I have 9 years experience in coaching and judging various forms of debate and very much enjoy the opportunity to judge.

For Policy and Public Forum, I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Please analyze the opponents case/points and prove why their opponent's case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible. Speaker points will reflect that problem, additionally, if I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is of utmost importance. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives).

Debater professionalism and courtesy are appreciated.

I am a new parent judge. I prefer good speaking style, clear, concise, and easy to understand arguments.

I am a former high school and college debater. I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate in high school and CEDA debate in college (1990 - 1995 as CEDA was becoming more policy oriented). I coached college debate teams at Saint Louis University and the University of Missouri at Saint Louis. I am currently a teacher of art history and philosophy at Cleveland High School's Humanities Magnet in Reseda, CA. I have been coaching high school debate for over 15 years and have sent at least one team to the quarter-finals of the CA state debate tournament for the last seven years.

What I like to see in debate rounds.

I can handle a moderate speed policy round and a full spread Parli or LD round. I have lost hearing in my left ear and wear hearing aides, so I simply cannot flow a full speed policy debate round, but have had no problems in LD or Parli. I prefer plan versus counterplan and disad debate. I try to be a tabula rasa judge, but I admit that I am not a fan of performance debate and find most kritik debate to be too esoteric to vote on in most rounds. I will vote on critical theory, but it needs to clearly articulated, providing a specific alternative and weighing mechanism versus the plan or case offered by the affirmative. Reject the aff is not a persuasive alternative for me. I also do not like most plan inclusive counterplans (PIC's). I find them abusive because the negative is basically affirming the plan/resolution in order to negate. I automatically sever any topical portions of the PIC and just evaluate the non-topical portions versus plan benefits. I rarely, if ever, vote on PICs. I also despise rude debate. You can be assertive without being aggressive and rude. I will deduct speaker points for debaters who are overtly rude, abusive, or have offensive body language (rolling eyes or laughing at opponents - even if you are trying to be discrete).

Bottom Line

Be smart, be courteous, debate well, and tell me why you win the round (write my ballot for me in the final speech), and you are likely to win the round and get high speaker points in the process.

Speed: You can speak quickly but be clear and do not spread.

Voting: Tech > truth

I will vote for the team that best quantifies and links into their impacts (weigh!)

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal needs to respond to first rebuttal

Summary: line by line → you can still try to go big picture (whatever works best for you) and weigh

Final Focus: make sure to keep the same as summary → impacts don’t matter if they don’t get extended through summary and I prefer big picture

Weigh!!

Crossfire: If neither side has productive questions then you can end cross early

Experience: LD Debate 4 years in High School. Presently a coach for both speech and debate.

Paradigm: I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Therefore I don't have any hard rules such as "voting on framework". It is up to the competitors to make well reasoned arguments why their arguments have priority on the ballot within the hierarchy of other arguments in the round.

This means that for an argument to make it to the ballot it must be fully supported throughout the round by the debater, cradle to grave. Extending arguments is very important, especially in the case of a dropped argument or a cross application.

Spreading: I generally don't like speed reading because it usually used at the expense of eloquence. However context is important so at circuit tournaments it might be acceptable if you really feel it is important to your round.

Finally, if something isn't read it doesn't go on the flow. For example, if you say "I have a card that proves this" but do not read that card, it will not go on the flow.

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.

I am a parent judge with 8 years of experience judging almost all categories of speech and debate competitions.

I'm a parent judge with over four years of experiencing judging speech and debate. For debate, I value argumentation more than delivery, but please signpost and make your arguments relatively easy to understand. I don't understand theory, Ks, topicality, or any of that, so please don't run that. Above all, be respectful and have fun!

I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.

I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.

Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.

Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:

1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.

2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)

3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.

4. Do not be rude in cross.

Once again, do not spread.

Have fun!

A short summary of who I am:

I'm a former Parliamentary debate competitor from San Francisco who competed for 4 years at Lowell High School. I currently attend UCLA as a Philosophy and Comparative Literature double major, and am a member of the UCLA debate union. I'm primarily interested in applied and normative ethics especially in regards to the biomedical and artificial intelligence fields. I have competed on the UCSB Ethics Bowl Team.  Have also had experience in CX and competed at the Senate level in student Congress during HS. I use he/him pronouns.

Judging:

Fine with K, Theory etc. Feel free to spread.

I flow. Try not to be abusive in definitions or VC. I will dock speaks but if your opponents don't call you out for it that's on them.

I'll try to be a tab judge as much as that is possible. Of course, I have personal biases. I am a registered independent in the state of California. I supported Bernie Sanders during his 2020 presidential campaign, so if your arguments leans towards progressive policies, I'll probably agree on a personal level.

Personal Preferences: Try to be respectful at all times. In my opinion, debate is a space for learning first and foremost. Whether we vote aff or neg has no substantial real world impact regarding the issue at hand, but the way you treat the people around you does. If your argument negatively impacts the continuation of debate as a forum of discussion and creative argumentation I will vote against.

I vote neg on presumption.

I will stop a round if I hear homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist rhetoric.

If you have any questions regarding how I judge that are not in this paradigm, feel free to ask beforehand.

If you have questions about a specific decision feel free to email me at stevenchow313@gmail.com. I'll try to respond as best I can. 

I did a lot of Speech and Debate right before the pandemic, mainly Parli, HI, POI, and OO, but I am familiar with all events. In my junior year I was somewhere in the top 30 in Parli and qualled for TOC, and I have finalled many times in speech.

Parli

You can do flow debate, anything goes. If you do run a K, you need to sufficiently explain exactly what you are talking about and have specific links (but be warned that I'm not the best audience for Ks in general). Don't assume that everyone in the room has read the lit. I will vote for Ks, friv Ts, etc. but the more out there they are, the more you have to really prove it.

If someone says slow / clear, do it.

Speech

For interp / oratory, I vote for delivery, technical ability (pops, using the POI book), and story (even an HI can have a coherent plot and message). Whether or not I actually agree with your message or stance does not factor into my decision. For extemp, I vote on delivery and how well you proved your stance.

If you have any further questions after a round: brandonsychung@gmail.com

Stop spreading plz :) It more important that I understand your stream of thought, than how fast you can speak. I am a volunteer parent judge with no debate experience. 

Hello Everyone! My name is Hridini and I am currently an undergraduate college student. I did go to a few parli tournaments throughout high school so I do have some experience and understanding of the format of parliamentary debate. This is the first tournament I am judging so I don't have any preferences based on past experience. Just a few things to keep in mind are to please refrain from being aggressive or disrespectful to your opponents while debating and avoid speaking so fast that I can't understand what you're saying; I can't judge if I have no information or arguments to judge upon.

Other than that I have no specific preferences. Good luck!

Please note that I am a lay judge and English is not my first language. Please do not rush and speak clearly so that I can understand you.

I view logic as the most important factor for my decision. Please provide clear reasoning as to why your argument makes sense and is better than that of your opponents.

I also highly value the evidence you support during the round. Please give credible evidence and citing the evidence will help as well when I try to determine if the evidence is credible.

Lastly, please have a professional tone and attitude while speaking.

Hey all. I am Abhijit Dey, a judge from Dougherty Valley High School who judges PF and Extemporaneous Speech. So far I have been judging for 1.5 years at DV.

I will award speaker points to the most eloquent speakers and the ones with the most knowledge on the topic, as well as the ability to explain themselves smoothly. Speaker points are also based on your attitude- be nice to everyone in the round.

I like to see clear drawn out arguments and impacts in the final speech with comparison to opponents arguments. Please spend a lot of time explaining your argument to me throughout the rounds, if not, I may be lost if you go fast.

I will be taking notes but not fully flowing.

Use evidence how you would like but do not lie about it. If your opponents ask to see it send it to them immediately and continue the round.

I evaluate cross examination greatly. As someone with a congressional law degree, I believe that your arguments are made and set up in cross examination and you must be good with your questions.

The truth is extremely important but your arguments do not need to be 100% truthful if you are winning off of skill. However, if the round is close, I might not want to vote for you because your arguments are mistruth as I may be biased.

I'm new to this league, so please speak slowly. Please make it clear which claims you are arguing against so I can accurately flow. And please be respectful of each other at all times.

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 am a parent judge for the first year. Please enunciate and don't speak too fast so that I can understand your points clearly.

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

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.

Focus on framework. If I'm not told what to consider when deciding the outcome, then I will come up with standards myself which may not benefit you.

Make sure to focus on link chaining. If you bring a bunch of evidence it won't matter if I can't figure out why it's related to the resolution and VC.

Make sure to weigh impacts out clearly for me in your voters speech. I will not weigh them for you.

Avoid abusive VCs and definitions. If your opponents don't call you out they will stand, but I will dock speaker points and be less inclined to vote for you.

Don't run superfluous theory.

I will flow, but if your speech is not well taglined/ disorganized or if you spread I might not be able to flow well. If it doesn't go on the flow, I won't consider it when making my decision.

Absolutely no racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic rhetoric. I will stop the round and vote against your team if I hear any kind of rhetoric like that.

In general, try to be respectful of your opponents. I will dock speaks for any rude behavior.

Let me know if you have any questions about my judging before the round starts.

If you have questions about a decision feel free to email me at ioyehgilman@gmail.com.

I did Parli debate for four years at Lowell High School in San Francisco. I'm now a first year college student.

Hi. My name is Rachel Goldstone. This is my third year judging debate. I tend to vote on who has better hair or who can talk in a better British Accent. Haha, Jk

My son informs me that I am a flay judge because I know to to flow and stuff. Still, please don't spread and do explain technical jargon. Probably a bad idea to run a K on me, but I'll do the best I can. If you really explain a theory, it might be alright. Don't be an **unkind person** with POIs and POOs. Tagteaming and other stuff is alright. Generally, I like it if you're funny. Don't kiss up.

I know you are working hard and I look forward to meeting you, hearing your arguments and learning about the world of debate.

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

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

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

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

Hello!

I'm a college student who did parliamentary debate for three years. I have local, state, and national experience in both speech and debate, and have competed at relatively advanced levels. I have a couple general rules for when I judge.

1. Debaters must be respectful to each other and to the judge. This means no direct attacks, as well as no bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If it is clear you are violating this rule I will vote against you.

2. Don't spread. If I'm not able to type out your arguments fast enough to understand them then you are speaking too quickly.

3. Please signpost. I want to be able to understand everything you are saying, so letting me know when you move from point to point matters a lot.

4. Try not to use theory when possible. I can follow most types of theory from my experience, but I believe the benefit of doing parli is to prioritize good argumentation over theoretical ones. If you choose to use theory, be prepared to have a good explanation for why you are doing so.

5. TAKE POIs! I expect at least two pois to be accepted in each of the four speeches unless the opponents do not try to ask any. If you are refusing to take any pois, I will dock speaker points and will consider it as a dealbreaker if I feel the round is too close to call.

For speaker points, I will generally use 25-30 point systems unless the tournament advises differently. Although I do my best to judge argumentation and speaking ability, I do believe they're linked, so don't sacrifice either. Here's my metric

30 points - You deserve to win the tournament

29 points - You're a solid elimination competitor

28 points - You are above average in the tournament, maybe could be in elims

27 points - you are doing fine, but nothing special

26 points - Your speaking needs real improvement

25 points - oh boy

I am a judge in PF for Dougherty Valley High School.

Basic Preferences:

- Please do not speak fast, and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.

- You should be telling me how I should be weighing the round.

- Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.

Good luck!

Kenny Johng
Updated 2/16/2019
I debated for 4 years at Grapevine High School
I debated my first semester for UC Berkeley

Some short points if you’re in a rush pre-round and don’t have time to read everything:

• What’s on your (and your opponent’s) flow/computer =/= what’s on my flow/computer. Clearly communicated arguments from you to me = what’s on my flow/computer
• I have judged 2 rounds on this topic and have no prior knowledge of it. Keep this in mind when making arguments pertinent to topicality or counterplan competition.
• Tech over truth most of the time
• Please keep track of your prep time
• Slow down when reading counterplan/plan texts

Meta:
I think that debate is an activity where communication skills are important. I understand/appreciate the long hours that y’all have probably put into cutting cards, writing blocks, producing files, etc but that has no relevance to me unless you are able to effectively communicate what you have prepared to me. If you think an argument is important, make sure to communicate that to me instead of unclearly spewing nonsense from your computer because chances are that I wont be able to flow it as well as you would like me to.

Additionally, I think debate should be a safe space. Be cognizant of the words that you say as your experiences might not be the same as your opponents/partner/judges. Your framework link should not be “personal experiences shouldn’t have a place in debate.” I think it’s important to understand that there are a lot of debaters who truly believe in the arguments they present in the round as it means something to them. Please respect that.


Concerning this year’s resolution:
The last time I debate was last fall (2014) on the college legalization topic. This means that I’m not going to understand your acronyms or slang/buzzwords that are specific to this topic. I’m not familiar with the topicality literature nor what the “common/core affs” are on this topic. So you reading off a bunch of affs that are “non topical” that the other team’s interpretation justifies probably means nothing to me.

Speaker points:
Things that you will be rewarded for: making smart, well researched arguments, making strategic in-round decisions, politeness to the other team and your partner, clarity/organization on the flow, humor

Things you will be punished for: making/saying morally repugnant things, lack of clarity/organization in the flow, being rude to the other team and/or your partner, stealing prep



Topicality/theory:
Please don’t let my previous disclaimer make you shy away from these debates. I like debates about debate. I think that the aff is in a better position if they win offense on this flow. That being said, I think topicality debates can definitely be won by the aff with a simple/good “we meet” argument. This is why I believe evidence quality on these debates are important. I tend to evaluate a T debate very similarly as to how I evaluate a Cp/da debate. Examples of this include: I don’t think all definitions/interpretations are mutually exclusive and thus a permutation is possible, Your interpretation must be able to resolve your own offense/standards at the bare minimum. On the topic of theoretical arguments, I think saying “reject the argument, not the team” makes sense to me unless argued otherwise.
***I’ve noticed that a lot of debaters tend to hit hyperspace when they are explaining their standards so please don’t do that.

Disads:
I don’t think “try-or-die” framing makes sense unless you have a specific reason why voting for you is able to mitigate your impacts. This also applies to case advantages.

Cp:
I think that knowing what the counterplan actually does is important in the debate. This means it is in your best interest to SLOW DOWN when reading the counterplan text. I tend to find myself really confused when the negative stands up in the block and reads 30 cards on the counterplan with no explanation of what it actually does.
I was a 2a in my latter parts of my debate career so I tend to be more sympathetic to the aff when there is a generic consult/conditions counterplan being read in the round but don’t let that deter you from reading this sort of argument. I’m not a fan of poorly thought out permutation arguments. So just because the negative answered your “perm do both” but not your “perm do the plan and the counterplan” does not automatically mean a neg ballot.

Kritiks:
With the exception of Virilio (I went for this a lot) and Neolib, I didn’t read a lot of kritiks. That being said, I find myself voting for the kritik quite often. I would say that link analysis/explanation is really important to me. And when I say link analysis I mean explaining, in a language I can understand, how your argument is related to the other team’s arguments/endorsements. I do not mean using a bunch of jargon and saying “the aff” in a singular sentence. I’m not very knowledgeable on high theory arguments and therefore will need a simplified explanation of these sorts of arguments. Feel free to ask me pre-round about how much I know about certain critical arguments you are thnking of reading in the round.

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

I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.

Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria

- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).

- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.

- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.

- Quality always trumps quantity.

- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.

- Clarity over speed

- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate

- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.

- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.

- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .

- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.

- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds

Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.

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!

Hello! Currently I am a community college student in something of an academic limbo who will soon, God (Catholic or otherwise, I’m open to letters of recommendation) willing, be transferring to UC Berkeley.

I’ve debated for quite some time for the Mount San Jacinto Community College team but now I am something of a debate mercenary debating for College of the Canyons for whom I am the only member of the team.

This will be my first time filling out a judging paradigm form so please forgive me if it is somewhat unorganized.

Experience

So, in regards to my personal debate experience I was a High School Parli debate and thus qualify as a debate veteran. I have competed in Parli and am well acquainted with both the types of arguments as well as the sort of meta "culture" I suppose surrounding this. What this means is that I will typically be familiar with most debate terminology and will not be suprised get a case of the vapors if you propose a K or run an abuse argument. However, that being said I do certainly have grievances with some form of debate, somewhat due to personal trauma being a debater with only a club to compete with and encounter suited barbarians who would constantly run K's and definitional arguments in a round. I will also mention that although I have started to judge it more, I am not someone who has competed in Policy debate nor Public Forum, and as such I would perhaps advise you to try to use terminology that isn't only in that format, or at the very least take a moment to explain it as assuming the judge knows your secret debate society language can occasionally make it difficult to judge you in round.

Judging Style

So, I will firstly start out by saying that I am very much not a conventional judge in regards to some of my beliefs regarding judging during the round. I will take something resembling a flow, however I see rhetoric and narrative to be important aspects of a debate round that exists alongside the actual arguments themselves. I typically do not do a hard calculus of impacts and individual dropped arguments if they do not seem significant to me. I will also mention that I am willing to do slightly more labor on the judge's side than perhaps others. If you propose an argument but perhaps don't give an exact impact or connect to an the other team’s argument but I can see a connection, I will still consider it in that context but perhaps with not as much enthusiasm than if you explain to me why you argument about social media turning the Zoomer generation into zombie like drones of the state also relates to the opponents contension about twitter cancel culture being the next religious revival.

In regards to the question of whether the judge's perspective is brought into the round, I will admit that I very much believe that the judge is an actor within the round and that their knowledge does influence the round as well. What this means is that if you give an argument that is just blatantly false or not well supported, even within your speech, I will not treat it as though its logical rational truth within the round. I will still consider it and perhaps expect the other team to address it, but I will still have some standard myself as a judge. This doesn't mean I will attempt to be intentionally biased, however, just know that if I am judging you I am not going to just readily give you the win on any dropped argument or piece of evidence just because it wasn't fully addressed by the other team.

I do appreciate organization and reading out the general themes of your argument. You don't have to lay it out in your first speech and I will generally arrange the argument myself in my notes, but it is something that certainly makes it much easier to judge you, and I know because I myself have horrifically difficult to follow debate organization at times, like, modern art living room arrangement style.

Spread

So....this one is a bit difficult. I am quite used to following and partaking in speedier, more beefy rounds so in that regard I am not a lay judge. However, I am aware that in certain formats, particularly Public Forum and policy it is occasionally expected that the judge should be able to follow even if the debater is reading at a ridiculous speed attempting to cram in an entire list of arguments which, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, can make the round very difficult to judge in a manner that actually considers the arguments presented. In regards to speed, while I will allow you to speak quickly, please make sure you are actually emphasizing certain points and pronouncing your words and actually taking time to separate out your contensions. Also, in regards to accusations of spread, I am very much willing to take arguments in regards to this specific form of abuse, and I think that thinking you can win a round purely based on dropped arguments that are not even fully addressed by your team, or due to drowning the opponent in them is one of the more obnoxious tendencies of debate. I am fine with devious tactics and questionable frameworks if you can protect them, however this is something where I tend to find it a bit intentionally disruptive.

Kritques

So, Kritqiues….I guess I will start out by saying that I do quite appreciate these. They are like little warlock wizard spells that you can cast to hex your enemies or make them have to contend with being accused of “promoting an American individualist mindset” due to saying they think the Avengers movies provide great role models. I also think that Kritiques also sort of tie debate into the actual academic concerns that you may encounter at the college level, so I am very much in favor of them as a concept. You should still explain how it relates to the round, and present properly for debate by explaining why either supporting the resolution or the way in which the other team debating requires a consideration of the kritique. It can be difficult to achieve a win based on a Kritique alone, however if you feel it's powerful enough and want to make it the focus of your speech then I very much support that.

Also, I have been accused of being slightly Commie before...

(Don't worry, I probably won't summon the CIA)

Hi, my name is Vaidya Kolar. I am a lay judge. Please speak at a moderate pace and absolutely no spreading.

I will always try to flow, but it is difficult for me to not miss everything you say. Thus, I require a full speech doc for constructive sent to me by email because I cannot always follow the constructive speech properly. Any additional cards called between teams must also be sent through an email chain with me in it. Also, if you have a rebuttal speech doc as well send that to me too via email. My email is vaidya.kolar@gmail.com.

I won't flow crossfire unless you bring it up in another speech.

UCSD' 22

I debated LD, PF, CX, and Parli in highschool. The main event was Parli

Went to TOC for PF and was ranked 5th in the nation for Parli.

TLDR; Run anything you want, in order of my favour: LARP, Theory, K, Performance, Heavy Phil, Trix. I flow everything I can hear/reasonably read. I will say now tho I been out of the game for a while so may not be as fast as I used to be.

Dkolikineni@ucsd.edu

General

I'm tabula rasa, so I won't lean to any specific argument over another, so run what you'd like. Though I will not fill in any gaps for you and if I cannot say for certain you have won the round by the end, you will not win. It is most strategic for you to

a.) tell me which arguments you have won

b.) why you won them

c.) and why that means you won the round.

Prefs (In order of my understanding)

LARP / Case Debate - 1

Theory - 1

Philosophy - 1/2

K's - 2

Performance - 3

Speaks

30: Perfectly performed debate on all layers + you were entertaining to judge.

29+: All layers of the debate were handled very well.

28+: Most layers of the debate were handled well.

27+: Some layers were handled well.

26+: Missed critical aspects of the debate and didn't handle most layers adequately.

25+: Fatal error / Lot to improve on.

0: Defending sexism, racism, etc

Arguments

Kritiks

a. If you're going for a K, make sure the framework, link, impact, and alt are clearly stated. Provide a ROTB when applicable to make my job easier. If it's a K that is uncommon on the circuit, spend 15 seconds explaining the thesis PLEASE

b. If you say "the alt is to vote neg", provide justification in the sense of analysis, logic, or evidence.

c. General links are not ideal. Give me something directly from the aff case that links the case.

Aff Kritiks

a. In addition to everything else stated above, give me good reasons why the aff gets to be non topical (if you are non topical).

b. Creative but logical alts make me more inclined to vote for you.

c. If you don't have me convinced by the 1AR, I probably won't vote for your K Aff.

Plans

a. Clever plans that go outside the expectations of the resolution but still are justifiably topical are good. Be very specific in what your plantext contains. (All the different types of Specs).

b. Give me a solvency advocate. Ideally two. Go for the perm.

c. (For Parli) Give me a copy of your plantext on a separate piece of paper before or during your 1AC.

Counterplans

a. Please, PLEASE, prove why the counterplan is competitive.

b. Counterplans should have advantages independent of the rest of the debate.

c. Perms by the neg are valid. Convince me though.

Disads

a. More recent evidence is better than not.

b. A direct link is better. Something specifically from the aff you're facing.

c. Give me quantifiable impacts.

Misc

a. In LD, CX, and PF you can spread all you want provided you send me a speech document.

b. In Parli I am fine with a fast pace however I won't allow LD / CX speeds simply because I cannot guarantee I'll catch everything.

c. I cannot spell if my life depended on it and I care less still to try so just keep that in mind.

d. If anything isn't answered on this paradigm, ask me briefly before the round.

This is my second time judging a debate tournament.

Please speak at a moderate speed. Not too fast!

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my fourth year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. If you run a counterplan, make sure you effectively argue why it's better than affirming the resolution, or going for the status quo. If you run a PIC, you have to make it very clear why the PIC is more net beneficial than the AFF's plan.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win.

I've never debated, but I have judged quite a few tournaments at this point. I appreciate debates where the participants take time to speak clearly and reasonably slowly, so that I can hear what they are saying. On that note, I also appreciate debaters who don't speak over others, exercise kindness, and who really make an effort to consider and address other participants' input. Two sided discussions are always more fruitful than monologues that ignore each other. Lastly, I love when participants are mindful of the ways that history has shaped class, race, disability, and gender issues in our society today. Marginalized people and their histories deserve dignity, and a place in all of your discussions. Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!

-Judge Kabang Lauron

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

A grad of James Logan HS, I competed in various platform speaking events, Impromptu, along with LD and Congressional debates.

Events judged:

Expos/Informative, OO, OA, Extemp, Imp, (interps:) OPP, DI, HI, OI, DUO

LD, Parli, Congress, Pu Fo

(Policy the least)

I am unfamiliar with theory...weigh impacts.

Judge History:

GGSA IEs, Debate, MLK, Palm Classic, Stanford

I've judged parli for several years now.

Please enunciate and speak slower. Especially with debates online, sometimes I struggle to hear speeches properly when someone is talking fast.

Make sure you have logical arguments with clear reasoning that I can flow.

Do not try to run theory or kritiks.

I encourage POIs

I am a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a manner that is comprehensible. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

I competed in policy debate for two years in high school (many, many years ago). I enjoy understanding various aspects of different policy issues, but am not likely to fully understand debaters who speak very quickly (English is my first language).

I prefer a few quality arguments (developed with various supporting points) over raw quantity of arguments. I would be sympathetic to a debater that does a good job addressing arguments, but does not address all opposing arguments because there are too many of them, especially if the opposing arguments were not well developed to begin with.

I tend to believe that more extraordinary claims (e.g. enacting a certain policy will lead to global nuclear war) requires more and better evidence to support such claims and might not be convinced by such claims if they are lightly supported (even if the other side does not adequately address the claims). Also, I do not believe that all quotes / pieces of evidence are of equal weight.

If the other side has crafted a meaningful argument by quoting evidence out of context, please let me know.

I will likely look unfavorably upon debaters who seem to be focusing on minor points. Basing your case on a mere technicality might make the case rather precarious.

While certain techniques such as trying to change the resolution through Kritik might seem clever, I tend to view them as unsportsmanlike and I will likely feel free to ignore such attempts (especially trying to change the resolution).

While I think that roadmaps are helpful, I like to start the time when you speak. So, even if you claim an "off-time roadmap," your time might have already started.

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

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

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

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

PF Debate Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Default Framework:

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

Speed:

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

Kritiks:

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

Counterplans:

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

Dropped Arguments:

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

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

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

Tag Teaming:

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

Speaker Location:

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

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

Policy Debate Notes:

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

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

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

- I know very little K literature.

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

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

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

Experience:

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

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging : None

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

Talk clearly and slow. Make eye contact. No stalling. No Public Forum jargon.

What sort of things help you make decision at the end of the debate?

Who most effectively argued their position. How they handle counter and interactions

Do you take lot of notes or flow the debate?

Flow the debate

Clothing / Appearance - Somewhat (5)

Use of Evidence - Weighed Heavily (10)

Real World Impacts - Heavily (8)

Cross Examination - Somewhat (5)

Debate Skill over truthful arguments - Weighed Heavily (10)

Hello!

I have been a parent judge since 2020. I appreciate if the participants can pace themselves in a way that I can follow along, and be respectful of their opponents.

Good Luck!

Amit

debate - i am a parent judge so do not spread, run a kritik, or any progressive arguments. I am fine with any other arguments but make them reasonable and explain them well enough so I do not have to have substantial background knowledge to comprehend. don't mumble or be incoherent, and don't take the result too seriously. CPs and DAs are fine, and so are frameworks but paint the ballot for me so I do not have to do judge intervention subconsciously.

speech - I am a typical speech judge, do not expect too many comments because I more so watch the speech while it is going on and make mental comments. I will still leave generic points.

Good luck!

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

I'm a new judge, and you can safely consider me a parent judge. I won't understand theory or kritiks, so I would recommend you don't run it in the round. I value concise and clear speaking, and it helps to outline key points in the round for me to look at. I also appreciate it when debaters make it as clear as possible what I should be voting on and directly comparing the impacts of both sides. In short, make it easy for me to understand. Other than that, be respectful and have a good debate round!

Hi! I'm Gratia (she/her). I'm currently a sophomore at UCLA. I did parli at Bishop O'Dowd, where I competed for 4 years and coached novices as a junior and senior.

tldr: I'm down to evaluate any debate but am more familiar with theory and case than Ks. With that being said, I'll try my best to evaluate whatever debate you want to have.

General:

You can read any arguments (as long as they're not racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, or violent in any other way) but I can't promise that I'll know your lit base so explain them well. I love theory. Please use impact calc! Framing and layering are/should be your best friends. I love clean collapses. You can talk fast but please don't spread, it's been a while since I've really been involved in debate.

Debate is for YOU (the debaters) so I want you to have whatever debate you want. Please don't exclude your opponents or read harmful arguments in the process of doing so, but other than that I will listen to any debate. If your opponents say/do anything that makes you feel unsafe or is violent I am more than happy to do whatever I can to help.

If you have any questions about anything here or the round feel free to ask or email me (gratiaorafferty@gmail.com)!

TECH>TRUTH

Case:

Please please please have warrants and explain why they're important, don't just read a quote. Be sure to do impact calc in your last speech AND tell me why I should prefer the impacts you have over the impacts your opponents have (ex: why magnitude matters more than probability or vice versa).

CPs are fine, but please spend time actually explaining them (don't just read the CP text and move on). I also love theory so I'm willing to listen to CP theory.

I love nuanced and specific link and internal link scenarios!! If you have some and use warrants within them I will be so grateful. I'm also a big fan of good brink scenarios.

Theory:

By far my favorite argument as a debater, I'm willing to listen to any theory argument (some of my favorites to read were framework and no neg fiat if that gives any context). Please explain how you access fairness/education and do weighing within the theory debate!!

I default to competing interpretations and drop the debater unless you make arguments for something else. If you're going for reasonability please provide a brightline. I think RVIs are okay if you have sufficient justifications and can respond to your opponent's RVIs bad arguments.

I'm okay with conditionality but also willing to hear condo bad and vote on it if done well.

Ks:

I am the least experienced with Ks but ran a few and hit a fair amount (and loved reading framework). I probably don't know much about your lit base (unless it's cap or set col) so you have to explain your arguments. That being said, I'm definitely willing to vote on Ks. Take questions!! None of us are going to have fun if the other team can't engage in the debate because they don't understand your argument. Ks and K lit can be confusing and isn't accessible to every team so if you don't take any of your opponents' questions I will give you low speaks (and I honestly probably have the same clarifying questions as your opponents).

Speaks:

I don't give speaks based on how "pretty" you speak, but rather based on your strategy. For example: if you have really great links in the PMC/LOC, cover your bases well in the MG, collapse well in the block, or give a clean collapse in the PMR, I will give you high speaks.

I will give low speaks if you don't slow/clear when asked, say anything violent/ offensive, or otherwise make the debate unsafe and inaccessible.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

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

TLDR: be respectful, use impact calc if you can, weighing, slow down when saying card name (thats how i keep track of them on the flow), warranting is very important (not just cards), write my ballot for me

background: i currently attend UC Berkeley but in high school i did PF with my twin (competed at states and invitationals). although i predominantly did PF, i've competed in Parli and Congress at a couple of tournaments. in speech, I've competed mainly in NX, Impromptu, and OA. i've also done OI and Duo.

i hate reading long paragraphs so I made bullet point lists instead :)

debate (in general):

1) the most important rule- BE RESPECTFUL of your opponents. although you might not lose a round for being very disrespectful, you will lose speaker points!

2) speed- any pace is fine as long as it isn't too slow or too fast. i guess i can understand ppl who speak slow but it might help to speak faster cuz you have more things to say. don't do any policy-debate-level spreading unless you flash your speech. i have to be able to flow what you're saying.

3) how i evaluate the round: please WEIGH your arguments. i judge based on IMPACT CALC a majority of the time (might vary with event and how you guys frame the round). please try to write my ballot for me instead of just telling me that you won certain contentions and making me put my own thoughts, opinions, and weighing into the round.

4) framework-

pf: net benefits/cost-benefit analysis will be assumed if you don't specify

more important in other events (parli/ld)- writing my ballot for me includes telling me the lense through which i need to view the round and how i can evaluate subjective arguments through an objective lense. this is why specifying the framework will be very important

if you encounter a framework debate, make a case for your framework but try to win under both frameworks

5) i'll try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but some things are wayyy too far fetched not to dismiss them (very rare occurrences)

6) i hate definition debates. they waste time. sometimes they're necessary though if an opponent is being abusive with their definition. if you do encounter a definition debate, make a case for your definition but try to win under both definitions (unless its not possible lol) cuz I don't want to give someone the dub just cuz I like their definition more. I have encountered a couple of debates where the definition debate was actually intriguing because it was based on something nuanced and both teams tried to win under both definitions, so if you do end up having one please don't make it lame.

PF:

1) i judge based on what you say in the final focus, so please extend the arguments you want to make across the flow (especially summary). don't extend dropped arguments.

2) ppl have questions on whether neg rebuttal should respond to aff rebuttal. i don't think it's a question, neg should respond in rebuttal cuz a) otherwise you're bringing new responses in neg summary which is unfair to your opponents b) you won't get to cover everything you want to say if you leave it for summary c) you don't have that much time in summary anyways so why would you waste most of it responding to a rebuttal speech

3) aff summary speeches can have a few new responses to neg rebuttal, but don't bring in any important response that changes the entire dynamics of the round in the summary, it's a little unfair given the time constraint your opponents have to respond. if you really have something amazing you have to say you can just spike your opponents' argument in a previous speech.

4) please state the card names clearly (NAME AND DATE). i want to get the name as accurately as possible in the moment so that it doesn't become a problem in the future when you say the name and i can't find the card in any previous speech.

5) signposting is very helpful (not just in the begining/end but also in the middle of the speech), esp. in high speed rounds.

6) when you're extending responses, i like it when teams use the card names, but don't just leave it at that. although detailed warranting is better, i understand that you might be time-constrained, so a tagline works in those situations when you want to quickly extend something.

7) a majority of the round should be warranting. cards are great and necessary, but nothing substitutes good warranting. think of the entire round as trying to sell your version of the story. explain your arguments with nuance and don't contradict what you're saying. don't run on just cards because good warranting beats good cards most of the time.

8) i don't judge based on cross-ex. it's your time to ask questions/get info. please don't make cross-ex another debate- it's for questions.

9) I am repeating a point from earlier because i can't stress it enough---> how i evaluate the round: please WEIGH your arguments instead of just saying which contentions you won on. i judge based on IMPACT CALC. please try to write my ballot for me instead of making me put my own thoughts, opinions, and weighing into the round.

Parli:

1) im repeating the framework section from the general "debate" section again because frameworks are very important in parli. as i mentioned above, i want you to WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME which includes telling me the lense through which i need to view the round and how i can evaluate the arguments through an objective lense in an otherwise arbitrary debate. Weigh impacts using IMPACT CALC (when the framework of the debate requires/allows you to do so).

if you encounter a framework debate, make a case for your framework but try to win under both frameworks

2) i don't really like T-shells and Ks (they are usually never compelling) but i will judge them if you choose to run one. please try to make them productive instead of saying something about how the rules are not fair (p.s. i don't care). i like being on topic more and enjoy discourse about the actual topic instead of some weird extraneous argument. however if you do run a K and it is topical, i will judge it fairly.

3) not every topic is the same, but fact debates should have a good amount of evidence. value debates should focus on philosophical and morality-based arguments and policy debate should outline inherency and a clear plan (follow SHIPSA and you'll be fine).

4) i will flow the round so speak at a good pace (anything from conversational to fast-paced, but not CX-level spreading)

5) state the CARD NAME (the author's last name & date OR other source identifiers like news source/organization/universities/websites). parli debaters have a tendency to not say where they are getting their evidence from. also, say the source clearly (esp. last names), so that I can write it down. it's better to say it clearly the first time around so that when you extend it, i can find it easily on the flow.

speaker points:

1) i understand how getting judges who have bad scales for speaker points can be frustrating so i'll try to be as fair as possible

2) i will evaluate your points based on your effectiveness as a speaker: style might have some impact (it doesn't really matter that much tho), but mostly confidence, clarity, speed, and strategy will be taken into consideration

speech:

extemp- catchy intros work best, have a clear outline/roadmap, have a good amount of evidence

impromptu- you could stick to the roadmap and two/three points, but sometimes getting really creative might be a good thing

there's nothing really to say here for other events- speech is more of an art so I don't have any requirements you have to meet/ things i want to see in particular. just have fun and be respectful of those performing.

also, it's always good to watch and support your competitors instead of leaving after you have performed (unless you're double/triple entered/ have a good reason for leaving).

if you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask me before the round

good luck and enjoy :)

I mainly judge public forum, and occasionally policy or congress.

The following is for Public Forum. Here’s what I expect:

1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.

3. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.

4. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.

5. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate.

6. Don’t read new cards in the Final Focus.

7. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself.

Policy

1. Come prepared to round with a flash drive in case the WiFi is down and you can't email your speech docs.

2. Say which argument you are responding to before you read a card, and group arguments.

3. Don't read just evidence and expect me to interpret why they were said; make it clear what each card means in the context of the debate with analysis.

4. Do what you would do in a normal policy round- don't read floating pics and unreasonable theory shells against your opponents just because they or I don't know the rules as much as you.

5. I will be reading your speech docs but it would be wise for you to read at a speed at which I can clearly understand what you're saying.

6. Divide the neg block between your partner reasonably- for example you shouldn't be going both case and off case in each speech of the block.

7. Properly flow the round and be respectful to your partner and opponents by at least acting like your listening to their speeches. This will enable you to debate line-by-line rather than just using pre-made blocks that don't necessarily address the warrant of your opponent's arguments.

Hello All,

Background

I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.

As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.

I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.

Preferences

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying, so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments more clearly.

b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will not carry personal biases into the round.

I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.

If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.

Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.

If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.

Good luck!

I am a lay parent judge but sophisticated enough to judge.

Please do not run theories.

Please talk slowly as I need to understand and write down the notes at the same time.

Respect the opponents.

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.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

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

some random things about my judging methods:

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

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

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

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

- case debate:

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

- theory:

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

rvis are cool.

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

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

- kritiks:

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

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

good luck!

Intro: My Name is Nirav Shah and I Will Be Your Judge Today. I Am a Traditional Flow Pf Judge With Extensive Experience. I Flow All Speeches With Great Detail. My Son is a Debater for Dougherty Valley (Ivan). I've Judged at Gtoc, Cal Rr, Stanford, Berk, Presentation, Asu, Cal States, and So Much More.

General Pf Preferences: I Try to Keep My Evaluation Exclusively to the Flow. In-round Weighing of Arguments Combined With the Strength of Link and Conceded Arguments. I Default to Arguments With Substantive Warranted Analysis. Please Collapse on the Most Important Voters in the Round. The Defense Should Be Extended in Both Summary Speeches if You Want to Go for It in the Final Focus. Be Respectful in Cross as I Pay Close Attention to It. Don't Speak Too Fast but if You Do Please Give Me the Speech Doc. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal

Evidence: I Strongly Encourage Debaters to Cut Cards as Opposed to Hyperlinking a Google Doc. I Call for a Lot of Evidence After the Round Instead of Looking Through It During the Round. (Only Contested Pieces of Evidence)

Speaker Points (on Average 29.3): Used to Indicate How Good I Think Debaters Are in a Particular Round Along With Substance

Prog: I Have a High Bar for Abuse for Theory Argument but You Can Run Them as Long as It is a Genuine Violation. I Wouldn't Run Any Non-topical Ks on Me. Topical Ks Are Fine. I have extensive experience with Sec, Militarization, Orientalism, Cap, EcoAuthoritiasm (Ill buy More but It'll Be My First)

Other: I'll give an Oral RFD

Have Fun!

Feel Free to Email Me Any Questions or Concerns. (Also Add Me to the Ev Email Chain if You Are Making One). Email: Niravdhira@gmail.com

I would like you to be clear (not slow) in your argument rather then quick. The arguments and counter arguments should be relevant.

Be respectful to your opponents.

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my third year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. I'm fine with CP's as long as it has solvency. PIC's are a great strat. Don't run conditional cps. TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. Don't read K's. Not a big fan of theory either but I default to reasonability. On framework, I enjoy util.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real-world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic, and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win. Please weigh in your last speeches.

I am looking for sound arguments that are supported by facts. Supposition and conclusory statements are discouraged. Avoid kritiks. Please speak clearly and succinctly. Explain all debate lingo.

I am parent judge and new to judging. Provide objective arguments with logic. Defend the arguments.

I award speaker points based on how you speak. Please dont be rude or offensive. you can be firm and passionate but polite.

I'm a parent judge. I know most of the basics (uniqueness; links; impacts etc.).

I'm focused on the merits of each argument and find it distracting when teammates comment on other's performance. I prefer logical arguments that have connection back to the topic. If you are interested in running theory, I prefer theory shells that are necessary for regulating the debate; not superfluous rules.

I look forward to hearing your case. Good luck!

- I prefer if you go slightly slower so i can understand responses easily

- Clash is always good

- make sure to weigh and give voters

- I would appreciate it if you could give an offtime roadmap before speeches

- give warrants behind evidence - don’t just extend

- explain arguments clearly

I'm a parent judge for Dougherty Valley High School. This is my first time judging.

Please speak slowly and clearly. If I don't understand your points I won't use them to evaluate the round.

Don't run any K's, I will drop you. If you run theory, make sure to completely explain it so I understand.

I award speaker points on clarity, persuasiveness, good rhetoric, etc.

If you present a clear path to the ballot, that helps me make a decision for your side.

I will take notes.

I look for good use of statistics, empirical examples, etc.

I also look for real world impacts.

I value debate skill over truth.

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!

I am a parent and lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Enjoy your debate!

I am a Social Worker and Political Sciences Specialist from Nicaragua, I've been working with youth for about 10 years now, mostly in Leadership development, service-learning and community development programs in Latin-America. I have mentored and coached youth from all over the world encouraging them to live out of their comfort zone, to learn on how to travel sustainably and to raise awareness about global issues.

This is my second year judging debates and I find this platform really rewarding as I am able to learn from brilliant participants yet to provide feedback. I am passionate about social justice and international affairs topics and definitely interested in the youth perspectives on all topics. I'm here to encourage personal and professional growth of the participants.

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

New to judging.

I am looking for clarity of thought, relevance and good references.

I prefer quality over quantity. I beleive that quality of content speaks volumes about debating skills than the volume of the content.

- I WILL drop you under all circumstances for not reading trigger or content warnings. Lack of content warnings when discussing issues such as addiction, mental health, physical harm, abuse, etc, as well as racist or offensive behavior will cause me to drop you, without exception. If you are unclear about whether something needs a content warning, message me.

- I will NOT dock you for not using all your time. If you do not have anything more to say, end the speech instead of repeating points. It is not a good use of anyone's time to do otherwise.

- Speak slowly, do not spread your opponent out of the round. If you do not respond to requests to slow down from either myself or your opponents, I will drop you. If I cannot understand a point, I will drop it. Do NOT gish gallop - I will drop you.

- Theory and RVIs are *acceptable*, but I will usually not go for them unless the violation is severe. Define jargon when used to make the theory more accessible to both myself and your opponents. Do not run friv theory.

- Do not run a K. I understand them but do not believe they are valuable to debate.

- Aff state resolution

- opponents keep time. I will not call out going over time if opponents do not call it out. Raise hands to call time, if there is no response in 20 seconds then unmute. Any argument 20 seconds over time will be ignored if the opponent calls out time.

I am a parent judge with no debating experience. Have been a lay judge for the last 3 years. I may not be familiar with certain jargon that you use, so where necessary please clarify.

I take notes throughout the round and will try to flow. I like logical, reasoned and well-developed arguments and normally vote heavily on impacts. So let me know why your points matter.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge. hungfw@yahoo.com

Please don't speak too fast and don't have any complicated debate jargon that is not explained.

Good luck!

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

Prefs-

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

this is still a work in progress

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

I did four years of Parli at Lowell (SF), majored in Politial Science in undergrad, and just graduated from law school. I did briefly assist in the PuFo program at the School Without Walls (DC) in college, but my bread and butter will always be Parli. I haven't coached or assisted anyone in a while, and have no connections to any current teams in Parli (AFAIK).

YMMV if you play to my background - I obviously am more familiar and interested in legal and political arguments, but I probably will know their ins-and-outs too (and whether you are misrepresenting and understating something).

The most important thing to me is that you have fun, learn, and advance a respectful and inclusive sapce for your peers (including opponents), judges, and peers. Debate was the best game I ever played; it earns that distinction because of the overall inclusivity of the activity and the great community I had. Do your best to preserve that.

Case (contentions, plan, CP, anything that isn't a kritik or theory):

I only did case during my debating career, and love it. Generally, I think that each claim needs a claim, a warrant (some form of evidence or reasoning), and an impact (why do I care?) to be cognizable on my ballot. The more specific you are, the better. As stated above, I am a policy nut, and probably appreciate more nuanced plans.

I care a lot about the strength of your link, the probability of the argument, and its magnitude. Parli has trended a lot more towards arguments with meh links, miniscule probability, but infinite magnitude. Those arguments do not resonate with me. If they did, I'd probably not be judging at the tournament (instead, I'd be in a bunker somewhere stocking up).

I also loved CPs, although a few thoughts to keep in mind.

- I loved CPs that engaged with the aff on competition (aka, a better way to solve the problem in the Aff). Obviously, that leaves you more open to perms, but I'm in the small minority who views perms less of a test (of being able to do both) and more of an opportunity (should you do Plan A, Plan B, Plan A plus B, etc).

- I am aware of tricks as CPs (consult, delay, etc), although you should at least take some time to explain them to your opponents.

Theory (arguing about the rules of the debate; alternatively, stopping unfairness in rounds)

I think theory has a place in Parli, but only in limited roles. If neg chooses to run topicality, for example, it must be so simple and obvious that even a parent judge could understand where you are coming from. Put differently, if you decided to run T (or other theory) before the round even began, you should strongly consider striking me.

A lot of theory debates dissolve into topics like "do I prefer fairness or education or predictability?" I generally dislike strategies where one team collapses on one interp, and the other collapses on their interp. You should try (your best) to win on both interps if possible and aim for clash (instead of running around in your own silo).

Kritiks:

I was not a K debater, and generally think that it's a tough route to obtain my ballot. At a minimum, I think that your K should be topical; if you came up with your K before the tournament, decided to run it before topic is announced, and spend your prep time drawing as many unrealistic and threadbare links to it as possible, I will have a difficult time voting for you.

I generally believe that the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" and will have a very hard time voting for an Aff K, especially one that has no relation to the topic itself. Again, this comes from my strong background from watching high school Parli dissolve into a K-fest for means of exclusion of others, not inclusion of marginalized communities. This doesn't mean that I won't vote for one - just that you'll have a harder time obtaining my ballot without some form of inclusion.

From a philosophical and historic perspective: Parli began as an impromptu event and focused on "lay adaptation." Ks entered the playing field when I was a high school debater as a means of "outprepping" opponents, switching the topic, and gaining easy wins over confused debaters (and yes, I have personally experienced this). Since I left Parli, the bridge between the two has grown wider, with each side accusing the other of being exclusionary to others with excessive amounts of hostle rhetoric. If you run a K, I hope you at least take the time to explain (1) why it is topical and (2) what exactly you are doing, in simple terms, to your opponent. And I hope it is sincere.

Other Things

- Please be comprehensible (speed) and don't spread; I will yell clear up to two times before I will just stop flowing. Talking fast is fine.

- Debate is all about clash, and so I encourage you to take POIs and call the POO if necessary (I will protect as much as I can, but you should really intervene on borderline things). Do not weaponize POOs to interrupt your opponent.

- Sit whereever you'd like, wear whatever you'd like (within reason, of course). I also do not want to see suit Ks (seriously).

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!

Hi debaters,

I started judging this year 2022. Speaking fast is ok, but please speak and explain clearly. Also please be respectful during the debate. 

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley Flay Judge

How many years have you been judging?

I've been judging for 3 years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude. I do enjoy the more technical and meta side to debate, but it usually isn't like an all-or-nothing situation where I'll give the win to one team if they argue the technicalities better than the other (unless it becomes a major part of the debate).

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not in a flow format. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.

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.

This is my first year judging debate; I am a parent judge.

In a debate:

1. Speak clearly and slowly. I do not understand spreading.

2. Do impact calculus! Write my ballot for me in the last speeches.

3. It is your job to make sure that I understand your arguments very clearly; I cannot and will not try to evaluate arguments that are ambiguous.

4. Be respectful!

Hi! I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear logic, articulation and proper weighing to show me why you win the round. Do not spread myself or your opponents out of the round. Please use clear and well paced speaking so I can flow everything. Case arguments tend to be a lot easier for me to cast ballots on, so please do not run t-shells or kritiks unless you feel it is absolutely needed (and in the case I am needed to judge theory or k's I will make the decision to the best of my ability as a parent judge). Aff always bears framework burden (and neg should point out if they miss it) otherwise the round becomes inconspicuous and hard to judge. Purposely excluding your opponents from the round, misgendering, racial slurs, etc. will force me to intervene and drop teams if needed, so let's stay sensible and kind. Besides that, always remember to be respectful to your opponents and myself and have fun! Goodluck.