory arguments; however, I have a general dislike for arguments that seem pre-baked.

Spreading: I cannot state in strong enough professional terms how much I despise spreading. Do with that information what you will.

Speed: I understand that many of you will have a lot to get through, and I have no problem with you talking fast in order to do so.

Disclosures: Provided the tournament does not have any specific regulations barring judges from disclosing, I am happy to disclose.

This list is by no means an exhaustive list of all my preferences, and if you have questions regarding my preferences, I am happy to discuss them with you once both teams are in the round.

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

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

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

Other

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

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

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

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

You don't have to have your camera on.

I am a parent judge who started in 2019. I have judged mostly parli bc that is my child's format, but I have been roped into LD and PoFo, so I have familiarity with those events as well. I am most comfortable judging parli. I do my best to understand and properly flow debaters’ arguments. I want to give everyone a fair chance in debate, based on the merit of their arguments and the delivery to me. I have a few requests and guidelines for you, as debaters.

Content

truth>tech

I don't really buy the whole If You Give a Mouse a Cookie string of events, like offering AP classes in HS will lead college TAs to all end their lives. (not being disrespectful or flippant regarding suicide - this is an actual argument I have heard). I have heard so many prepackaged arguments about the most benign policy leading to mass poverty, poverty is cyclical, it takes seven years off your life, etc. If it is something that a reasonable person could see would lead to everyone falling into abject poverty, I would buy it, but I don't buy the overterminalizing. Funding playgrounds will not lead to nuclear war. Adding Finland and Sweden to NATO will not lead to extinction of humanity. (One really good, intelligent debater who was in the unfortunate circumstance of finding herself on the Opp side of an Aff skewed res in octos or quarters had to actually resort to that as a last ditch effort, and while I appreciate the endeavor, I could not buy it.)

Theory

Please don't be theory-happy. Use it only if other side has made an egregiously irrelevant or extratopical argument or interpretation. I feel like teams have gotten all too eager to use this and of all the theory shells that have been run by me, I have not found a single one compelling.

Kritiks

Big risk in front of lay judge - I don’t expect that you’d try it in front of me. am not smart enough to understand these. If you choose to read one, I'll try to understand it, but you are likely wasting your time (and may fry my lay judge brain!). From what I see, people spend a lot of time working on these and just waiting for a time to bust them out rather than actually putting work into a good debate. But go for it if you feel like it.

Lying

Please don’t lie or fabricate evidence. It’s better to lose a round for a lack of evidence than to lie your way to victory. The whole point of debate is to be educational to both sides of the argument and lying voids that altogether. Lying is cheating. It can get you in trouble. If I catch you lying, I will take appropriate action. Without lying, debate is much more enjoyable and fair for all parties.

Signposting

Please signpost! Since I am new and rather inexperienced at flowing, signposting is very useful. Signposting allows me to be more organized. If you do so, I will be able to judge your debate more fairly, with more understanding of each argument.

Format

Please be clear with every aspect of your arguments, from links and impacts to delivery. This helps me understand and judge the round properly.

I understand that non-speaking partners may need to support speakers when it is not the non-speaker's turn, but I find too many interruptions, constant and audible feeding of content, and taking over for the speaker to be irritating, distraction, and signs of poor preparation and lack of professionalism. At best, I will not flow or consider any content presented by team member when it is not their turn and at worst, I may dock you for it. If you must provide your speaking partner with your thoughts, please try to do so quietly, unintrusively, and if possible, non-verbally.

My Style

I take judging seriously, but am not power trippy. I am pretty relaxed and understand that you have put hard work into this tournament and into this round and have gotten up early to do it. I appreciate that. I think it's great that young people are doing this and you have my respect and admiration. I understand that it takes guts, even for more experienced or less shy debaters. If you are new, I want to encourage you, so please do your best, but if you are struggling, I will not look down on you. Use these tournaments, especially when I am your judge, as learning opportunities to work on shedding inhibitions and becoming a stronger debater.

I write A LOT. I try to get down every word a speaker says, and thank goodness, because I have had to use my copious notes to decide whether an argument or stat was brought up previously when an opponent claims it was not! Since I am scribing away, I may not look up at you much or make eye contact. If I don't return your eye contact, please don't take it personally. I encourage you to look at the judge and at your opponents and audience since this is what is intended for a real life application of debate, such as in an actual parliamentary, political, or courtroom setting. Especially for those who are more shy or new, please take advantage of this smaller and perhaps less intimidating setting to practice making meaningful eye contact to help you in the future.

If I look at my phone during a round, I am not texting or playing 2048, as I most likely am every minute between rounds ;-) I am checking exact wording of a res, time, or something regarding the content. I take my judging duties very seriously and am always mentally present during rounds!

Other Notes

I appreciate you putting your time and energy into debate. I want to do my best as a judge to make it fair and enjoyable.

Please Don't:

Interrupt others

Run racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments

Be overly invasive or picky with POIs (one novice debater used one in her first tournament to question the speaker about his discrepant use of 72% and 74% when referring multiple times to what portion of the US's cobalt imports come from China - c'mon. In this case it didn't warrant a POI.)

Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand

Be a jerk to your opponents, even (or especially) if they are struggling and especially if you are a stronger team/debater or older or more experienced. I appreciate that it takes guts to get up there and speak. If you snicker or smirk with your teammate or send (zoom) or write (in person) each other rude messages about the other team and share derisory laughs, I will go exothermic. I will let your coach, your school, and tournament directors know.

Please Do:

Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate

Feel free to remove your mask if tournament rules allow it

Be respectful

Have fun and not be overly aggressive

Thank your opponents

Be ready on time for the debate

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

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

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

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

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

· Being aggressive is fine but be respectful

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

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

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

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

Have fun, it's your debate.

Ground Rules:

1. Specify the amount of time each speaker will have to speak.
2. Explain the proper decorum that participants are expected to follow, such as speaking one at a time and refraining from interrupting other speakers.
3. Clarify the process for making points of information and asking questions.
4. Outline the procedure for challenging a speaker's argument.
5. State any other relevant rules or guidelines that the participants need to be aware of.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Will be scoring the debate, such as by taking into account the quality of arguments, delivery, and research
2. and aspects of the debate such as organization, persuasiveness, and evidence.

I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Spreading will not help

Please keep your own time; off time roadmaps and sign posting preferred for clear and logical flow

Overly technical, jargon filled, incendiary comments are not helpful

Clearly state standard, contentions, evidence and make strong tie to impacts; and clearly concisely state voting issues in final statement.

Please keep points of information brief (15 seconds or less) and frame as concise statement, or a pointed question.

For parliamentary debate, the guidance from http://debate.uvm.edu/meanyparli.html is helpful:

"Good parliamentary debaters speak at a rate of speech comprehensible to the layperson untrained in debate. Physical and vocal delivery, humor, passion and persuasiveness are important elements of parliamentary debating. A parliamentary debater should maintain eye contact with the audience and develop a speaking style that is fluent and expressive.

Parliamentary debaters do not read written speeches, briefs, or evidence. Instead, parliamentary debaters speak from a few notes that record the arguments that other speakers have made in the debate and outline their own main points. Each of these points should be signposted, explained, supported by relevant facts and examples, and given impact."

I look forward to volunteering as a debate judge for the first time. I enjoy good articulation, and look for well informed, logically sound arguments on either side of a motion. Ability to articulate an opponents point of view is not just a debate skill -- I believe it is a fundamental intellectual skill, and the foundations of a thinking society.

As part of my professional career I delve into statistics -- so I watch out for common gotchas in statistical arguments.

I expect my judging assignments to be wonderful learning opportunities about topics of relevance, and about how you all think about them.

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

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

Kriti Sharma

- Presentation High School - Class of 2015 - 3 years of LD Debate, 4 years of Speech

- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Class of 2019 - 2 years of Parli, LD, and Speech (Interp)

- I use they/them pronouns!

Things I Like
- Environmental & Systemic Impacts
- Plan-specific links, disads, and CPs
- Impact calculus that isn't just about magnitude
- Clever CX
- Clear roadmaps
- Good speaks

Things I Dislike
- Accidental racism, sexism, etc. that isn't corrected with an appropriate apology
- Men talking over female debaters
- Climate Change Denial
- Affs that aren't topical
- ASPEC/OSPEC
- Avoiding clash in the debate
- Both debaters speaking during the same speech outside of prompting

Things That Will Cause You To Automatically Lose
- Any kind of harassment or intentional 'isms'
- Misgendering someone repeatedly
- Referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegals"
- Clipping cards, manufacturing evidence, or otherwise cheating

Evidence

Cards should be used as logical support for your contentions. I especially respect empirical evidence and real-world examples. Evidence means nothing until you link it to your case and the resolution. Explain why the evidence brought up matters. For me, content is what counts. I am more likely to weigh evidence if the content is thoroughly covered and does have a fair impact in the round.

Topicality

If you run T, do it right. T is a question of "is the aff topical." Break it down. Read cards on it. Do not use T as a time skew. If you choose to run T, make sure that you have a version of the aff that is topical.

CP/DA

I will vote on these if they are convincing and if legitimate and compelling evidence is used and explained to back up the argument. Simply make sure that they are actually competitive against the aff, and tell me why I should vote on it. As for the aff side, please explain why I should vote accordingly with your own evidence and reasoning.

Kritik

If you use K, explain it as clearly as possible since K should never be used to make yourself, as a debater, sound more like a genius or to inflate your own ego; nor should it be used to force your opponent to respond to it even if it isn't topical (aka abusive argumentation).

Theory

If run and explained well, I will weigh it in the round. "Reject the argument, not the team" is generally sufficient, but I am familiar with some other theory if you decide to use it. That being said, still explain the theory as well as the reason why the theory argument applies; do not just name drop it or leave it underdeveloped.

Framework (Value and Value Criterion)

I love framework debate. Framework is fundamental in high school LD Debate, so while you read each contention, I expect you to outline a clear connections back to your value criterion as well as back to your value (like a link chain). Contentions should contain smaller arguments for why your V/VC is the most ideal/most pertinent/most important etc. Make your lines of reasoning explicit. I may have an idea as to where you're going with your thoughts, but I can't write down these said ideas if you don't fully elaborate on them yourself.

Other Notes

- I'm generally okay with some speed/spreading, but I'm a stickler for clarity. If you're going too fast, I will say "Clear" so you know that you have to slow down in order for me to follow the flow.

- Follow your roadmaps. If you have to divert, be clear about where you are going on the flow. Please verbally emphasize and tag your arguments/evidence. Also, I definitely appreciate when debaters "write the flow for me"/crystallize/discuss voting issues towards the end of the round.

- I use a standard speaks system. Speak up and enunciate, but don't yell. Unless you need a lot of improvement, I wont give you less than 26. If I give you anywhere between 26-28.5, I'll explain what you need to improve. To get 29-30: As I'm also a speechie, I'll admit that I'm 5% lay judge at heart, so I definitely value confident, straightforward, eloquent, succinct, expressive delivery.

- I'm open to any argument as long as it is not offensive.

- As always, be respectful towards your opponent. That being said, I do enjoy clash/if you are clever during CX. However, try not to be too smug. Channel your inner Spock (for Trekkies - I mean TOS Spock).

- If you have any questions about your case, high school/college debate in general, or want to talk about college life, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me! :)

I am excited to serve as a judge. I have a strong background in critical thinking and logical analysis and very little experience as a debate judge. So I will follow nuanced arguments while also needing you to define all terms and clarify any debate terminology.

If any rules of engagement aren't followed, please call it out if it matters to you; it wouldn't be wise to assume I would catch it. This is true in general and specifically with respect to POOs.

I highly value clear enunciation, confidence, and professionalism in all interactions during the debate.

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

1. Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Kindly Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Please Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round. All the Best!

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Kritiques:

I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.

I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.

Alternatives:

Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.

Impacts:

I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.

Framework:

I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.

Evidence:

Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.

Theory:

I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.

Kritiques:

There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.

Speed:

Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

Hello Everyone! Find the event you are competing below and read the paradigm!

Congress:

I want to see proper etiquette in round and respect to every single Senator/Representative.

Argumentation, Creativity, and Presentation are my top 3 things I look for when I judge.

Argumentation: Your arguments need to make sense. You need to have a clear warrant/evidence and you need to show how your evidence links to your position.

Creativity: Be funny. Give me a funny intro or make me laugh and that's a huge bonus to your rank. Congress invitational rounds are very long and some speeches get blended together. Stand out. Puns are huge for me and originality is key. Arguments that are unique to the debate/not stock arguments, add a lot to the debate and I really appreciate it.

Presentation: Be presentable. Act like you want to be here. Effective gestures and facial expressions add a lot to what you are talking about.

Flow of Debate:

If you are speaking in the 5th or 6th cycle, try not to give constructive speeches but crystallization speeches/consolidation speeches. Giving constructive speeches late kind of ruins the flow of the debate.

Cross Exam:

I only mark off points if there is a lack of knowledge of content or presentation that isn't adequate. (example: stuttering during CX, giving a blank face during CX, or anything in between.)

As a competitor, you must ask questions. It helps the flow of the debate and really allows the judges to see the cross-examination aspect of Congress. When no one asks questions, it's extremely boring and really doesn't allow the judges to see if the competitor knows their stuff.

For PF/Policy/Parli

PLEASE add me to the chain @ttsudama@gmail.com (if rules allow)

- Please don't be late.

- Speak coherently and make sense.

- While I have experience in debate, I want you to speak slowly and calmly. Yelling doesn't make you right. If the volume does become too loud I will mark that off speaker points. If you are speaking too fast and become incoherent I will say "clear" one time as a reminder that you are either going too fast or because you are incoherent. After that, there are no more warnings and you have a higher chance of losing the debate because most likely I will have stopped flowing.

- I prefer case debate. I ask that there is no theory or kritiks. IF there is one ran, it must be well said// easy to understand. Run at your own risk.

-Think of me as a parent judge who flows. Please do not get too technical.

- I default to the voting framework. For example, if you say your Weighing Mechanism is Net benefits, I will choose whichever side provides the most amount of net benefits. Make sure to signpost, organization is key, and bouncing everywhere on the flow gets really confusing and leads to a dock on speaker points+ missed arguments on my flow.

IF you have any questions, email @ttsudama@gmail.com. Ask anything there is no such thing as a dumb question. Just ask honestly. Email is free.

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'm a parent judge. I've judged a few rounds, but very much a novice. Please speak at a speed at which I can understand well and keep your jargons to a minimum

My criteria for judging are:

- I'm persuaded by clear, organized arguments

- support with data and other evidences

- I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. If I see any of these, I will give you a loss.

Explain any complex debate terms/rules

Speak at a moderate pace

I am a parent judge.

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

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

General: In this hallowed arena of intellectual pursuit, I stand as both witness and arbiter, enraptured by the kaleidoscope of ideas that unfold before me. My temperament is one of open-minded curiosity, eager to be captivated by the rhetorical virtuosity of debaters. As we embark on this journey, let it be known that my canvas is vast, and my appreciation for the artistry of debate knows no bounds. The tapestry of our discourse, whether woven in the classical loom of policy arguments or painted with the avant-garde strokes of non-traditional paradigms, shall find a receptive audience in the chambers of my discerning consideration.

Philosophical Orientation: In the grand tapestry of dialectic elegance, my predilections sway towards the classical dance of well-versed policy arguments, a ballet of intellectual finesse. Yet, amidst the splendor of tradition, I am not impervious to the allure of the unconventional—a delicate sonnet that, when articulated with finesse, unfurls its petals in the garden of discourse.

Argumentation Preferences: As we embark on this rhetorical voyage, I implore debaters to cultivate their arguments like the most exquisite blooms in a celestial garden, each petal a testament to meticulous research and thoughtful construction. Quality, akin to the fragrance of rare blossoms, should linger in the air, transcending the mere quantity of argumentative foliage.

Speed and Clarity: In the ethereal dance of rhetoric, let our words be imbued with the grace of balletic movement, deliberate and enchanting. A crystal-clear stream of eloquence should meander through the hallowed groves of discourse, allowing the jewels of your ideas to shimmer without being lost in the turbulent currents of undue haste.

Framework and Impact Analysis: Construct for me an intellectual coliseum, the very stones of your framework hewn with precision. The impact analysis, a symphony of logical crescendos, should resonate through the vast amphitheater of reason, leaving an indelible mark upon the tapestry of my adjudication.

Role of the Ballot: Behold the ballot as a sacred relic, entrusted to the virtuoso whose arguments, like the most intricately woven tapestries, seamlessly integrate into the established framework. Persuade me that your narrative is a magnum opus, and I shall, with the quill of discernment, inscribe your triumph in the annals of intellectual history.

Flexibility and Adaptability: As we traverse the intellectual cosmos, be attuned to the muse of adaptability guiding our celestial journey. Surprise me with constellations of arguments, each a celestial brushstroke across the canvas of resolution, ensuring they coalesce into a harmonious constellation.

Decision-Making Criteria: In the atelier of debate, I shall sculpt my judgment with the precision of a master craftsman fashioning a grand opus. Let clarity be the luminescent palette illuminating your discourse, relevance the vivacious hues infusing vitality, and impactful evidence the iridescent brushstrokes that lend your argument a shimmering brilliance.

Experience and Background: With the mantle of experience draped across my shoulders, I wander the landscapes of debate as a seasoned wanderer. Yet, consider me not an omniscient sage, but a fellow traveler eager to be enraptured by the cadence of your discourse. Illuminate the trail with clarity, and I shall navigate its convolutions with discerning wonder.

Questions and Clarifications: Before the overture of our intellectual opera unfolds, seek enlightenment through queries. I am but a custodian of the labyrinth of expectations, ready to unravel its mysteries for the intrepid seeker.

May our discourse be a symphony of ideas, each note a resplendent crescendo echoing through the vast halls of intellectual pursuit.

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

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

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

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

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

Case:

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

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

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

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

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

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

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

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

I am a parent judge this means that I am very lay. Please speak clearly and slowly. No spreading. Be sure to signpost so I can flow the round better. I don't know too much about high school debate so please walk me through your points. When I weigh, I weigh not only on the quality of the evidence but also why it matters so be sure to show me why your evidence matters in the round.

No Theory and/or Kritiks. I do not know what they are and I will vote you down if you run them

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

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

Remember to respect one another and have fun!

This is my first high school tournament, so I am new to everything. Please don't speak fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you. Speak with clarity and do not use any jargon; if you do, explain what those words mean. Please explain EVERYTHING, so I understand what you are saying. Please provide well-developed arguments. I would be more impressed with two or three well-developed deep arguments over several superficial arguments. Make sure to be respectful. Thanks and have fun!

I'm a traditional judge.

4yrs LD Experience 2 Years Varsity

Speak Clearly and I would prefer if you don't SPREAD (I'll tank your speaks).

Clash a lot

Make sure to say why I should prefer your value over the opponent and to really emphasize this. The framework is very important when I take into account everything to vote for. The framework tells me what I should value most. If you have identical values, just say " I agree with my opponent." At the end of the round, I'll start weighing arguments based on how well they achieve their value. Or if you were to tell me to prefer prob > magnitude then I'll give priority to prob arguments in the round and give the round to the debater who showed him impacts are more likely to happen. Of course, I want solid justifications for this - you cant tell me to prefer prob over the magnitude and not explain the reasoning. I won't do the legwork for you

Make sure to weigh your impacts and extend them throughout the round. The argument has to appear in all your speeches and I won't take into account an argument that you dropped in the 1AR but bring back in the 2AR.

I am very a traditional judge, No k's, theories, and etc.

Edit: 2021: I haven't participated in LD Debate in about 2 years — will certainly be slightly rusty.

The following is written by my son but he just rephrased my opinions in a more understandable way

This is my 3rd year judging debate so not a lot of experience

State your sources, evidence, impacts, harms, etc in a clear and understandable way

Pretend I do not know anything about any topic, so explain everything!

Go slow and focus on getting your message out in a clear way

No K's or Theory, I do not understand them (sorry)

Be nice and polite, you are here to debate an educational round, not to dog fight with each other

Don't interrupt unless it is a clarification/POI

Overall have fun and enjoy the round!

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.