Jean Ward Invitational hosted by Lewis Clark College
2022 — NSDA Campus, OR/US
PF/Parli Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I am a lay judge. Let's have fun.
I am Avery Betz, I was a parli debater for 4 years and went to state one of those years. I am pretty comfortable with essentially anything you want to run, but make sure to debate in good faith.
I weigh my rounds based on impact calculus, so if you think you win on flow you should demonstrate how that impacts the round and my decision. I also am not very organized, so please make sure that your speech is organized, and that when you are refuting something, you clearly state what you are refuting from, i.e. "the impact of their third contention is negligible because....".
If you want any further elaboration feel free to ask me before the round!
Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.
In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.
I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.
I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.
As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.
(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)
27.3 or less-Something offensive occured or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)
Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:
25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional
If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)
About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)
Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.
Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.
Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.
Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at email@example.com
I am a parent judge and I have a background in technology.
I am a truth over tech judge. If you're able to weigh effectively and concisely, you'll probably get my vote. Do not use technical terms or run a K, because most likely I will not understand what you're doing and you'll lose my vote. Be polite and respectful.
Best of Luck!
My name is Joseph Brower.
Background: I was on the Speech & Debate team throughout High School. I was a State Champion in Public Forum Debate and Radio. I competed nationally in Congress. I graduated 4-Years ago and work in construction management. I'm majoring in Civil Engineering at Portland State University.
Paradigm: Common-sense arguments that are backed by evidence are encouraged. However, I will not vote based on which team/individual I personally agree with. I will only vote based on which team/individual has better argued their points and refuted their opponents.
Hello I am Carson Chamness I have been in debate for a couple years. I currently debate at Lewis and Clark College. I have competed and judged college debate.
What I look for in debate is being able to defend your arguments even after the other team has thoroughly rebutted your side you should still be able to defend your side and back it up.
Don't be afraid to go a different route in the debate if you feel the route you're going won't be effective or you can't back up where you're going. This will be rewarded over sticking with an argument that can't hold up
I encourage thinking outside of the box in debates, but still need the debate to stay in the realm of the topic given so please don't go on unrelated tangents.
I also reward organization within the speech as the order in which you give me information can effect how impactful your arguments are.
I did mostly speech in middle school to high school, with only marginal experience in debate (most of it comes from helping my friends in their debate prep).
My main philosophy for debate and how to deal/prepare for judges comes from a quote from Bruno E. Jacob, one of the founders of the NSDA: "I should be able to take someone off the street and they should be able to come and judge a round. And if they aren't able to judge it, then we aren't doing something right." Thus, treat me as a lay judge. Which mostly means, as a baseline:
a) Be clear about your points. The way you convey the information, logically present the facts to tell a story, is just as important as the information itself
b) Be respectful and civil
c) I prefer to vote for an option that actually does something to solve a problem.
I am judging for the first time and where I know about the flow of the debate , I am technically not familiar with counterplans and so on, please explain them thoroughly.
I prefer moderate to slower speed of speech of the given argument.
I always emphasize on clarity of speaking which will always make me take your side.
I am particularly against to emotional expression of arguments as I prefer more of a convincing content with necessary evidences.
Before the round ends a look at the case sheet of both the parties can always be a better help.
To end up with, I am totally against to the interruption in the flow of one's speech either by their team or the opposing team.
All the best !
About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.
About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.
So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.
My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.
Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.
I am a lay judge. Because I have no technical background in debate, I anticipate watching for:
- Mutual Respect and Civility. Participants should display emotional maturity and refrain from personal attacks, hostile tones, or talking over each other.
- Logical Arguments that Flow Well. Collect your thoughts so you are concise and clear rather than rambling. Provide specific support for your arguments. Explain arguments at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require.
- Confident and Persuasive Delivery. Sound interesting. Vary your tone to show emphasis. Sound like a human.
Howdy! (this is a work in progress, please give me some time lol)
Email: throw me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org thx!
Please note that I am a newer judge. I care that everyone has fun before anything else.
Before getting into everything, please be accessible and kind. Read trigger warnings and check with the other team and judge BEFORE the round starts. In high school, I dabbled with LD, and did okay in Congress for a year - but for my last two years I did Policy - and then I fell in love with K debate. If it helps, I was the 1A/2N. 99% of my rounds senior year ended with me going for afropess, cap, or some weird K that my partner and I found. So have fun and make the round interesting! I do my best to flow and keep track of everything.
Please read your plan text BEFORE the 1AC or when your opponents ask. I do not care if it is a new aff. It is a way to be kind and accessible for your opponents. If you have to be squirrely, I question if your case is good. Anyways, do it or I will drop you.
I am new to judging, but I did debate all 4 years of high school. I am not familiar with any of the current topics, so please explain as much as necessary for me to understand all of your arguments.
Speed is fine as long as I can understand everything that you say. Even if I have your case, I don't want to have to read to understand all of your arguments, so keep it clear and understandable. You can run as many arguments as you want, as long as you can weigh them at the end of the round.
In general, I will prefer tech over truth. As said, I am not knowledgeable on the topics, so I will believe what you tell me unless it is refuted by the other team. If you drop arguments anywhere in the debate, I won't consider them as voters. Please extend all of the arguments that you think are important in each speech, even if they were unrefuted (and tell me that it wasn't refuted).
On evidence, I won't ask to see anything unless you call it out in-round. Make sure to tell me which piece of evidence to ask for so I can read it at the end.
I am comfortable with most arguments except for K's. You can run a K, but you will need to do a LOT of explaining if you want me to really understand it and be able to vote on it. Otherwise, you can run pretty much any arguments which are allowed in the circuit.
Honestly, I don't understand values and criterions, so you'll need to do a lot of explaining for me to understand how to vote on it. Otherwise, you can run any arguments similar to policy.
I am most comfortable with PF out of all the forms of debate. I competed at the state and national level for two years, and came in third place at the Idaho State Debate tournament 2021. You can run pretty much any arguments here, as long as I can understand what you're saying. If you don't state a framework I'll assume that you are doing a cost benefit analysis. I don't like definitions in the beginning, just explain terms to me along the way. I am okay with paraphrasing evidence here, but be sure to represent the evidence correctly.
I am a lay judge with little knowledge on this topic.
Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why your arguments are weighted.
Spend a lot time to explain your argument and your talking point is the most important for me.
I will not disclose in prelims.
Please do the timing yourselves.
Last update: 18 Sept 2022 for Milpitas
I have mostly retired from judging. 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 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!
-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)
-Competing: 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 :)
-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
-CP strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want
•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: meh, 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
-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
-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
-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
-please time yourselves. i will not time you
-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
I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.
But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.
Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was sickened when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?
Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo
I am a parent judge with some training and experience. I will listen closely to the arguments you make and try to evaluate the round based on what I hear. Please do not speak too fast as I may be unable to keep up. If you are making technical arguments, please explain them at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require. A few notes:
- I expect you to time yourself and each other
- Refrain from being rude to each other
- Keep you cameras on at all times
- Keep in mind that communication with me is key to effective argumentation
I am a parent judge with some experience.
Please speak slowly and clearly.
Please respect other speakers during crossfire and do not interrupt opponents.
Your case is the most important part of the round.
Please weigh in the round and compare your arguments.
Hi! My name is Ian, and I use he/him pronouns.
I was a policy debater in Idaho who graduated in 2019. I'm familiar with and comfortable evaluating most arguments. A few things:
I'm a flow judge. It's been some time since I last debated, so please make voters clear and do the work weighing them against each-other so I don't have to. I like kritiks but please don't assume I know the literature.
I'm comfortable with speed, but please slow down and speak louder on your tags. If I can't flow your speech without the doc, your speaker points won't be awesome.
Debate is a game. Please have fun and be nice!
Don't spread or use wacky definitions, and don't make your arguments super jargon-laden, I was never heavily trained in that in the first place, and it's not the transferable skill you get from doing debate. Communicate the logic of your arguments as clearly and effectively as possible. I remain somewhat salty about many rounds in which my arguments were better but the opponents out-jargoned and out-spread me, and basically won the judge on confident aesthetic. Make no mistake that trick will not work on me.
I debated all four years of high school (Parli, PF and LD) so I can follow debate terminology, and argumentation/debate theory. I can deal with spreading/speed but make sure you're still coherent -- quality =/= quantity. Strong links, impacts, and solvency are the main judging criteria for me. Clash always makes a debate 100% more interesting so I like to see that as well. I'm primarily a flow judge so please refer to what you're responding to or when making ads/disads/contentions.
Parli specific: Personally my favorite to judge/participate in and I always appreciate a plan and counter plan if it's applicable to the resolution. Please don't make the debate a definitions debate (although I'll still judge accordingly) -- the round should be as educational as possible!
Most importantly, please be respectful of your opponents and I hope you can get something out of the round!
Civility always. Clarity is key. I'm not a fan of spreading and I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments. Thank you.
Please speak slow and clear.
Not a big fan of lying so that would not be appreciated.
If you do clash make it clear.
And lastly, before reading cases and etc. please state which case you will be reading.
Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.
For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.
For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.
For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.
RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.
Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.
Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.
I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.
Off-time roadmaps are fine.
Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.
I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.
- POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.
If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.
I am a communication judge. I like students to clearly communicate, give real-world examples and for the debate to have clear clash. Structure and organization is very important and will help me flow the round. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form of debate. I want civility, persuasion and a clash on the issues. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy and I am not a fan of K's. I don't flow POFO.
Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence. You don't get to give someone a link and say CTRL F yourself. Prepare your evidence correctly or be dropped.
If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 7 years since then. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below
Philosophy of Debate:
Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.
I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told
Judge preferences that must be met:
When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.
Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)
Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.
Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.
Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.
Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.
I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.
I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.
Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.
Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.
Public Forum specifics:
I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.
I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.
Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.
Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.
Lincoln Douglass and Policy:
I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.
Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com
About me: I did congress and PF in high school. Now I do British Parliamentary debate in college.
Round expectations: Be polite and respectful, do not talk over each other!!! Have proof of all your evidence/cards/quotes ready incase something becomes contested and you need to verify it.
What I look for: Clear link chains, warranting, impact calc, weigh the round for me or I will not know what to vote on. Speak clearly and do not spread, a little speed is ok but not too much.
I give a 10 sec grace period and you will be cut off after that expires. Time your own speeches, your prep, and your opponents time to hold them accountable. I do not flow cross.
I am a parent judge with some training and 5 years of state level experience (Oregon) . I have also judged at the Middle School National Competition in 2019, several TOC during 2020-21, and Congress at the High School Nationals in 2022. I will listen closely to the arguments you make and try to evaluate the round based on what I hear. Please do not speak too fast as I may be unable to keep up. If you are making technical arguments, please explain them at the level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require. - I expect you to time yourselves and each other. - Refrain from being rude to each other (I have never seen this occur in any round I have ever judged or observed).
I did parli and extemp at Ashland High School in Oregon. I also occasionally did LD and PF including on the national circuit and at NSDAs. I ran a really wide range of things in high school, and I love creative debaters. I studied broadcast journalism in college, so this topic excites me. Have fun and let me know if there is any questions before the round.
Run what you want
Collapse at the end of the round
Have structure and signpost
Read something you don't understand
Say all Ks are bad
I'm five years out now, but I think I can still keep up. I will vote on almost anything, but I am lazy, so please make it easy for me. That means explain your arguments, why you won them, and why that means you won the round. Anything you want me to vote on, should be in your last speech, regardless of debate style. I will disclose after the round if I can.
Vocal inflection should not disappear when you go fast. That is especially true in later speeches. I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep taglines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow. Speaks are about clean speeches with good strategy. An overview never hurts.
Case debate is fun. I am down for generics, but that does open you up to non uniques easier. I will probably not vote on politics unless the link is really good. CPs are underutilized, especially advantage CPs.
Ran them a fair amount when I was debating. Please understand the K you are running. Links are key to everything. I am pretty sympathetic to the perm if there is no clear link. I am most familiar with whiteness, cap and anthro. High theory needs to be explained, but I am open to it and familiar with a lot of the general ideas behind it. Identity Ks are great, but saying you deserve the ballot only because the debate space is unfair an uphill battle with me. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.
Default to competing interps, no RVIs and theory comes first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but it is stronger with it than without it. If you want me to vote on it you need to make sure each part of the shell has clear offense that you extend. More specific interps are going to give you a better shot at the ballot and better speaks
Default is net benefits/policy maker. I am fine with anything however self serving roles of the ballot are really annoying and if they have no warrant, then they are easy to get out of for your opponent. I am comfortable with most of the major moral theories that are used. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know.
Default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise.
The warrant is the thing that matters no matter the style. Put me on the email chain or tell me what cards you want me to call. The more card calling I have to do by myself, the more I am having to intervening.
I believe in terminal defense, so going for try or die when you have conceded you solve nothing is not going to win you anything.
Tag teaming is all good, but don’t be that team that tag teams the whole time.
Shadow extensions are bad. Arguments need to be extended throughout the round.
Jargon is meant to make debate more efficient, not more exclusive. Use whatever terms you think you can get your point across best with.
If you have questions or want to talk more about a round I already judged you in, email me at email@example.com or message me on Facebook. Feel free to clarify anything you want to before the round.
My name is Robin Monteith and i am the coach for The Overlake School in Remond, Wa. I am a parent coach and was introduced to speech and debate through being a parent judge. This is my second year judging at speech and debate competitions. Both years, I judged PF, LD, Congress, and many speech categories. I have no policy experience. I became a coach this year, and coach students in many speech categories, PF, LD, and Congress. My educational background is in psychology and social work.
I am looking for students to convince me that the side they are arguing on is right. I like statistics, but am also looking for the big picture. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. Also, remember that I am trying to write and process what you are saying so if you are talking really fast some of your arguments may be missed. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude. I value both argument and style in that I think your style can help get your argument across or not get it across well. Don't do theory or Kritiks. I am not a flow judge, but do take extensive notes. You need to extend arguments in your summary and final focus and I will disregard any new arguments presented in final focus as this is unfair to your opponents. In summary I like for you to summarize the debate for me. Both your side and your opponents. In final focus I want to hear voters. Why do you think you won the debate. What evidence did you present that outweighs your opponents evidence, etc.
Preferred email: firstname.lastname@example.org
hello! I debated all through high school, first at grantsville high and then rowland hall my senior year. currently, I debate at lewis and clark college and I am the head coach for catlin gable. you are more than welcome to share your preferred pronouns before round, but only if you are comfortable doing so.
my main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:
-weigh! This is most important for me. Use phrases like “their biggest impact in the round is X, our impact Y is more important because Z” if you don’t do this, that means I get to decide which teams impacts I like more (I will also be sad)
-collapse collapse collapse. please. you only hurt yourself by trying to go for every word said in the round. choose what’s most important and only go for that!
-this should go without saying, but ANY racist, homophobic, sexist or hateful comments or arguments will not only hurt your speaker points SEVERELY, you most likely can expect to lose.
-just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response. I’ll listen to those analytical responses over any shitty card.
-please, for the love of god, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.
how I determine speaker points:
-not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.
-doing weighing, collapsing and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks with me in the back of the room.
-I won’t be listening to cross ex, so if you are being rude enough to warrant my attention, your speaker points will reflect that.
other parts of my paradigm that are slightly more technical:
-theory (for me) in pf is fine. you should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair, and not to fill up time or show me that you did ld/policy. if you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.
-speed is fine. if I can’t understand you then you should slow down.
-road maps should be concise, your'e telling me what sheets I should start on, not making arguments.
-terminal defense does not need to be extended in first summary for it to be in final focus, unless second speaking rebuttal responded to it. i will be more likely to weight defense of it is in both first summary and final focus, but it’s not required.
I have lots of experience with several different kinds of debate, including policy, LD, public forum, and parli.
I am willing to listen to any form of argument (I have no bias against kritiks or procedurals).
I need debaters to actually clash with the other side's argument. If a team says something and the other team doesn't respond to it, it is "true" for the purposes of the round.
Good impact analysis/comparison is essential for me to make an good decision.
Extra speaker points for whoever can make the most clever Dune references.
- I did 2 years of (American) Parli in high school in the Bay Area circuit, and I’m about two years into doing British Parli here at LC. I’m an International Affairs major, but I’m also very dumb so don’t assume I know anything at all.
- Not a fan of speed in debate. There are pedagogical reasons for this, but more importantly I’m not great at understanding fast-spoken stuff and I’m even worse at writing it down. If you want my ballot, you’re going to do better if you speak at a more measured pace.
- Don’t be racist, transphobic, homophobic, or generally bigoted in front of me (and ideally not when you aren’t in front of me, either). It's bad for your speaks, bad for your chances of getting the ballot, and it's just generally a bummer.
- There are a lot of judges at this tournament that you’d do very well reading Ks in front of. I am probably not one of them. I’ll vote for it if you can prove to me that debating the round without the K is causing harm in a direct way, but that’s a hard sell unless someone is actively doing something problematic. I am not familiar with most K literature, so you’ll have to walk me through it. If you try to walk me through anything by Baudrillard, I may cry. Strongly recommend being on case in front of me, to be honest.
- Theory is cool though, for voters you should probably say why they matter. I like education, I like fairness, I like clash, but you should still tell me why those things being valued in debate make the world better. I’m also open to arguments as to why I’m totally wrong about those being good things. Theory is a priori, and I will default to drop the debater (also open to just dropping certain unfair things, if you can convince me that’s better). Will default to evaluating by reasonability, because I have an outsized opinion of myself and I think I’m good at judging reasonableness.
- Impact calc: do it. Generally I’m going to lean towards probability over magnitude (or structural impacts over flashpoint impacts). Something something better policy-making. I’m open to arguments as to why I shouldn’t do this, though. Reversibility and timeframe should probably be terminalized into mag or prob.
- Please weigh stuff. Please do impact calc. Terminalize your impacts and then evaluate them comparatively against your opponent’s stuff. Please. I don’t want to do it so I’m hoping you’ll do it for me.
- PICs are fun, perms are also cool. Perms are probably not an advocacy? Idk dude I don’t have to deal with that sorta thing in BP.
- Be courteous to your opponents and to your partner. Conducting yourself with kindness and good humor, even and especially in competitive situations, makes the world a better place.
- I think that humor has a place in debate, and making me chuckle can earn you speaker points. Winning the debate obviously comes first, though.
- Because I am a dumb BP debater, I think that truth actually might have some bearing on the debate world. That means that if you make blatantly false claims that the average intelligent voter would know to be false, I’m probably not going to believe you. Debate might be a game, but it’s a game built on a very specific context, which is policy-making. Call me naive, but I like to hope that policy-making is somewhat based on truth. For any sort of spec knowledge, or anything that's debatable this doesn't really matter, I'm more referring to "earth is flat sky is green" kinda stuff.
I like Death Grips, and drink Monster Energy Zero Ultra.
As a mother to two debaters, I have had my fair share of debate tournament experience. As per what my kids say, I am not a flow judge, but more like a lay judge. I like to see how arguments flow through, but at the end of the day, whichever case is stronger and better in being communicated to me will win debates. Please note that I do not consider points in cross ex valid unless brought up in speeches and that fast talking is harder for me to understand. Sportsmanship and quality of speaking are of the upmost priority here. Every idea is runnable if you are a good speaker.
Hello! I am a new parent judge with no previous Speech & Debate experience. I am learning all of the terminology, so you can expect me to focus on content over theory. I look forward to hearing you all debate! Don't stress out, be respectful to each other, and have fun!
If you want my ballot you need to effectively write my ballot for me. There are a few things that I mention in my paradigm that I love to see that people seem to forget about. Namely extending and weighing. You need to extend the warranting for whatever argument you are going for and extend the impact. If your opponent does not do this PLEASE point it out because in my opinion with 3 minute summaries you do not have offense unless you give some extensions. With that said, to avoid losing my ballot please signpost your extensions. Say to me "Judge please extend our first contention where we say ____ which leads to ___ which gives us our impact of ____". If only one team extends, as long as that team has some access to their argument they will probably win. This also goes for weighing. I as a judge do not want to intervene. Weighing is the easiest way for me to compare your arguments, so please weigh. If only one team weighs, as long as they have some access to their arg they are probably going to win because it doesn't matter how hard you are winning your argument if you do not tell me how to compare it to your opponents arg. In an ideal world both teams have a couple pieces of weighing by summary and then both do meta weighing in FF. Same thing goes for weighing in terms of signposting. Please directly tell me you are about to weigh and please tell me where to weigh it.
I have not ever judged LD and really do not know much about it. Please treat me as a flay judge. You can read prog arguments in front of me, but realize that I likely do not really know how evaluate them. I can handle some speed, but definitely not a lot. If you have circuit and trad cases please read the trad ones. Even if you aren't going fast I would appreciate getting put on the email chain. Please let me know if you have any questions before the round.
TW - IMPORTANT (Specifically for PF)
If you are reading something that is potentially triggering please read a TW, and give your opponents the opportunity to opt out. If you read an argument that could obviously trigger someone like sexual assault without a TW I will be mad and not like you. I understand that some people may feel this is a stupid rule because they think that it is unreasonable to force debaters to have multiple cases, but I would say it is a lot worse to force someone to relive trauma.
I think Parli rounds are typically either really good, or quite disappointing, mainly because I think there is a big divide between teams that know how to prep, and teams that don't. Parli is not a debate about who has the best cards the way that Policy, PF, and LD are, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I as a judge don't value cards, I think that I have an obligation to. In my opinion the best cards to try and find in Parli by far are impact cards. You can use logic to make link chains, and you don't need evidence to define basic political facts, but you can't just assert that the electrical grid being damaged kills X many people. Having quantifiable impacts is such a huge help especially in the weighing side of the debate.
In terms of progressive debate, I am not opposed to it, but know that I am not the best judge for it.
I think weighing is incredibly important when you don't have cards, as such I think weighing should be like your main focus in Parli. You should probably start weighing as early as you can. I am also a huge sucker for meta weighing because I think that it is super under utilized, so if you do that I will be quite happy.
Although I don't think most Parli rounds should be judged on a strictly line by line level, that doesn't mean that you should abandon the flow. In fact chances are if you go line by line you are a lot more likely to get my ballot than if you don't.
A lot of my PF paradigm applies as well, so probably read that if you have time. Otherwise if you have any other questions just ask me.
I did PF. I can flow moderately fast but don't go too fast. If you spread I will insta drop you (please be aware I define spreading very liberally so to be safe just go slower). I am definitely not opposed to hearing K's or theory debates, but please be aware that I do not have a lot of experience in that realm of debate and as such I am definitely not the best judge for it. With that said, please be aware that I come from a school that did not have any support for debate and as such, although I do recognize the positive change that can run from running progressive arguments (especially against other good teams who know how to handle those arguments), I also recognize the inherent inaccessibility that prog arguments possess. I mention this so you know that I support you running prog arguments, but also am subconsciously more likely to support and vote for the team not running those args.
You need to weigh, if only one team weighs I will default to them.
Extend warrants and not just authors.
2nd rebuttal should probably frontline, but prioritize turns. Defense is sticky in 1st summary.
For the most part I am only going to call for cards if either one of the debaters tells me to, or if the card seems kind of outrageous. If I call for a card just because it seems outrageous I will only check to see if it is blatantly fake, all other evidence analysis should be done by the debaters. Any other questions just ask me.
One last thing. PLEASE EXTEND. I have had to drop multiple teams now that were dominating the round simply because they only extended their impact. You need to extend the warranting. To be safe signpost your extending. Don't just frontline and extend somewhere in your frontlining. At some point in Summary or FF say to me now extend my whatever contention.
DROPPED DEFENSE DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXTENDED IN SUMMARY
But it does need to be in FF
Dropped offense must be extended.
SIGNPOST I want to know where I'm flowing your arguments. Jumpy responses confuse me. If I’m confused by your speech you are less likely to win.
WARRANT I need you to explain why your turn is a turn to extend it. Tell me, “extend the turn on their C2, where we tell you _______ according to _______.” I won't vote on a turn without warranting.
COLLAPSE Don't make the round about 10 different arguments. Narrow it down to something you can flesh out at the end of the debate. This has become a huge issue. If the other team doesn’t collapse and you do, I’ll be more likely to vote for you because I’ll have a better comprehension of your case.
WEIGH Tell me why I prefer your argument PLEASE! SEVERITY, REVERSIBILITY, MAGNITUDE, TIMEFRAME; USE IT. If you weigh and your opps don’t; guess what? You win. Weigh.
Things that will ding your speaks/get you dropped:
1. Bad evidence ethics. If you very blatantly misrep evidence then at best I will drop your points by 1. If your opponents call for your card and then tell me to read it and drop you for bad evidence, there's a chance I'll drop you for it. Bad evidence undermines education.
2. Sexism, racism, and general excessive rudeness with get you L20ed instantly.
When giving my rfd, I am not opposed to clarifications of the debate from both teams (like postround me, hard (this doesn’t mean you get to argue with me. I’m for postrounding to clarify my decision, not to continue the debate.)). Hopefully this clarifies the debate and prevents any team from feeling like they got screwed. A judge should be able to explain their decision. I'll ask questions if I think I'm missing something.
For the most part I will support anything you run, but just ask me about it before the round.
If are going to do an email chain please put me on it: email@example.com (To be clear, although I want to be on the email chain for convenience sake just in case I need to look at a card, I do not plan on/want to have to be looking through your cards)
P.S. If something happens during the round that you don't feel comfortable talking about publicly (i.e. misgendering) send me a dm in zoom, an email, or any other way of conversation.
I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to.
If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.
I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.
Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.
2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!
That leads me to...
3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.
I am "that same lay judge (Srikar Satish) [who] ends up judging 6 of their 8 rounds" so I'm basically a hack. But realistically completely tab, I only care about the flow all your rhetoric stuff, doesn't matter.
L Brain stuff
1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!
2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything. And I'll hack.
3. Gaslighting me in round about my flow.
4. "omg it's SRI-CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR" insta L i've heard this too much. Please i'm shy and don't wanna talk to people let me be in peace wUw.
5. Taking more than 30 seconds to send your evidence. Every 5 seconds after is 1 speak gone. Don't waste my time and I won't waste yours. After 3 minutes of "ev finding/sending" I will drop w/e argument you're trying to find ev for. Don't be stupid PFers.
6. Asking for my email in round: here it is 2nd time. Srikartirumala@gmail.com
Stuff that makes your smooth brain and will prolly cause you the L or speaks to be nuked.
2. "Discourse" as solvency
3. No speech Docs.
4. Reading theory on novices -- I will hold extensions to really high regard
5. "ThEy DoN't HaVe Ev" --- cringe completely and you will get horrible speaks.
6. Faking ev, just analytic it if you don't have it!
7. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary
8. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing circuit music. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments read in varsity
9. "I nEeD tO pReFlOw" that's like saying "let me cut my solvency for my 1AC rq". Should be done prior to round don't waste my time
10. Not skipping grand.
Stuff that Sigmas Read
- Theory (but not stupid and friv)
- Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
- Speech Doc Theory / "No cut cards" (Almost insta W)
- Paraphrasing Bad (Also almost insta W)
- Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)
Why do I care so much about good ev?
I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. I also get flashbacks to the great paraphrasing war of 2019 and u don't want me to go distant in my old boomer thoughts during your speech bc your ev made my eyes bleed again.
TL/DR- Very Tab, will vote off anything, even if I think it's stupid and dumb. Bad evidence is a TKO--- call it an IVI and I'll check if it's bad. Yes it's 0 risk offense, but it's also cheating, you shouldn't have to take a risk to call out cheating. Make round interesting for more speaks.
If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.
If you put your tabletote on the highest setting during all speeches it will be very funny and mayb your speaks might rise bc rounds are supposed to be fun (if you have to stand on a chair to do this please don't).
Ok below this is a lotta stuff that I can't be bothered to delete bc I have to scroll and that's a lot of work so you can read it if you want. Just ask me b4 round if you have questions and I'll be so confused bc I don't "have paradigms" If you do policy/LD u prolly want to scroll down to that section because I judge those events often.
*Post TOC Update*
I am sick and tired of atrociously written K arguments -- if your opponent reads a K with no solvency and u tell me it, I'm crossing it off the flow I won't care to hear the rest. If you're reading K args don't give me this "Omg DISCOURSE" give me an actual argument. This isn't me being mean, same way if you don't have a link, ur arg bad, if you don't have solvency, ur arg bad.
Updated after NDCA round 2: If you call for a card that was not explicit cited in speech you get 25 speaks. If you derive an analytic from a card that's just paraphrasing and all those speak caps apply. Like if they don't cite ev in a speech it's not ev don't ask them to produce ev to back up smt they didn't cite. Can't believe this has to be said. I typically don't really listen into y'alls prep / cross so like... refuse to give a card if u didn't cite it. However, my view of evidence states that if YOU produce a card, you have essentially told me that the analytic was a paraphrased card (gross), but it is evidence that you have attached to that tag. Treat it almost like a 2NC card attached to an analytic argument. So PLEASE do not do that
I am most persuaded by debaters who choose the negation side. an easy win flip neg
General Information about me:
Hi I'm Srikar (Shree kerr and in curry), please notice that my name isn't "Judge". I did Public Forum, extemp, and UIL CX at A&M Consolidated for 4 years with the tallest man alive Lurz Deutz. I was a fairly "tech" debater and am comfortable with most arguments.
Giving records is cringe but people ask me soooooooooo----
Search it up if you're so interested u little stalker.
Put me on the email chain: Srikartirumala@gmail.com
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE email me before round if there are accessibility concerns! Especially pronouns: I am MORE THAN HAPPY to request for everyone in the round to use gender-neutral pronouns if requested, and please respect pronouns. For me accessibility is a level above the round itself and if I need to stop the round because it is becoming unsafe I shall.
I'm fairly tab. But no one is ever full tab, as I will not vote up arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This also includes I will assume everything is responsive unless you tell me otherwise. Aka, it is your job to do everything for me, I will just look at flow and not care if it is responsive if it is signposted on a contention and has a warrant-- I will value it. It needs a response for me to not evaluate it. Weighing is a must and is the only path to the ballot. I think judge grilling is good, but if the tournament is running late I may cut this short a bit. U can always message me or come up to me and ask about your rounds.
Probability IS NOT WEIGHING
EXTEND CARD NAMES AND WARRANTS!!! Also a form of ev weighing is card>Paraphrase, I consider this weighing
Disclosure is a good norm, speech docs good norm, paraphrasing is a bad norm, making rounds inaccessible with theory is bad norm. I will still up, might hurt your speaks however. Everything can be phrased in a way anyone can understand if you try hard enough.
PLEASE IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE HEATHENS READ PARAPHRASE THEORY! I will be tab no matter what but I do not see myself ever wanting to vote up paraphrase good.
If your opponents hyperlink or do not cut their cards that's a TKO if you make it a voter. I won't stop the round but I will stop flowing. You will not win if you do not cut cards. Kids, it's legit in NSDA rules lol, this is a TKO
Honestly SPEECH DOCS, ev exchange is atrocious and I'm considering making this a TKO. If you're gonna be heathens are paraphrase and u don't wanna get dunked on by theory sending speech docs is probably a good idea.
Establish Content Warnings before round. People have their contacts on Wiki, and hopefully, issues they will opt out of there as well. Lack of content warnings aren't a TKO for me. Depending on the severity of the case, I will KILL your speaks, or err HEAVILY towards theory or an IVI. If I can do anything to make the round safer just contact me before round and I'll do whatever. If something has been established as impeding the safety of the round and a team still does it, it's a TKO. I will stop flowing, so please call a TKO.
I can't believe I have to put this here, but please put pronouns on tabroom! I don't want any1 to misgender you and I definitely don't want to on accident. I will prolly err HEAVILY towards some procedural about this.
Clarity is not a weighing mechanism and will make me sad and lose you speaks.
Don't ask to preflow that's something that should be done before round that's the same as "give me 5 minutes need to cut 3 cards for my Underview". Tbh 4 minutes after round starts / flip ends. I will take 0.5 speaks off per minute. Don't waste time.
Strike me if you
1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)
2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L
3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.
4. You're going to read trix expecting me to know what you are saying. I'm fine with them (don't love them) but just explain it to me.
5. You're gonna spread but aren't clear in the SLIGHTEST and expect me to just follow off the doc. If there's a doc I'll go to it only to read ev but ur tags better be clear. This is speech and debate if ur not clear, ur not speaking.
6. Think I'm gonna like you calling for 1000 pieces of ev. It's called a speech doc y'all.
7. Are going to read "debaters must paraphrase/paraphrase good theory" -- adding this one for you Anish. I'll vote off it but please just strike me for my own mental health. Any interp or counter interp like this won't affect W/L but like... know I'm erring against you and your speaks are probably capped at like a 25.5. No sort of kissup will help -- if ur trynna win a speaker award just don't read this arg in front of me.
This part is stolen from THE beach
***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***
As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.
1-5, 3+ I like. I will literally vote on anything, including the sky green so no indo-pak war.
Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS
- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).
- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.
- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase ur speaks are gone.
Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.
K : 2
- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.
- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.
- I am fairly familiar with Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, and Cap to a degree, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV.
This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like it.
Plans/CP : 1
- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.
- I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
- All good,weigh them!
If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"
I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.
I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIII
- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.
- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.
Performance/Non T AFFs : 4
You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.
- If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.
- Line by line only please
- Defense is NOT sticky
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline ALL responses from 1st
- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30.
1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads if it's online.
2. Bad evidence is a TKO
3. No cut cards is a TKO
4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?
5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.
6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about.
So here I think it's important to know where I did policy back in the day, which was UIL 5A policy, I did fairly well there, but you're basically free to run anything you think your old school policy judges will buy.
Dude I don't know Phil don't make me use my brain, explain it to me like I am a lay judge and I can vote off it.
Compared to PF I am not as familiar with k. I am 100% fine (and love) voting off it, however, you're gonna need to explain it to me REALLY REALLY WELL. In HS I LARPED typically, and I probably understand that better. PLEASE TREAT ME LAY if you are going to read K. I'm not so dumb that I will just stare at you, but I need to know how different items interact.
In the wise words of Owen Phoenix-Flood "If u spread Deleuze prepare to deLOSE my ballot" bc I prolly won't understand. You gotta like explain to me the LBL and not assume ur spreaded OV extension takes care of everything
I'm probably gonna be lost in a trix debate.
I'm p good with speed, but I'm not gonna look at your doc unless I need to. Ie- BE CLEAR and slow down for tags!
CX is binding. Don't ask "where did u finish doc" in CX, if they say "I finished it all" and they clearly didn't please just flow lol.
Post round me / ask questions as much as you want. Here is something interesting though. If you think I made the wrong decision AND You can convince me otherwise, I will change my decision, but you must make it clear that you are trying to change my decision. I don't wanna deal with "I have 1 billion questions". If you think I'm big dumb and I need to change my decision, you're allowed to trade 1/2 a speak for 3 minutes of post-rounding. I have no issue changing my decision. Judges should be kept accountable for their decisions. I add this here because I have never been persuaded against my decision in post rounding, if I like completely forgot that you extended an argument or something this could work, but again, this probably will never happen I think I'm p decent at flowing. I also will take time to make sure I didn't forget about your 5-second blip (even though it's prolly under warranted and under implicated lol).
I basically judge this like any other event so don't ask for "paradigms" lol. Basically constructive like policy, rebuttals like rebuttals in policy.
I will intervene in __ conditions.
1. You try to win off a racist/sexist/homophobic etc. argument. A good example of this is "racism is a democratic value".
2. Both teams don't give a path to the ballot (I intervene here by coinflip presumption)
3. There is a 100% conceded link chain, I will give a lil leeway on warranting (if there is even a piece of mitigation, and the FULL link chain isn't extended, I will not vote off the argument).
4. Someone tells me to gut check / intervene on an argument (and there isn't a response)
5. There is an argument that is severely under warranted. if it's conceded and the weighing is clear I'll vote on it still hesitantly. If I can't understand something or how it interacts in the round it's really hard for me to vote on.
I will call for cards in 3 events:
1. I just am interested and want to read
2. I am told to explicitly
3. You change your evidence to become some god card that answers all.
4. YOU ARE PARAPHRASING HEATHENS AND I WANT TO SEE HOW BAD U FAKED EV (but I won't intervene if ur opponents didn't call u out, but I'll make sure they know it was fake for future rounds along with everyone else at the tourney).
I will not vote off evidence unless the round was horrible or I was told to call for it, but if I still call for it and it was bad, I might make note of it
Speaking to old friends inspired this: If you can has "haha get timesucked" ever in round and it's a real timesuck moment your speaks are auto at least 29
Every minute you come late to round is a speaker point off
A good speaker is one who signposts, weighs, does comparative analysis, and has good evidence ethics.
If you don’t give speech docs you’re capped at a 29 -- more for online debate, but I think the same should be said for in person.
If you paraphrase with speech docs you’re capped at a 28
If you paraphrase with no speech docs you’re capped at a 27
Each minute you take to "find a card" which is wasting everyone's time is 0.5 speaks off
If you want to avoid this cap read a warrant why you should get 30 speaks and extend it through speeches. This is the price for heathenism.
Some speaks boost.
Don't do GCX
Take no prep (+1)
Your speaks will magically rise if you bring food, use a table tote , and if you don't call me "judge".
Here is a list of acceptable food:
---Cookies, Chips etc
--- If u bring foods that contain meat products L20. If there isn't vegetarian-friendly food, chew out the tournament.
Anything else that might entertain me will also increase your speaks. Don't be too serious debate is a game -- have fun!
For me, content is about 48% and presentation is the rest, this is a speech event after all.
I value a good substructure with fluid transitions between.
A lot of extempers don't really warrant their statistics, have good warranted analysis and don't just throw facts at me.
I follow the news a lil bit, so don't try and tell me something that is 100% false (like Donald Trump has a high approval rating).
I'll prolly be tired from judging debate events, or just be tired because I don't sleep so a solid AGD goes a long way.
If we are still online please just time yourself, if we are in person I’ll time as well and give y’all 3 down. If u want something different let me know.
Some cool peps:
Allen Zhang - Goat status
Richard Li - 2nd only to Allen
Big Dog Beach
A big pile of shim
If you have any further questions, or wanna talk about your round email me at Srikartirumala@gmail.com
If you scroll this far pull up a meme on ur laptop and hold it up during cross. If I laugh, you get a boost, if not I dock your speaks for being cringe. If ur in speech haha time sucked. This part does NOT APPLY TO ONLINE DEBATE
I have experience as a competitor in congressional debate and extemp, but not in other debate formats. Because of this, you should aim to explain your arguments in a way that isn't overly reliant on format-specific knowledge. This doesn't mean that you can't be creative with your arguments, but just that you need to be clear about how your position logically follows from your evidence.
There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.
I competed in parliamentary debate for four years at Evergreen. I am currently a junior at UCLA and an assistant coach at the Nueva School. Please email any questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 but call the POO.
Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.
A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorical violence. Do not misgender your opponents.
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.
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, but feel free to educate me.
I prefer K debates and will probably be more competent at evaluating them. That being said, theory is still cool and I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks.
I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters.
I'll vote on all other theory shells. I really enjoy "frivolous" theory that's creative and well-constructed. I don't enjoy frivolous theory that is poorly constructed and relies on your opponents not knowing how to handle theory.
Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready.
I default to competing interpretations. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable.
I'll vote on potential abuse. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I default to drop the argument.
I'm neutral on RVIs. It really depends on how well you develop and leverage it.
If there are multiple shells or metatheory, you NEED to layer and tell me which one to prefer and evaluate first.
I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.
KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. My personal politics align most strongly with materialism and it is 90% of my K familiarity, but feel free to read whatever. I’m not opposed to performance-based Ks, but I’m not familiar with them. Rejecting the resolution and framework theory are both fine with me. 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.
From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."
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.
For case debate, I don't Google evidence or verify any of your claims. I don't vote on unwarranted or unexplained claims. Unwarranted links have ZERO probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.
I really hate tix, spending DAs, and Ks bad theory. I’ll still vote for these arguments/have no paradigmatic objection to them/won’t drop your speaks or anything, but my feelings are strong enough to where I feel like I have to disclose a potential bias towards my evaluation of them.
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. I'll add 0.2 speaker points to your total if you use a Taylor Swift reference that meaningfully contributes to your argument.
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 :^)
Greetings!!! I have children that debate at the Middle School and Varsity levels, but personally have limited experience judging. I generally have an open mind and do well at judging an argument on merit, but here’s the kicker - I do not respond well to people talking very quickly or incomprehensibly. Having said that, I look forward to hearing (well) from you!
My name is Lindsey (she/her) and I am a senior majoring in economics & philosophy at Cleveland State University. I competed in public forum debate for four years, and I have experience coaching public forum debate.
Please read content warnings when discussing sensitive topics. Debate should be a comfortable place for everyone.
Be respectful and make the debate fun. Disrespecting your opponents will not be tolerated. Talking over your opponents will not be tolerated.
I won't read evidence unless I am explicitly asked to read the evidence. I would much prefer to not read evidence and have debaters settle evidence disputes in speeches.
Please try to be in touch with your arguments. What I mean is that if you are white, don't run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.
Condense throughout the round
I am fine with speed, but if you are going fast, please give an off-time roadmap/signpost.
Theory is fine w/ me (barring disclosure)
I do not flow cross. If you want me to flow something, say it in your speech.
Path to my ballot:
The first way I evaluate the round is by comparing how much offense each team has on the flow. If there are responses on a piece of offense you have, you must frontline them or you cannot extend it.
The second way I evaluate the round is based on weighing mechanisms. If you don't tell me why your argument matters, I can't evaluate it. Weighing must be comparative. Don't repeat your impact without interacting with your opponents' impact.
I am a relatively new parent judge. Please be respectful to your opponents and don't overuse jargon. Also, please speak clearly and at a pace at which your opponents and I can understand what you're saying. Please be concise with your speeches and don't try and make them longer than they need to be. Off-time road maps are also helpful, and I would appreciate you using them. It is easiest for me to vote for a team/debater when they have a clear speech and good rebuttals to attacks on their case.
Here is my email for email chains: email@example.com.
Debate (Excluding Congress)
TL/DR: I like substantive arguments, probable impacts, good statistical evidence, reasonable definitions and good cross ex skills.I don't like progressive arguments in PF and extemp debate, aff Ks in parli, disclosure theory, or politics disads.
It's my first year doing a fast format, so I have trouble flowing anything faster than about 300 WPM. I will call "speed" or "clear" if you go too fast for me or speak unclearly. I don't like it when debaters use their speed to exclude others and will vote on speed theory.
With regards to substantive arguments, I try my best to judge based solely on what is said in the round, unless someone is being blatantly racist, homophonic, sexist, etc. I appreciate well researched cases, especially if they have an interesting yet topical way of approaching the topic or arguments whose components fit together well. I'm totally open to voting on goofy impact turns (eg. democracy bad or nuke war good) when they are well used. I'll admit to being a bit biased against politics disads, but I'll vote on them if they are really well researched and have significantly probable impacts.
In high school LD, I like it when there is a value and a value criterion used to structure and weigh your contentions. I do evaluate plans and counterplans in LD, but generally prefer the traditional style (unless it's one of those tournaments that has a progressive LD division, then you totally should have a plan).
Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scope and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers.
In formats with plans, I'm okay with conditional counter advocacies and effectual and extra topical plans, unless your opponent wins a theory argument stating otherwise. I love a well run counterplan. I don't usually vote on consult CPs. I'll vote on 50 states and time delay CPs, but I won't be happy about it.
In evidentiary formats of debate, I care about the quantity, quality, and relevance of evidence. Usually statistics persuade me more than qualitative data or quotes from experts. In high school parli, while I do weight claims made with supporting evidence more than claims without evidence, I am more concerned with how logical the arguments made are than how many sources you have. In all formats, but this is mostly a problem in parli, I care a lot about whether your evidence actually supports your claim; citing sources for the sake of increasing your source count isn't a productive exercise.
I do flow cross examination (or POI if you're in parli) and consider how well you respond to questions in my evaluation. You can't win a round because of how good you are at asking or answering questions, but you can lose a round if you are bad enough at answering questions. Not taking any questions in parli, attempting to dominate cross fire in PF or BQ, or being too aggressive in cross will negatively affect your speaker points.
I generally prefer substantive topic relevant arguments to kirtiks, but I'm open to voting on them if they are relevant to the debate and in a format that is conducive (policy, LD, and often parli). I like kritiks with clear links and strong alternatives. This is my first year of ev debate, so I'm still not familiar with all of the critical literature yet and appreciate well explained kritiks. In general, I don't like to vote on K affs, especially in extemporaneous formats of debate.
I'm vehemently opposed to progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, SPAR, and BQ, so if you are doing one of those events, don't expect me to vote on a K or T unless there was a really egregious violation, it was conceded, or nothing else was discussed in the round.
Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability when evaluating theory and will refuse to vote on "go to the beach theory", collapse of debate good impact turns and other such nonsense. I always drop the argument not the debater. I will vote on disclosure theory and topicality based on wording technicalities, but I won't be happy about it. I do evaluate 1AR theory (unless the 1AR is the last speech in that format). I'm open to voting on 50 states CPs bad and time delay CPs bad and frequently do.
TL/DR: I'm a content oriented congress judge who largely rates competitors based off of how well they contribute to the discussion. I value unique arguments, clash, and good questioning skills.
Although it's listed in a category of its own on my paradigm, I consider congress to be more of a debate event than a speech event. About 70% of how I evaluate competitors in congress is their content. I appreciate thoroughly researched cases, especially when they have a lot of relevant statistics or a unique angle on the bill. After the first cycle or two, I value speakers who refute the arguments of those on the opposing side. I especially value clash when it is against strong arguments made by the other side and is well integrated into the rest of your speech.
Because there are so many competitors in a chamber, in many respects congress is a contest of standing out. For me, competitors who stand out do so because they contribute to the chamber by make arguments no one else is making, refute other's arguments well, and/or ask a lot of really good questions. Like with debate, in my view, you can't win a round because you are good at asking and answering questions, but you can lose a round if you are bad enough at answering questions.
Although I don't weigh it as much as content, I do care how well you speak and will dock you for stumbling, talking at an inappropriate speed, and/or having bad gestures. This especially true for early round constructive speeches, when you have had lots of time to prepare, the arguments are pretty stock, and there isn't much clash to evaluate.
I admire speakers who have a good understanding of the issue and use pathos because they genuinely care. I will, however, dock speakers who are using pretending to care as a way to get better rankings without having to do as much research.
Organization matters. Like with questions, you can't win a round because your speech is well organized, but you will get a low score if your speech is a disorganized mess.
If you give a crystallization speech (or any later round speech for that matter) make sure you are providing analysis or additional information that puts other parts of the round in context and not just rehashing. I tend to rank crystallization speeches either very high or very low depending on how well the contribute to the discussion.
Currently, I'm a first year competitor in NFA LD at Lewis & Clark College in Portland. In high school, I did congress and extemp for four years in Southern California. I also competed for three years in local circuit high school parli and have done a bit of judging.
hi qorls call me hope
she/they | email: firstname.lastname@example.org
yup that's right, u got a speech kid judging ur debate round.
I'm a 4th year at LC, primarily speech but I did some humble debate in addition. I've been competing for 8 years, now I serve as the National Student Representative for the Collegiate National Forensic Association. In HS, I had some interp TOC and NSDA outrounds and fortunately a couple placings and state titles as well. In college, some tournament titles and platform/interp breaks at NFA. I've been around, got the trauma to prove it (´༎ຶٹ༎ຶ)
I have some experience in LD and PF from high school. So I'll break down some generals and then specific—
Me to the debater spreading: "I CaN speAK FaST But I'M acTUaLly JuSt GATeKEepINg"
lol speed's fine for the most part. I'm a speech kid though so if u pathos it up I'll be more engaged, don't spread through your tags. Also, don't be afraid to call clear or speed on your opponent/don't be surprised if I call it on you; debate should (and in my round, WILL) be accessible*. The norms that currently guide debate elevate form over content, and that's dumb but I get it, do what you gotta do to keep afloat in the norm waves.
I'm tab, do whatever you like, make me laugh, bribe me, let's have a good ol time.
30's for everyone, unless ur intolerant and/or a shithead, do some reflection if warranted.
Send an email or ask for clarification if needed and advocate for your needs in round, I'll listen.
Theory: So while I'm all for your hijinx on the T page, spoon feed this speech kid. I want everybody to read what makes them buzz but keep in mind what I am capable of comprehending based on my experiences. I have found I am more persuaded by proven abuse than hypothetical abuse on a T flow but that isn't an absolute.
K: perm doesn't work as offense.
I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.
I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty. I won't just vote what x person/auth. elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of x person/auth.
CX: If something in CX isn't made in a speech, I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.
I'm flowin, you win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.
I like cards and you should read them.
If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll notice and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access cards quickly.
Front Half (AC/NC & AR/NR)
Constructives can be anything, I don't take my own opinions of policy into a debate round.
I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.
Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)
The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.
Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.
Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.
Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob a really bad thing for you in my eyes.
I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, especially in this event.
*Accessibility/Speed: you need to be capable of making speech docs & sending them out for the opponent and the judge if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around to make this a more viable option for you if you come unprepared. If you choose to spread, you should be able to take on the accessibility accommodations that go with it*
-Remember to speak clear and concise at any speed!
-Make sure your arguments are explicitly explainable
-Roadmap and signpost, keep consistent organization throughout the round
General: I have experience with debating/judging policy and congress. Clash is the #1 biggest thing I want to see in a round.
Stock issues/T: Stock issues debate makes for a great round, style is not always imperative. T is fine, but I often find that the argument chains don't provide the debate with a meaningful/educational impact.
K's/CPs: K's and CP's are great! My experience is financial/economic IR-interrelated theory, but please be creative.
* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.
Specifics for Parli:
I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.
ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.
Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.
Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.
Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.
Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.
If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.
My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.
I flow POI answers.
Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.
BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.
I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.
Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.
The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.
Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.
I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.
Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.
Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.
I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.
Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.
I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.
There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.
I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.
Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.
I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.
Specifics for Public Forum:
Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.
Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.
I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.
Thresholds for voting on solvency:
PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.
I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.
There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.
Specifics for Circuit Policy:
Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.
Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.
For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.
Specifics for Lay Policy:
I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.
As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.
TL;DR: Don't be rude or discourteous; speak well and clearly; and like win or whatever idc im not your coach
parli and extemp mainly in hs
If its prepped pls disclose it makes my life a hell of a lot easier
Run what you want, as long as it isn't morally reprehensible (i.e. kill all puppies). I prefer fewer, well created arguments with solid warranting and reasoning. Walk me through the link chains and terminalize your impacts and the debate will be so much more educational that way.
I believe that debate's inherent existence is for education, so the more creative and out of the box your arguments (as long as they're well reasoned) the more brownie (and speaker points) you get from me.
I'm totally and completely fine with tech/theory arguments and default on reasonability unless told to otherwise.
If you are going to spread, make sure your opponents are fine with it and especially make sure that's its understandable. In other words, if you can't spread without mumbling or stumbling just don't do it.
I start speaks at 28 and go up or down from there, with 1.5 being style and persuasiveness and the other .5 being creativity of arguments. You could be the reincarnation of Churchill himself and still get a 29.5 <3
Don't have much to say to y'all, as speech is very much event based. I judge speech based on how much you are able to meet the intent of your event. I.e. in HI I want to laugh but in Ext I want to come out of it knowing something new about the world. Other than that, as long as you're enjoying the speech you're giving I believe that your best will shine through.
hills ill die on in bold.
do people even read these things? was that just me?
1) Online stuff: I prefer you give speeches with your camera on, err on speech clarity & flowability because online debates drastically reduce that. If my camera is off I am not there and definitely not ready
2) Procedural stuff/meta stuff: Please start debates on time, to the minute. The 1AC should be sent with speaker prepared to speak BEFORE that minute. Otherwise, -.2 speaks for both aff debaters. If you are not clear, I will not read off the doc, I will just not flow. I mean it, I will not have sympathy for unclear speaking in an activity about communication This may sound harsh but when yelling clear is no longer a viable option I have to be.
-Put me on the email chain (I dislike file share but I can tolerate it if you insist) @ Ethanwall2003@gmail.com
-Please do not refer to me as "judge" I am a human with a name (its Ethan)
-My thoughts on the k v policy IdEoLoGicAl DiVidE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXLu_x0SRm4&ab_channel=Noodle
-I think of every debate and every argument within that debate through the lens of probable risk of said argument being true versus its' competing argument. This is why specific and nuanced argument resolution is the best way to earn my ballot.
-Stealing prep is a pet peeve of mine. Its also awkward to resolve. If your opponents say nothing, nor will I. If they do, best knock it off or face actual recourse(we cross that bridge when we come to it). If they do not and I am beyond reasonable doubt foul play is at hand, it will reflect poorly in your speaker points.
-Clipping is a reason to reject the team given indisputable evidence.
-I will work hard to evaluate your debate in the LEAST interventionist way possible. absent argument resolution that can be difficult
3) Top level thoughts on content/actual debating: I think judges should adapt to the debaters not vice versa, best way to my ballot is to do what you know you can do because at the end of the day, you're trying to beat your opponents not my biases/predispositions/my own training. The only exceptions are that I ask you time your own speeches, track your own prep, and do astute line by line/labeling/signposting. I didnt think id need to mention this but I flow straight down. I have a disdain for long overviews [1 minute +] hidden under the guise of "cloud clash"
-"I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t." - Matt Liu
-I like policy debates, I like K debates, I like planless debates, I like politics, specific DA's, annoying cps, piks, turing test, you name it and im probably down to hear a 2NR/2AR on it! (this is NOT an advertisement to be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc!) Debate is a strategic and fun game in my mind and all the wacky arguments are apart of it and what make it fun. (A bad argument is a bad argument though, any of them are technically winnable, but many of them are uphill battles) On the other hand, this activity used to be less lighthearted to me; If you want a serious debate about something important to you, I am down for that too.
-Tech determines truth seems obvious, otherwise I can just impart my own wacky beliefs on whatever I want right? (sky is green now, sorry not sorry)
-Do argument resolution a lack of this is the number one reason debates dont turn out the way debaters want. Do impact calc, 4th level explanation, evidence comparison, etc
-I am increasingly annoyed by a lack of warranted explanations/extensions. (I promise slowing down for more coherence will help not hurt you) Buzzwords are not warrants.
-In a debate where both teams are reading blocks I will likely conclude condo is good. if condo bad is the 2AR, focus on being persuasive (generally this means being thorough about in round abuse)
-If you have any questions about specific content or accessibility concerns/needs please dont hesitate to ask
4) Speaker points
tldr: if youre good, youll get good speaks.
alas, a roadmap in my decision calculus on what a 'good' speaker/debater is:
--organized and labeled debating (do line by line)
--apparent knowledge of an argument
--apparent credibility to an arguments' execution
--clash and appreciation for the flow
--ARGUMENT RESOLUTION (this means you tell me your answers to their answers and close doors)
--CX competency (keep it moving, be mindful, be engaging)
--I dont care what prose you use or how you dress, just know what you are talking about.
Specific questions/concerns/etc my Paradigm didn't touch on? feel free to ask in round or email ahead @Ethanwall2003@gmail.com
5) LD: I am comfortable judging either traditional or modern LD rounds but keep in mind I have no familiarity with the topic so an emphasis on explanation and implication will likely go a long way. Avoid topic acronyms
6) PF/Parli/Congress/Speech: If you're a die hard fan of these events, sorry to lump them all together. The best way to earn my ballot is to focus on using little to no debate jargon and instead to emphasize on persuasive speaking and making complete arguments.
Email chain: email@example.com
I did PF for four years at westwood
Yes, I disclose. No, you don't have to.
Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presumption flows neg.
Link spamming and dumping progressive args will only hurt you
Evidence ethics - You must have a cut card for each piece of paraphrase ev.
Accessibility - Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than 25 speaks.
Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 350 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). But if you wanna ignore this, just let me be clear about something: I am lazy. I try to intervene as little as possible and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you. It's your job to convince me.
Yes, I give 30s.! My baseline is 27. I rarely go below that, and when I do, it's only to 26. If you get less than that, you must have pissed me off.
just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted.
If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline.
If 2nd rebuttal frontlines, 1st summary needs defense. if 2nd rebuttal doesnt frontline, ur chillin. Generally speaking, no new evidence in second summary onward. You should be collapsing as the round progresses, not introducing new arguments. IMPLICATE AS YOU EXTEND DEFENSE PLEASE!! I decided who wins responses off of who interacts more so just remember to keep interacting.
Everything in FF has to be in summary. Again, interact, don't just extend through ink.
I usually tune out cross so don't get too heated its not worth it I promise you. That being said tho if you make me pay attention to your cross its either really good or really bad for your speaks:) Either way won't affect my decision.
good round strategy matters if you want to win over me as a judge.
WEIGH, INPLICATE, INTERACT
Feel free to postround. But please only do so if the round ends before 11pm, otherwise honestly just email me we both don't want to be there.
1. Don't spread: speak clearly so I (and your opponents) can clearly understand you.
2. Don't run Ks: focus on the substantive issues of the resolution being debated.
3. Most importantly, be civil: ad hominem is the easiest way to lose a round.
I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.
For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.
Please do not run any squirrely arguments.
I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.
I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.
Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.
Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.
I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.
I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.
I've judged multiple Parli rounds including some rounds on the national circuit. I likeb analysis more than speed and breadth. Rebuttal speeches should articulate in simple term. The debaters should stay calm, even and respectful.