I am a brand, new judge. I have not judged a tournament before, but will likely judge IE. Delivery will be my main judging criterion.

Hi everyone! I’m Keira (she/her) and I debated on the high school circuit from 2019-2023. I love debate and all kinds of arguments (as long as they aren’t problematic), so feel free to run pretty much anything in front of me. If you ever have any questions feel free to reach out, I would love to discuss anything with you!

TL;DR - Make it as easy for me to vote for you as possible. Weighing is generally how you do that. I will evaluate basically anything that is read as long as it's not a blip and isn’t problematic. Generics are okay, I like creative arguments (but good well-warranted args outweigh regardless of whether they’re generic or not). Turns are wonderful so read lots!

Background on me - I’m a tech > truth judge but take that with a solid grain of salt because I probably have a higher bar for what counts as an ‘argument’ vs blips than other judges (I will vote on any argument as long as it's warranted). Sierra Maciorowski was the biggest influence on my personal debate paradigm. I was very much a NorCal debater who loved both tech and lay debate (so really read whatever you’re comfortable with in front of me) and I did dabble in east coast debate (and now APDA!) for a minute.

Round evaluation - the way I'll evaluate rounds is probably: layering --> weighing --> strength of link. If your rebuttal looks like this I will be very happy :)

Case - I love good case debates. Tech case debates were truly my cup of tea as a debater. Read strong uniqueness that clearly lines up with your links please! But if you’re going to have strong warranted claims anywhere please have them in the links because otherwise I cannot tell if your plan does anything. As for impact weighing: my default is magnitude > probability > timeframe but feel free to change my mind in round.

There are three parts to an argument - a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Please don’t read blips because I can’t vote on something that has no explanation or reason why it matters.

I'm not really a case framework person. I definitely won't penalize you for reading it but I also am not going to vote you up for it. The case framework debate usually doesn't end up being that important for me. I also don't like definitions debates (unless they're really abusive).

I will protect but call POOs because my memory isn’t great and my flows can get a bit messy. Jargon is all good, I will follow. PLEASE signpost so that I can stay organized and know what you're talking about.

Tech - Speed is all good with me but ONLY if your opponents are okay with it too. Do not use speed or tech to exclude others please. If you’re reading something really techy or critical I would really appreciate it if you would take lots of POIs.

Theory - I like theory. My defaults are competing interps > reasonability, drop the debater > drop the argument, and no RVIs but those are all easily changed by whatever happens in round (I LOVE reasonability with a good brightline). I’m down to vote on friv but I also have a much lower threshold for responses to friv.

Ks - Fun! I read many of these. I was particularly fond of K affs (doesn’t mean I won’t drop you to TUSFG but I'm also not a TUSFG hack). I can understand the gist of most arguments and I read a variety of lit bases but still assume I'm unfamiliar with most lit and explain it all. Take questions please because if your opponents can't understand your arguments they can't engage.

Some thoughts - I think K affs get perms but will 100% accept reasons why they don't. I don't like language PIKs (I just don't think I've ever seen one deployed well but feel free to disprove this). Links of omission aren't real links. I very much respect defending topical affs against K negs (its hard tho so good luck). Tricks are mean. I'll also vote on tricks. But not if they're blipped out.

Phil - I have never run phil or hit phil. If you want to try running it, please explain it well or I'm probably just going to end up disregarding it. Also make sure your opponent can engage with these arguments as well. And please don't read violent phil authors.

Speaks - I will usually give between 27-29.5 speaks, probably higher speaks for the winning team because I think speaker points should be a reflection of how well you convinced me your arguments are true or important.If you are offensive in any way or I find your arguments problematic, your speaks will drop. Just be kind please and have fun, that's what debate is all about :)

Don't be violent. Don't read problematic arguments. I will have no problem dropping you and tanking your speaks if you do. Debate is a space for us all to develop and grow together. If at any time you feel that you or anyone else is being excluded, please speak up and I will do my best to change that.

You’re all going to do amazing and I’m so excited to watch your round! If you have any questions feel free to ask at the beginning of the round or reach out by email.

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

Hey y’all I’m evan's partner. I competed mostly in parli, but I’m familiar with other debate and also did a good bit of speech.

PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. THEY'RE AMONG THE EASIEST WAY TO WIN ROUNDS IN FRONT OF ME.

tl;dr

• I debated for 5 years and am now a coach @MVLA

• Comfortable w most tech, don’t assume I know your lit base, eh on speed

• Truth > tech meaning you have to explain the truth of your argument (warrant- logical/phil/analytical/evidence) for me to buy them (I won’t fill it in)

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication. I need all three to consider an argument. (especially an impact/implication)

• Please weigh and layer your args/impacts, I’d hate to interfere and if I do, you likely won’t get the result you want

• Be sure to explicitly extend arguments (especially uniqueness and impacts), I can't extend them for you, and can't vote very well on arguments dropped.

• Be good, nice, kind people :)

• I'll give you 5-15 seconds grace AT MOST to finish the thought you're on, I don't flow after that.

For the full paradigm (it’s a mess so feel free to clarify):

My experience-- I competed in 70-75 odd tournaments in my career, mostly in Norcal Parli, was mostly a case debater but had a decent understanding of tech, ran some theory, etc etc. Qualled to TOC twice and broke as well, was a SVUDL Parli merchant. Got a pretty good amount of experience with all types of debating- norcal, socal, apda, etc.

General Paradigmatic Things:

1. When I say that I’m “truth over tech” it doesn’t mean I automatically intervene wherever-- it just means that you have to explain to me why your arguments are true for me to buy them. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant (can be empirical, analytical, logical reasoning, etc), and an impact/implication. Absent these aspects I find it hard to buy an argument. Without a warrant, idk why I should buy your argument. Absent an implication, even if the argument might be true, I still can't do anything with that argument.

2. I'm going to say this one more time: PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. Terminalizing impacts doesn't mean that everything ends in extinction. Rather, it means that you've proven that the impact is inherently a good/bad thing under the given framework for the round. Ie, death/dehum/Qol under a util/net ben FW. Read a proper link chain that takes the necessary steps to get from your links to your impacts, I find it hard to buy randomly detached impacts otherwise.

3. I do my very best to protect the flow but please call the POO

4. Y’all figure out how you want to handle POIs between yourselves and the other debaters in the round, my job is to evaluate the round that happens, not control your every move.

5. Please for the love of all things good -- be respectful to one another. This means doing your very human best to make the round accessible to your opponents and also treating everyone with fair respect.

6. As much as I love a good goofy argument, but exercise your good reason and restraint.

7. I default to presuming neg absent a counter-advocacy (otherwise I’ll presume aff). If you tell me to presume a different way, I’ll do that instead. I’d much rather vote on substance than presume, so please don't make me vote on presumption.

8. As stated earlier, I will give y'all a 5-15 second grace period after speech time to finish your thought, I will not flow any new arguments after speech time is up. I will stop you once you hit 30ish seconds over time because we need to move on.
9. Please signpost, and try to progress through the speech in a consistent order, if you lose me on the flow it will only hurt you.

Case Debate Stuff:

1. I am completely down for all forms of case debate. I will do my best to evaluate every round regardless if it's BP/APDA/Norcal/etc. resolution/case read by a team. At the end of the day, I'm here to evaluate the arguments and the round in front of me.

2. I love a good case debate. I was pretty much entirely a flowish case debater for most of my career. Please be mindful about what you’re reading, it’s very easy to slip into saying something problematic while trying to justify arguments under Net Ben/Util. Debate also unfortunately puts us in positions to argue tough topics and it’s our job to make sure we handle those as sensitively and respectfully as possible. Additionally, attempting to justify genocide, outright racism, or anything else of the kind is an autodrop.

3. Onto actual case stuff-- I default to weighing on Net Bens but I’m down for any other framework that y’all wanna try to run

4. Please extend your arguments yourself- I will not do this for you. When there are responses made to your arguments, make sure to engage with them and not just repeat what you said the first time around.

5. Clash is important. Weighing is also important. Try to use your rebuttal speeches to write my ballot for me in the ways that you see fit.

6. I am ALWAYS down for a good framework debate. That being said, it's on you to (1) Justify your framework (especially against your opponents' framework), (2) Explain what the implications of your arguments are under your framework (what are your impacts and why do they matter under your framework), (3) Probably is strategic to at least briefly explain why you're winning underboth frameworks (but that's ultimately up to you).

Theory

After much deliberation, I've decided that I'm probably not the judge to run random friv in front of. I will ultimately evaluate the flow, but I'll be incredibly skeptical at best with any friv t args, and I'll happily take any chance to not vote on it. Sorry to the theory debaters who got excited. As I get older I become increasingly open to hearing anything as long as it’s not problematic or exclusionary to any of the debaters in the round. The standard CI > Reasonability, etc. applies here too-- I don’t wanna intervene in the round if I don’t have to. Please read explicit layering claims for your standards and voters. I hate intervening and again, you’re probably gonna be unhappy about the way that I evaluate the round if you don’t tell me how to view the round. PLEASE BE MINDFUL ABOUT READING THINGS IN AN ACCESSIBLE MANNER AND NOT READING ANYTHING THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC OR EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY TO ANYONE WITHIN THE ROUND.

K

Pretty simple here: I’m super down for K debate, but don’t assume I am familiar with your lit base, I do my best to evaluate the flow alone. While evaluating the K I start at the framework and ROB layer before working my way to advocacy (and figuring out the link/impact debate). Don’t ever leave me to evaluate the K by myself. Just like any other type of argument, it’s YOUR job to tell me where, when, and how to vote. Please actually defend your K and engage in genuine clash with your opponent’s responses, just repeating what you said the first time gets me absolutely nowhere (note that you should still be extending, just don’t ONLY extend).

[silly rabbit] Trix [are for kids]

Uhhhh… Honestly, it depends on my mood-- if I’m feeling a little silly goofy, then I guess I might vote on it, and if I’m not in such a mood I won’t. I generally tend to have a higher threshold on tricks because they tend to be blippy, poorly warranted, and I trust that I’m generally capable of making decisions. This also goes for other presumption arguments. In short- run at your own risk.

IVIs ig

Read what you want. I’m personally not a fan of the extreme proliferation of IVIs that I’ve seen in my time and the often frivolous nature in which they tend to be read. That being said, when justified, I’ll vote on them. Please layer them, absent layering claims there’s nothing I can do for you here, and also implicate them.

Other stuff

1. Speaks: I default to 29.2 for the winning team and 28.4 for the other team. I’ll give out 30s if I see top tier debating :)

2. Please read trigger warnings when applicable. If you’re unsure whether something needs a trigger warning, please air on the side of caution.

!!! Please feel free to clarify or ask any further questions about my paradigm/view on debate before the round starts, I’m more than happy to answer and help you out.

Excited to judge your round and I hope you have a great round and great tournament :)

hi i'm artis(she/her)and i'm varsity parli debater at los altos high school! feel free to talk to me before or after round if you want more clarification about my paradigm/feedback (or if you just want to chit chat!!!)

in general:

don't purposely exclude or disrespect your opponents or read arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist etc. i will intervene/drop you. please read trigger and content warnings when necessary, if in doubt, add them.

i'm very expressive

jargon and speed is fine. i will ask you to slow/clear if necessary. please make the necessary adjustments to your pace if your opps ask. also, tag teaming is fine but i'll only flow what the designated speaker is saying.

i protect the flow, but please call your POO's anyways. also i'll flow up to 30 seconds overtime (provided there is no grace period) if it isn't called. but i'll stop writing after that

case

please signpost and give off time roadmaps, it makes it a lot easier for me to flow. collapsing isn't necessary but it is preferred. if nobody weighs/layers impacts i'll use my defaults: theory > K > case and probability > magnitude.

i'll listen to anything (weird CPS, plantexts, etc) as long as the arguments aren't problematic.

try and take at least 1 poi if your opponent asks multiple.

theory/K's/other tech stuff

have text ready, and put it in chat if it's asked for.

i strongly dislike friv T, i'm unlikely to vote on it unless it isn't refuted at all. again, don't use theory to skew your opponents out of the round. be clear and take POI's if your opponents are new to theory.

i've hit some K's but i'm not really that familiar with them, just be sure to articulate them well and take questions. if you are deviating from the type structure of K's please pause before transitioning or give clear tags.

i probably won't understand other tech stuff but feel free to run it if you're willing to explain in detail.

speaks

i'm not the biggest fan of speaker points and i'll give speaks starting from 28.5, any lower and i will let you know the reason why. the content of your speech >> the way you deliver it.

Hi! I’m Caroline, a varsity parli debater from MVLA in my fourth year of debate. I’m not super familiar with LD or PF, so you might consider me more of a lay judge for those events, but I’ll try my best. As a general note, always be polite, respectful, and have fun! If you have any questions about my paradigm (some of the jargon might not make sense yet and that’s totally okay!), feel free to ask me about it before the round. I look forward to judging your round!

For novice division rounds, I think the first two sections (Misc. & Case) will be most applicable – so I would recommend mostly just reading those sections. If you’re planning to run something more technical, the rest of my paradigm might be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Speed - I’m probably good with some speed, but if your opponents aren’t, don’t spread just to skew out your opponents – meanwhile, don’t be afraid to call slow on your opponents

• Layering - For techy rounds, tell me how to layer please + give legit reasons to why

• POO’s - I’ll try to protect the flow but please still call point of orders

• Speaks - I default 28 probably; I’m not basing your speaks off of how well you actually speak to present your arguments but off of strategic argumentation

Case

• Signpost as much as you can (this includes responses)

• Give warrants for your links. This doesn’t necessarily mean you should be citing sources; just provide logical analysis and evidence

• Weighing!! - please weigh your arguments – tell me why your arguments matter/why you win the round + terminalize your impacts

• Probably collapse

Theory

• I default competing interps > reasonability. This doesn’t mean I’ll only be receptive to that, but try to provide a solid reason if you’re going for reasonability

• Read RVIs probably – I pretty much always read an RVI in my rounds, but you should have a reason why RVIs are good or bad on either side (unless you’re not reading an RVI)

• Tell me how to layer the theory shell. I don’t really care if you say the exact words “a priori” but tell me why I should be evaluating it.

• Friv theory - I’m down to vote on it but my standards are somewhat high for this? Make sure you’re contesting the counterinterp and have warrants for why you access your voters!

Kritiks

• I’m probably not the best judge to evaluate your k but you’re absolutely free to go for it if you want (I’ve run a few ks but not very many; I’m generally a case debater)

• Don’t run kritiks just to skew out your opponents

• Don’t read ks you don’t understand (aka don’t just pull from a backfile – it will be obvious)

• Assume I don’t know your lit base → explain clearly

• Have good solvency warrants

• Make sure you’re both layering well + especially in voters, tell me how to evaluate the round

Tricks

• I’m honestly still figuring out how I feel about these (I’ve only ever read tricks in one round) but if you really really want to read them, please be clear about how I should evaluate them!

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. 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! :)

TL;DR:If you weigh, signpost, terminalize and don’t run problematic args then I’ll be happy! Give solvency: it is not enough to give a speech telling me about the harmful impacts of something, I can't vote for you if you don't tell me how the plan impacts the issue.

Hey y’all, I’m Rohan (he/him) and I did varsity Parli for 5 years with nueva. These days, I'm doing APDA at the University of Chicago. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you. Everything in this paradigm is just preferences for people who know what they are. Everything I say here is secondary to my desire to make the space educational/enjoyable, so keep that in mind.

Random musings:

Be nice to your opponents! Laughing at someone’s speech is really harmful and has made me feel not great after rounds, I’ll tank speaks for it. Don’t be problematic or violent, I’ll drop you. Give content warnings generally, if you're unsure then just give one anyway.

Presentation really doesn't matter to me: rhetorical flair is cool but it isn't going to help or hurt you on my ballot. I don't care what you are wearing or if you have your camera on or anything like that, please don't run theory on that sort of stuff.

Weighing must be more than a claim, you need a warrant and an implication attached to it. I feel like it's super common for debaters to say "our contention outweighs on magnitude, therefore we win the round," which is not an argument. You need to tell me how your argument outweighs on magnitude (it impacts more people, more people die, etc etc etc) and give me a reason to prefer that voter for me to consider it when filling out my ballot.

I WILL DISCLOSE, it is vital to gaining educational feedback and eh why would you worry about results for no reason. Written feedback is annoying to type out so I might not do that and you should record. If you are confused then interrupt me, it’s easier than waiting till the end.

I’m tech over truth, meaning that if you make an argument, I will put it on the flow - the sky is orange (hahaha get it bay area smoke vibes) if y’all tell me it is.

An impact is not an impact unless I can clearly see the link to death, dehumanization, or suffering. This means that I will always vote for a terminalized impact over a nonterminalized one absent any other framing on the flow. The economy going up or down is not a terminalized impact - why do I care that the DOW Jones loses 200 points cuz of the plan.

A warrant can take forms–I don’t have any defaults on whether to prefer analytics/empirics etc but I’m not gonna flow something which you assert to me, back it up with something. You don’t need a citation on every point, but if you tell me that the economy is gonna go up, you have to tell me how that happens.

I autoextend all plantexts, advocacies, ROB texts, and procedural interpretations. You have to extend everything else, but I don't think it makes sense to drop someone for omitting the words "extend the alternative." This is important because it means I won't kick your text for you, you have to explicitly tell me to do that.

As a competitor, I always spread faster than I think I am spreading, or can understand and flow. I always suggest that you should start at whatever speed you want, and then I’ll slow you down from there. I genuinely wish that speed theory had a better brightline to discourage debaters from intentionally spreading out novices. Just please be chill and understanding of different tolerance levels so I don’t have to intervene :)

Case:

Anything goes really: obviously if you are going to read your generic small businesses DA then I’ll consider it but I tend to find that very specific case debates with solid weighing create fascinating rounds to watch.

I default to: magnitude>probability>timeframe>anything else.

Structural violence framing is my favorite impact to read because I think it has the most real world value, so definitely go for it.

CPs:

CPs should always have warrants for mutual exclusivity. I ran some wacky CPs during my competitive career (ocean iron fertilization and Virginia should annex DC oops) so have fun with it.

I listen to the first two sentences of a counterplan. I’m not listening to your 4 paragraph CP (or plan, unless the res forces you to). I’ll listen to delay/consult/50 states/other weird CPs but you are really gonna be hurting the scowl lines on my forehead at that point

I have read and answered condo; I don’t really lean one way or the other. Pretty much goes the same way for all the CP theory stuff: I’ll evaluate everything so just be prepared to justify what you do.

Kritiks:

Ask me or ur coach before round

Theory/T:

I go for theory sometimes, and I’m definitely familiar with it so pop off. Interps must be read twice and slowly with texts in chat.

I don't have anything against friv theory. Honestly, I found the brightline between "legitimate" shells and those that are "frivolous" to be rlly arbitrary. It is the responsibility of the team reading friv theory to make sure the round will be accessibile, but that is true for any argument in debate.

Defaults:

CI > Reasonability: reasonability will be dropped without an explicit brightline
Theory is drop the debater
Theory is apriori
RVIs are good
Accessibility > education > fairness > anything else
Text of the interp > spirit of the interp

Hi there! I'm Rohan, a varsity Parliamentary Debater for MVLA Speech and Debate. I don't have many specific rules for debate, other than the few that follow.

1. Make sure to always be respectful to your opponents. I'd consider it disrespectful if you, say, snickered at a response the opposing team gave to one of your arguments.

2. Don't speak overly fast. I can process fast arguments, but I'd prefer if you slow down a little bit. This is partly also for the other team, so that everyone understands your argument and your case in general.

3. Signposting in general is fine. It's pretty much optional if I'm your judge, but at least make sure to signpost your impacts and contentions.

At the beginning of the round, type "Palm Tree" in the chat to let me know you've read my paradigm. Best of luck!

Pronouns: (He/him)

I am a senior at Los Altos High School and have been debating (mostly in Parli) for five years. If the tournament allows, I will provide an oral RFD after I submit my ballot.

General Parli:

Make sure you are respectful during the round and, most importantly, have fun! Tabula Rasa. I will stop flowing after time has expired. I will protect the flow the best I can but call the point of orders if you believe it applies. Please signpost and give off-time roadmaps; it makes it much easier to organize my flow.

Please weigh impacts during the round; I do not want to interfere. I default to probability unless told otherwise. I only evaluate terminalized impacts.

Speaker Points:

I will automatically give 25 speaker points to anyone who is racist, homophobic, or sexist during the round. I am open to 30 point theory if argued correctly. I will give higher speaker points based on how well-articulated your arguments are. Remember to be respectful to your opponents.

Theory:

Please let your opponents know before the round if you know you are interested in running theory and hitting an inexperienced team. I am open to pretty much any theory shell (I prefer judging strictly policy rounds however). I default A Priori, competing interps, and not to drop the debate unless told otherwise.

Kritiks:

I am probably not well-versed in your literature base, I would generally advise against running one in round. Same goes for K-affs.

Hello! My name is Davis (he/him/his). I was a Parliamentary debater at the Nueva School for all four years in high school, and I am now a freshman in college. If I happen to be judging you in a debate event that is not Parli, some other info is listed at the bottom, and most of my preferences can apply to LD, PF, and Policy.

I think the debate space is a great way to learn about, and justify, your own beliefs. In some ways debate is a game where your strategies must be deployed effectively and strategically in order to get a ballot. Debate is also about developing activism strategies and promoting unique discourse. It is up to you to find those strategies and this paradigm will hopefully help make that choice easier for you.

tl;dr

Fine with speed - I probably will have a hard time flowing if you are spreading upwards of 250+ wpm. Go for any argument you feel is necessary—perhaps to truth test your opponents, roleplay as the state, or promote an epistemology/ontology/methodology/etc—with some caveats listed below. I will not intervene although there will be times when I might inadvertently “fact check” in my head if an argument just sounds blatantly wrong and I hope the other team will call you out on that. If not, I will accept it as true. My initial read on your arguments might have some left-leaning political bias but of course I aim to correct this and only use what is presented in round.

As a debater I primarily went for well-warranted cases and the occasional kritik. I only read kritiks that I wrote or studied intently. I think it is critically important that every argument you read is something you could explain to an expert and a ten year old. Be well-versed with the literature you are drawing from. What I mean by this is that you should not pick up a kritik your friend wrote and read it for the first time without knowing what is going on. Read it knowing with confidence that you can defend every argument within the kritik and be prepared to explain it in a POI if need be. One of the biggest portable skills in debate is being able to formulate arguments on your own; if you regurgitate warrants and arguments given to you by a peer, coach, etc it just is a really bad look. Don't read Baudrillard because you want to sound cool and tell your friends "I read Baudrillard" or because you feel the need to read a K for whatever reason. Read Baudrillard because you vibe with what he argues and you actually believe that hyperreality is more important than policy. Imo, if you think Baudrillard's arguments sound cool but you don't agree with them, don't read Baudrillard, even if it scores you a higher chance of winning the round.

I will do my best to make the round accessible for you in any which way, and ensure that the round is fair and even on both sides. You ought to explain why your strategy is inherently a productive use of time and an effective way for both teams to learn in-round if, for example, it is a K against a novice team. Please have offense, either through off/on case positions, line-by-line responses, or both. If you don't, there is a very, very low chance you will win on terminal defense. If you make fun of your opponent, or use racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist/etc rhetoric, I will drop you no with questions asked.

Burdens:

The affirmative burden, to me at least, is to prove the resolution true. In other words, provide a policy that fits under the umbrella of the resolution and explain that it can do a good thing. If the affirmative feels they can still meet their burden by rejecting the resolution because the harms of the resolution outweigh procedural fairness, I believe they meet their burden. The neg can either "disprove" the resolution and tell me that the affirmative isn’t true by explaining that there is a better alternative (ie. squo, CP, K), or simply prove that the affirmative doesn’t do something good and have a small piece of offense. This is how I will make my voting decision.

Case:

I don't dislike case debate. I think critical advantages and disadvantages can be effective. Make sure you have warrants to back up your claims. Do not tell me the economy is doing poorly and not warrant it. Specific link stories are a nice way to help me understand what your plan does/what the aff plan will do. One-off case strategies are fine. If you don't terminalize impacts, I won't do it for you—and I likely won't give the argument that much weight.

I haven't justified voting on terminal defense enough yet, so please ensure you have offense against the other team somewhere, even if it is just an impact turn. I think magnitude is probably the easiest way to win the impact debate, but I weigh all three (magnitude, timeframe, probability, not reversibility) so weighing the three against each other will help me make my decision easier. Timeframe only matters with extinction level impacts like climate change - I don’t really consider it unless magnitude and probability are mute.

CPs:

Delay/actor/other PICs are prime arguments for a theory interp to be run (and I will vote on it), but it is not an autovote. If you run a delay CP with arguments on why it is the only ground in the round I will be more sympathetic to the neg than if you just run a delay CP to be cheaty. Do with that what you will. Be condo or dispo if you want. To some degree conditionality destroys traditional aspects of case debate, but it also increases critical thinking. I would be happy to vote on theory in either direction with regards to condo/dispo.

Kritiks (Aff/Neg):

I enjoy them. I enjoy reading critical literature, and have read kritiks on the HS Parli circuit. See my note in tldr about my beliefs on when Ks should be run. In short, read a kritik you vibe with and can defend every bit of. Be an expert with the warrants and literature. While debate is gamified in many regards, the gamification is no excuse to pick a kritikal strategy that will allow you to win over an inexperienced team at the expense of your own education and knowledge production. Absolutely be creative with kritiks - try new alternatives or frameworks! All I hope for is that you extensively read the literature first.

I believe that I still have much to learn when it comes to successfully evaluating every K debate I judge, so please explain things clearly to the best of your abilities. Some thoughts:

1. I find myself most attracted to the ones that attempt to transform the way education is gained in-round. Generic Cap Ks or other generics for that matter aren't my favorite. Read an interesting alternative and I'll enjoy your Kritik more.

2. Ks being read as a way to gain an advantage over a team with less experience is cruel. While there is not a clear brightline on the front of taking advantage of another team, intent is generally obvious given the wording of the K and the way in which you read it. If you truly believe in the power of a proletariat revolution and want to read it as an alternative against a novice team, that should be reflected in the way you read the kritik. After all, don't you want to clash over it to debate the merits of such an alternative because you are truly passionate about it? If so, present it in such a way that generates clash (ie. slow down, take questions, use less jargon, spare the other team from minutiae, etc.).

3. Identity Ks are really powerful and a great way to transform the debate space, but you should not be running an identity K about an identity you don't embody.

4. If you don’t take questions from the opposing team who may be confused about your fw, alt, etc, that will look really bad. It will make sad to vote for you in that case if the other team doesn’t respond well because you likely didn’t defend it well either. Please have clear links rather than arbitrary links that apply to every round. You have 20 minutes to prepare links so they should be good. Please also leverage your fw otherwise it serves no purpose.

5. I am not the biggest fan of simply “reject” alternatives—you will likely have a harder time on the solvency level so make sure the solvency actually has a clear and effective way to solve something. If your alt has no solvency or you fail to explain it clearly enough for your opponents I won't be sympathetic towards the rest of the K.

6. Don't concede your fw.

7. I have no major opinion on structural fairness versus procedural fairness, and it certainly depends on the context of the round, but I lean slightly towards structural fairness.

8. Ks I will want to drop you for reading: Kant, Lacan, and D&G.

9. Never run more than one K in a round. Condo Ks in my opinion simply destroy any benefit from reading one K and you might turn yourself or re-link.

10. I consider myself to be neutral on K Affs at this point, but I much prefer affs that reject a resolutional actor and still relate to the res. I think fw T is a great strategy the neg should run, so long as it has a strong standards level with real voters and a TVA.

11. I don’t have too much experience with K v K debates, but if you engage in them please justify why a) your fw is preferable, and b) win any root cause arguments.

Theory:

I think theory is a great way to win debates when there is proven abuse, but theory debates often link to big-stick fairness implications trying to get a ballot with little educational value when teams go for potential abuse. I won't pull the trigger on an interp that simply says we may have lost some ground or something of the sort—show me exactly how you lost ground.

I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability. The only partially-justifiable brightline for reasonability is "must win every standard." I won't automatically drop the debater or argument - please explain to me which choice I should make. More often than not, I drop the argument. For me to drop the debater there needs to be a high threshold of abuse; run theory when you feel it is necessary to check back against proven opponent abuse.

I don't like friv T. Please refrain from it unless you are 100% certain there is proven abuse. Be prepared to debate the RVI, especially if you run something like “must use a period at the end of the plan text.” I really don’t want to vote on an RVI, but will 100% do it with bad theory that destroys the debate space (ie. must not run a CP, must not wear shoes, or something along those lines). Obviously, I won't determine if the theory destroys the debate space—the team ought to tell me it does.

Speaking:

Speaking is not that important to me. Speaker points are not a good representation of a debater's skill or persuasion, and they are too arbitrary for their own good. If you are enthusiastic, it might make me feel that you understand your arguments better which can look good perceptually. I find that some people might be shy in-round but have really good arguments - that still is "good speaking" to me.

If you laugh at your opponents, you will get lower speaker points.

Carded events - please don't spread too fast. Make sure you use CX effectively with good questions. I probably won't flow it but it could impact my perception of your arguments if you can't answer questions about your own strategy.

-----------

Be humble. Be creative. Be curious. Be authentic. At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun, educational, and a space to grow as an individual. Please ensure it is that way for every debater.

Please ask in round if you have any questions about my words above.

Former Parli debater at Los Altos High.

Scroll down for event specific stuff. Parli is broken up into Case/Theory/K if you're curious about anything specific.

General Philosophy:

1. I will flow everything and am fine with speed. I do protect the flow but will flow after time until opponents call it out. You can ask me to refer to my flow or cross apply arguments.

2. I am fine with jargon in Parli and LD. Probably fine in PF as well but I may ask you to explain.

3. I will try to give as much feedback as possible at the end of the round/provide a detailed RFD and don't hesitate to ask questions.

Speaks:

1. I don't really care about speaks and won't take them super seriously. Unless I see an amazing performance I'll just give the winning team 29s and the losing team 28s.

2. Speak clearly, do not spread your opponent out of the round. I'm fine with speed but make sure your opponents are as well.

PARLI

Case:

I was mostly a flow case debater when I competed. I guess I'm "truth > tech", but I really just mean you have to properly explain and warrant out your arguments for me to buy them. I try not to intervene unless it's a very messy round, and I will vote for arguments I hated.

1. Collapse in your rebuttal speeches please. I prefer you to weigh impacts as well as it makes my job easier as a judge. Frame the round if you have time as well.

2. Have internal links please. I had seen a lot of people not have internal links even in open.

3. Tabula rasa. I won't bring previous opinions into the round to a degree. Obviously my previous political opinions won't influence a round, but I will accept obvious truisms (the sky is blue) as not doing so forces one side to have to do unnecessary warranting.

4. Net benefits is my default weighing mechanism for the round regardless of type (fact, value, policy, etc) if the affirmation does not specify a weighing mechanism.

5. I assume presumption flows neg unless someone tells me otherwise (which I am open to buying) , but I don't really want to vote on this.

Theory:

1. Theory is fine. Competing interps > reasonability. I definitely buy reasonability if you have a clear brightline and can argue for it.

2. I don't buy dress theory.

3. Put all interps in chat.

K:

I'm fine with K debate in general if you must, but I have read very little critical literature so just keep that in mind. I'm probably not familiar with your lit base. Don't spread your K's and take POIs.

CP:

1. Counterplans are fine.

LD

1. I "did" LD for six months about four or five years ago so am very very vaguely familiar with the format.

2. Read the Parli paradigm and cross apply anything that would apply here.

3. I don't expect you to have your case memorized.

4. I do understand jargon - don't define.

PF

Just gonna quote Aman Shah's paradigm here, but I AM open to theory/K/CP so knock yourself out:

- Crossfire: I will listen to Crossfire and it will count towards speaker points. Please do not demean your opponents in any way, shape, or form. Just answer questions concisely and to the point. Please also make sure that you give your opponent equal time during crossfire. Be kind and fair! Allowing others to have questions, respecting their time, etc. will exponentially help your speaks. Also, anything you say in cross that you want me to be flowing as part of the debate must be in your speeches.

- Weighing: Super important! Make sure to compare both worlds in summaries and spend time weighing in final focus as well. This is a main portion of how I will decide the round, so if you do not weigh, it will be an automatic win for the other team. Mention voter issues! Why should I give the ballot to you?

- Framework/Standard: For PF, I will automatically assume that its net benefits.

- Type "Jordan Poole is the greatest basketball player of all time" in chat at the start of the round so I know if you read this .

- Jargon: Please explain technical terms in your speeches to both me and your opponents, to a reasonable extent. I am a senior, have not prepped this topic, and am NOT knowledgeable on this topic, so please do define obscure jargon/names of programs in your speeches, otherwise the point will be lost on the flow and I will not extend it.

- Arguments: You can run basically anything as long as it is not offensive in any way (racist, sexist, etc.). Please warrant your evidence! Although it is technically okay to bring up new evidence/arguments in second summary, just don't. Debate etiquette exists and it's really crappy to bring up new arguments in second summary. It could affect your speaks in a negative way.

Hi! I'm Maya (she/her) and I competed in parli with the MVLA S&D team (and am now attending Swarthmore College!). I'm so excited to judge you and I hope you have fun at this tournament! Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (weird vocab, further preferences, etc.) before the round.

TL;DR Be nice, I will drop you if you're blatantly offensive. Debate is for learning, not skewing your opponents out of the round however you can. Engaging with your opponents arguments, doing comparative analysis, and signposting make me happy, messy debates make me sad. I will buy whatever you read if it's conceded and extended, but I will like you more if you keep the debate educational. If you read a K or tricksy argument be prepared to explain it well. I'm proud of you for joining debate and making sure you learn and have at least a little fun is my top priority!

A Few General Things:

BE NICE. As much as I'm sure we all love winning, the point of debate is education. If you're rude, I won't like you (I will drop your speaker points) and if you bully the other team or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you (this hopefully/most likely won't apply to you!).

I am comfortable with moderately fast speed(~300 wpm) and will ask you to slow or clear as necessary. I'm open to 30 speaks theory and will allocate points based on how strategic your speech was rather than how good of a speaker you are (speaker points used in the latter manner have a history of being exclusionary and problematic).

Please time yourselves (and your opponents if you'd like). Ask if you'd like me to time but I won't really be paying attention to my phone so you should still time yourself anyways. Please try to not go more than 30 seconds over your allotted speaking time, and feel free to call out your opponents if they do by holding up your timer or something similar. I won't flow any new arguments after the grace period is up (and even grace is sketchy, it should just be used to wrap up your speech not blip in a few more responses).

I have only competed in parliamentary debate so please feel free to ask me more specific questions about my preferences for any event. I know the basic rules of each event, have watched demo rounds, and will just vote however you tell me to in round - I love layering, impact framing, weighing, etc. It just makes it so much easier for me to evaluate the flow.

I will buy just about anything you say as long as it's not offensive. You can tell me about aliens or conspiracy theories, but please back them up with at least some logical analysis and be ready to respond to opponent refutations. Please don't make up warrants, if I catch you I will either drop you or lower your speaks depending on how significant the warrant was to your case (I have definitely misinterpreted warrants before and understand the difference between misinterpreting & straight up lying so don't stress, just be honest!).

I'm familiar with the structure of typical ULI debate arguments (and internal links) and can flow pretty well so I will just vote however you tell me to. Comparative weighing makes me smile, if I don't hear any framing or weighing arguments I will cry and have to figure out which sheet is the most important on my own, which probably won't help your case.

Case Debate

- please please please signpost. Tell me when you're on Uniqueness, Links, Impacts, when you're moving onto a new sheet, etc. When doing responses either number them or do some sort of "they say", if you're going down the flow/laid out a clear off-time road map then embedded clash (not explicitly signposting) is okay.

- again, please be nice during cross. Being aggressive is fine, I get you want perceptual dominance, but if you continually interrupt your opponent and don't let them ask any questions then I will dock your speaks. I will not be flowing cross or tag teaming, if you want me to flow a point say it in your speech.

- same as speech times, please time your running prep and say when you are starting time (so if opponents want to time you they can do so as well). If you go more than 30 seconds overtime I will dock speaks (though if you want me to see your opponents going overtime hold up your timer otherwise I won't know).

- weighing or just generally making comparative arguments between you and your opponents makes it so much easier to evaluate without intervening (using personal biases) and I will like you a lot more if you do it. If I don't know what's a voter or what's my top priority then evaluating gets messy and you get to deal with a sad judge (there's not really an impact to the round but do you really want to make your judge sad?)

- I have more case prefs in the Parli notes below, feel free to check them out and see what applies.

* apparently theory is a thing in PF. Check out the parli notes to see more specifics, basically I will vote on whatever you read (though I might be slightly biased against shells like spec & no neg fiat). Theory at this level should be read sparingly, especially when events like novice PF are so focused on having well-prepped case-level arguments.

PF & LD

I think there's a pretty good chance that I'll be judging more than parli for upcoming tournaments, so if you're curious:

• As a parli debater, I don't usually view warrants as a top priority but I know it's different for other events. I won't be great about flowing specific warrants – I will try – but if you want me to look to a specific piece of evidence please highlight it and emphasize the key parts for me, don't just blip them in and extend in your final speech (I may miss it on my flow and think it's a new point). I probably won't call cards unless prompted, so be prepared to call out your opponents if you think their stats are sketchy. If I do find out you've made up warrants you will be docked speaks and this will definitely affect the strength of your case.
• If you read a value, tell me why I should evaluate the round under that criterion and then tell me why you win under it – I can't vote for a team just because they have an uncontested value criterion if their case doesn't apply.
• Please time your own/your opponent's cross, prep & speech times, you can hold up your stopwatch to the camera or send a message to chat if your opponent is going way over time, if they're past the grace period I will stop them. I may keep a timer, but I'm not super consistent about that.

Parli General Notes

[this is tech stuff]: I default to K > Theory > Case, but you can definitely convince me otherwise. feel free to ask me specifics but I mean if you're going to go for layering then you should really just tell me how to layer and I will buy whatever you say unless your opponents contest it.

• please layer the IVIs for me, and I'm not a huge fan of friv IVIs :). do they come before theory, and why? etc.

I will try to be as unbiased as possible, but I'm also aware that I am a human with unconscious biases and will do my best to check that. Unless something is blatantly offensive I will buy any conceded arguments but please do not say an argument has been conceded when it hasn't.

If your opponents ask 2 or more POIs, please take at least 1 unless there's flex time. If you don't I definitely won't buy must ask questions counterinterps and I will probably drop you by like 0.5 speaks.

I will do my best to protect the flow but I recommend that you call the POO just to make sure I catch it. I buy golden turns and am not a fan of shadow extensions (I probably won't strike it from the flow, but I will give it less weight).

I'm familiar with debate jargon, but your opponents might not be. Again, just be nice.

Case

I love a nice clean case debate :) Signposting makes me really happy and makes it easier for me to flow. Have clear and organized uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts, that's all I ask. I think I tend to vote for the team that has the clearest & strongest link story and arguments for why their impacts outweigh. I will do my best not to intervene, I buy anything if it goes uncontested, but if your link is sketchy then my internal biases may take over.

I've said this earlier on but I love weighing. Just tell me what to do, it makes it so much easier to vote. If the other team does any weighing or framing, contest that. Because then I have 2 weighing claims and it's all a big mess again and now I'm sad. On that issue, do engage with your opponents. Your case comes first, but that doesn't mean you can have no refutations. Then, especially without those weighing claims, the flow gets really messy, I'm sad, and I will likely have to intervene (use my biases on which argument comes first) and make a decision you might not like.

IMO case debate is pretty straightforward so just debate how you usually do and I'll give you feedback where I can. Try to keep a good balance of offense and defense when making responses.

Counterplans: I love these, I view them as an opportunity cost to the aff. Read whatever you want, agent, delay, process, PIC, whatever, but be ready to face theory if you do. Please have solvency, I have a high threshold for what it means to be mutually exclusive so you'll definitely need a DA if you want to compete via net benefits (I don't buy counterplans along the lines of "don't do the aff, instead do this completely unrelated thing that could be done in the same world as the aff plan" unless the aff totally drops it/doesn't perm it). I buy the perm as a test of competition, but again, explain to me why there are more net benefits to the perm than just the CP. I don't have an opinion on condo, so I could be convinced either way if a condo shell is read.

Theory

I prefer interp -> violation -> standards -> voters. You do you but it'll make it easier for me to flow and evaluate if it's read this way. I default to competing interps over reasonability, but you can easily change my mind – also, I won't do anything with the shell unless you tell me drop debater/argument and whether or not it's a priori/whatever order you want the debate to be evaluated on.

Please be nice to novices who have not learned theory yet! I get that it's another way for you to win, but again, debate is supposed to be educational and I will like you more if you try to create a positive, encouraging community for everyone. This doesn't mean you can't read theory, but just be patient with your opponents and be ready to explain if they ask any POIs.

I would prefer that you keep the debate educational, especially at the novice level – ie avoid frivolous T if possible. If your opponents are cool with it, though, I think funny T is funny.

Similar to impacts, do weighing where you can. What voter am I prioritizing? How do you win on that voter? Which standard is most important?

Ks

I buy anything. Again, BE NICE. Ks are confusing to your opponents and to me. Explain clearly for everyone's sake and be patient (though I will be understanding if you're rushing to finish reading your K). I've read lit for setcol and queer theory + debated some cap and funky K affs, so I will probably be able to understand your K but I'm probably not going to know the context for any of your warrants – if you're going for one, explain it to me please.

Against Ks, I'm very open to hearing theory arguments and layering arguments, but I probably have a softer spot for debaters that engage with the layer of the K and come up with innovative responses rather than generic arguments.

Other

I don't know any tricks or phil arguments, but as always, I'm happy to evaluate them as long as they are explained well.

Mistakes happen! I've definitely read some sketchy arguments that I myself didn't particularly appreciate, and will not look down on you for reading a sketchy argument. Your opponents are probably going to have good refutations so just look at this as another learning experience and opportunity to improve. Especially if you're a novice, it's the prime time to make mistakes, have terrible prep and 2 minute speeches, make epic fails (all of which I've done), as long as you take what you've learned and use it to improve :)

If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading my paradigm. Know that I am so proud of you for having the confidence to go up, compete, and speak in front of practical strangers for however long your event lasts. Debating and competing in speech is scary, I've been there and still am there most of the time. While I will be judging you in terms of who wins, know I will not be judging you as a person based on how good of a debater you are. I can't wait to see you grow and become the scariest competitors on the circuit!