I am a former varsity PF debater and Impromptu speaker. I also won the Big Questions Tournament 2022 (as my teammates requested I put in here). I use she/her pronouns. I don't really care about formality (clothes, shoes, setup, whatever, although don't be ridiculous for both our sakes). If you have tech issues, let me know and we can figure it out. Call me dude if you want to, I'll find it fun.

I won't dispute unless you tell me to, be nice, don't make me intervene. I'm fairly flow but I'm also literally a high schooler. Speed is fine, but please organize and signpost well. Have good evidence. Don't be rude. Tech over truth. Theory/K is fine, but needs to be explained thoroughly. Make puns.

I don't have all that much experience in anything other than PF but I have a pretty good gist of the other events.

Be respectful of your opponents

Organize your thought before speaking and clearly articulate your arguments in normal speed of speech

Keep your position without deploying your opponents' plan with slight modification

Teams who manage to defend more key contentions will get more points

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

Hi Everyone!

I'm David, I'm a former Parli debater and I'll be your judge today. If you have any questions about my paradigm just ask me before the round starts:

Things I like:

->Warrants, warrants, warrants. I will not vote on arguments that you made if I don't believe them. I am not "tabula rasa".

->Debaters having fun! Debate is supposed to be a game. Please don't ruin the fun for anyone else.

->Accessibility. Debate is (in)famously exclusive. My favorite debates are ones generally free of a lot of jargon, highly technical debate, and where teams make an active effort to be clearly understood by the other. My recommendation is try not to talk to fast, take a few POI's, and generally avoid Kritiks and frivolous theory arguments (I can evaluate these arguments I just don't like to, usually)!

Things that make me sad :( :

-> When ppl make their entire case in their 30 second grace. Guys please, don't do this.

->Arguments with no impacts. Please, please, please tell me why I should care about your arguments more than your opponents.

->Asking if "everyone is ok with an off-time road map" and then not waiting for me to say "no" and starting to present your roadmap that I didn't ask for.

->When debaters say nasty things. We often debate sensitive topics but in my experience there hasn't been a single valid time a debater has said something severely problematic and it was justified in the round, if you think something you're about to say could be in any way possibly seen as yucky, don't say it.

->When debaters are condescending. Don't call your opponents' arguments dumb and don't smirk while your opponent speaks (I'm watching you). This tends to specifically be a problem from boy only teams being rude to their female opponents, but it's a common problem in debate. Everyone is here to learn, just don't assume your better than others because when you lose to the people you thought you were better than, the only person smirking will be me >:)

Things you can read if you have time (but totally don't have to):

->I'm generally towards the left end of the political spectrum (shocker). That being said, I won't believe your "socialism/communism is utopia" argument unless you give me as good as a warranting as Marx himself.

->I love answering questions about the debate or my decision so please ask if you feel like it!

->I love to yap. I usually deliver my RFD verbally but I can write it down for you if you really want me to. I think rounds are recorded though so please don't make me write anything.

->I'm a math major at UCSD! If you think you might wanna go, feel free to ask me questions about it.

->My email is: davidgol3p@gmail.com feel free to email me with any questions you might have!

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

no longer active in debate

Please always introduce yourself and speak at a normal pace.

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

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

General

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

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

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

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

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

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

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

Case

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

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

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

Theory/Topicality

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

Tech v. Truth

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

Good luck :^)

Howdy!

I am a high school senior in my fourth year of competing in parliamentary debate. Feel free to ask me any questions about procedures or my own personal biases or beliefs before the round begins. I like to disclose and offer feedback if both teams are comfortable with it. It goes without saying that professionalism should be upheld at all times and I will not tolerate any personal attacks on a debater's character or identity.

I care much more about case than theory, but that is not to say it will never have any importance on the debate. I'll listen to anything you have to say as long as you explain it. You do not need to explain obvious harms or benefits, nor do you have to explicitly state obvious deductions.

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

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

tl;dr

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

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

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

Burdens:

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

Case:

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

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

CPs:

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

Kritiks (Aff/Neg):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Don't concede your fw.

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

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

Speaking:

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

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

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

-----------

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

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