Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

Hello all! I hope this paradigm answers most of your questions, but please contact me at alex.abarca@yale.edu if you have any outstanding questions. I’m also happy to discuss debate in general. I’m a first-generation, low-income student and down to answer any questions about college!

I competed in NPDL-Parliamentary all four years in high school. I was a two-time NPDL TOC qualifier, a four-time state qualifier in IX (CHSSA), and a four-time national qualifier in IX (NSDA). I top spoke at the Jack Howe Long Beach Invitational and won the 2020 Stanford Invitational. In college, I was a member of the Yale Debate Association, served as tournament director for the 2022 Yale Invitational and Yale Osterweis Invitational, and judged both tournaments.

I have judged elimination rounds at NPDL-TOC 2021-2023 and the semifinal and final rounds in 2022. I have experience judging the West Coast Circuit and the NYPDL/East Coast Circuits.

I’m happy to judge either lay or tech rounds, but I see myself more as a traditional judge. I don’t like to think of debate as a game – we sometimes discuss heavy topics in rounds and articulate policies with theoretical real-world implications. Viewing debate as a game is unfair to our logic and skills, the people and situations we draw from when writing resolutions, and people who want to learn from this activity. Thankfully, theory usage as a strategy to win has begun to fall out of fashion in the community – I’m happy to judge theory debate when it’s well-warranted and called for. If you do it in an attempt to shut your opponent out of the round, I may vote for you, but don’t expect to speak above a 25.

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I avoid speed and jargon unless you and your opponents agree on it (jargon such as turn/cross-apply/extend is great if both teams understand it!). I encourage the 1AR/1NR (PMR/LOR) to collapse functionally towards the most critical arguments and weigh (against both sides, even-ifs, and counterfactuals) using a variety of weighing styles (scope, magnitude, brink, etc.). In constructive speeches, connect your arguments to a definite weighing mechanism and the resolution. Be explicit in your definition and operationalization of terms (this will make your life easier when impacting arguments). As mentioned above, I am generally unreceptive to Kritiks or Theory unless they are well-warranted in the round and executed well and have some basis in either the resolution or an in-round fairness violation.

I encourage everyone to share their pronouns – although you are certainly not required to. Do not make harmful generalizations about groups of people in your argumentation. If your opponents argue with you on your rhetoric, I have a medium threshold for dropping you. If I vote for you, your speaks will suffer. Share content warnings with us before each speech where there is new content.

As a note for me: I have ADHD – please ignore my facial expressions and body gestures for the most part. If I stop flowing and give you a confused look, that’s a sign that you’ve lost me in terms of argumentation.

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

I look at the flow and see where the critical arguments in the round fall. From there, I consider which side won more of those critical arguments. I will vote as strictly on the flow as possible. In the case where everything is a wash, presumption flows to the opp unless there is a counterplan, in which case presumption flows gov.

In-Round Intervention

The act of having a paradigm means none of us are tabula rasa philosophically. However, I will not intervene in the round unless arguments or inaccuracies are called out. If something is factually wrong (especially in my field, Comparative Political Development/Representation Linkages), I have a low threshold for tossing an argument or fact out.

Argumentation

Have a clear framework, weighing mechanism or criterion, and have sound plan-text.

Use cohesive logic with well-structured link chains. Have strong and defined warrants coupled with transparent impact chains. If I hear, “This will improve the economy,” I will not be happy. In what way, in which sector, who will benefit from these improvements? This a gentle reminder that the more expansive the magnitude and severity of the impact, the tighter and more cohesive the link chain.

For refutation, please substantially interact with the argument. Consider the claim, warrant, link (internal/external), and impacts of the argument. I've been judging rounds recently where I keep using "ships passing in the night" in my RDF, and I'd rather not have to say that phrase again. Cloudy refutations mean I must intervene more in the flow, which is potentially bad for you.

In the rebuttal speeches, please have voting issues, explicit weighing, and collapse down to the most important arguments. Except for the PMR/1AR, you do not need to go down the flow line-by-line. In the case of the PMR/1AR, I suggest you interact with the most substantial new arguments in the opposition/negation block and not waste your five minutes going down the flow.

Organization:

Please signpost – I flow on spreadsheets, so signposting makes my life easier. If you don’t have clear signposting, there’s a high chance of me dropping an argument accidentally. I prefer using jargon such as turn/extend/cross-apply/etc., but only when both teams are comfortable using such language. Regardless of jargon, make it clear where you are on the flow.

Framework:

Provide a mechanism for flowing the round. Use this reference point to weigh all the arguments. Lately, I have judged rounds without such a reference – these rounds inevitably become a mess of “prefer our side – no, prefer our side.” Why should I prefer your side? How do your impacts and logic better link to the weighing mechanism? Impacts in a void are unhelpful – debate and life are relative.

Speaker Scores:

I start around 28 and then go up or down. More substantial argumentation and speaking will warrant higher speaker scores – where your contribution to the round is substantial. I disagree with judges who think anything rhetorical is irrelevant – how you convey your ideas matters, or why don’t we type out responses online and save ourselves the hassle of attending tournaments?

Theory

If used correctly, I am open to hearing almost any theory argument. I'm happy to judge the round if you sincerely believe a Kritik or Theory Shell is warranted. If you use a K or theory for strategic purposes, I will have a low threshold for voting against you if called out by your opponents. The history of theory debate is that marginalized groups and debaters used it to access better the space they had historically been shut out of. Using theory debate as a strategic decision without acknowledging these historical reasons is a disservice to the art of theory, philosophy, and the people who used them. I also believe that we can read more conceptual and technical arguments in a way that makes them more accessible while still retaining their core purpose.

As a first-generation, low-income, queer(bi), and Latinx former debater, I don’t think being against K’s as strategic gains is against minority debaters. I think we should all be inclusive first and then go to theory when that’s functionally not realistic or save it for the moments when we need that access or want an issue spotlighted in an accessible manner.

Hi! I am an experienced BP debater with plenty of competing under my belt but I am relatively new to judging. I am currently a student at UC Berkeley and frequent tournaments as part of the Berkeley Debate Society.

I appreciate a very crystal clear speech with signposting and minimal ‘flowery’ language. A good argument should be simple enough to be understood by the average person so do include clear definitions and models. It should be obvious that teammates are working with each other and that a bigger cohesive picture can be seen after both speakers are done.

I do not prefer super fast speakers and people that have impetuous or condescending attitudes. There will be zero tolerance for any sort of bigotry and I expect pronouns to be clearly indicated and respected. We do not want a hostile environment.

When it comes to the actual material of your arguments, I will be taking a tabula rasa approach and voting, as expected, for whichever team can best tell me what the issue is and why I should listen to their arguments above everyone else. I will be looking favourably at debaters that both offer and take a reasonable number (ie do not interrupt every two seconds and keep it under five) of POIs and will be considering it as a sign of them further engaging with the debate.

I would say I am tabula rasa. I weigh things in the way that is most substantiated throughout the round. Meaning I am mostly influenced by the overarching framework that stays throughout debate and the weighing mechanisms that accompany it. If there are no clear weighing mechanisms then I tend to vote based on which teams points flowed through the strongest throughout the entire debate, and compare the weight of the impact of said points. I try to flow with as much detail as possible, I would say my flow is comparable to a traditional pf flow.

I casually did pf in middle and high school, however my true engagement began in college this year. I currently participate in collegiate parliamentary debate, have broken into semifinals at two big tournaments, and have won 2 speaker awards at my most recent tournaments. I have been a wing judge on two occasions and want to grow as a judge.

Behavior.I expect debaters to treat each other with respect (no knifing 99.9% of the time) and refrain from derogatory speech.I prefer debaters to state their pronouns during introductions.

Speed.I tend to talk a little faster than average, so I don't mind when debaters talk at a higher speed. As I said, I like to keep a detailed flow for the most part, so if you know you tend to talk fast I would appreciate a road map early on and/or clearly stated taglines. It's one thing to talk fast but its another to talk fast and be disorganized, regardless I'll do the best I can. That being said if the opposing team calls out the speed and the team still refuses to slow down/continues spreading to the point where it's significantly impacting the integrity of the round, I would weigh that into my vote. It is unlikely that this would completely sway my vote but I could definitely see it effecting speaker points at the least.

Signposting. Signposting will only help you. Not only does it make it easier for me to flow, but it allows the judges to have a more consistent interpretation of your case. Personally, I find chronological signposting the easiest to flow. Meaning that if one of your points of positive matter builds off of another having one after the other, and telling me that they're linked makes a case more digestible. I encourage labeling more than just positive matter taglines, tell me what the links are, what the impacts are, scope etc. This way I have the best understanding of what it is your trying to convey and nothing gets lost on the flow. Crystallization and weighing are important in every speech, but especially whip speeches.

Points of Information. For the most part I encourage a minimum of one POI per speech, two is a sweet spot, and three is right at the line. Any more than that and I feel the case is probably not too strong. I don't fully discount a team solely based on number of POI's they take. However realistically if one takes too many POI's they likely did not build up enough of their own offensive stand-alone matter, and if they take none across both speeches they likely did not engage with points of contention. I do not support tag teaming, if one person is asked a POI that person should answer it not their partner.

Theory. I personally enjoy case debate more than theory debate. However if you can provide thorough explanation I am open to it.

Kritiks. I am skeptical of kritiks, especially late in the round. If you do decide to run a kritik please provide strong links, and reasoning explaining why and how this changes the debate. You have to tell me why this point is important.

Hi,

My name is Milan Amritraj and I'm writing this paradigm specifically for the 2022 NPDL TOC.

By way of Parli experience, I was a 2 time California state semi-finalist while competing for Campbell Hall. To the extent that World Schools Debate is similar to parli, I was also a two year member of NSDA's Team USA and captained the team during my senior year of high school. For further general background, I competed in LD, Congress and a variety of extemporaneous speech events. I've also served as assistant coach of the Campbell Hall team since graduating high school in 2016.

My paradigm is not particularly complicated, and I really don't think it should be for Parli debate. This text is not exhaustive, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts if you'd like specific clarification. Below are the most important points.

I'm pretty open to any arguments, theory and K's included, so feel free to run whatever you'd like so long as its well articulated. That being said, I heavily value weighing and crystallization in the rebuttal speeches, so please do a good amount of work to help clarify how you think I should be weighing these different arguments. Otherwise you run the risk of me having to enter the debate to resolve any ambiguities.

Speed shouldn't be an issue. Clarity, however, might very well be. I'll call out clear if theres an issue, but please try to avoid making that happen.

Finally, please avoid any funny business with prep or evidence if those sorts of things come up in round. I have a zero tolerance policy for foul play.

I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Broke to dubs at TOC '21.

Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.

Screaming "Smith 18" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.

I don't flow cross - if something important is said during cross, make sure to bring it up in a later speech.

Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).

No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).

Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)

Hello! Here's some brief information that will hopefully help you out:

- My experience entails 4 years of HS parli for Bishop O'Dowd where I had a very standard track record with some competitive highs and lows.

- I was definitely not a K debater in HS (more into theory) and have not judged a round since I graduated last year, however, I will have done a thorough review by the time you read this and I'm open to hearing any kind of argument, as long as it is well explained and not exclusive. I most likely have not read your literature and I'm not 1000% caught up on jargon, so do with that what you will.

- I remember the pre-round nerves like nothing else, and admire all debate students for the guts it takes to walk into any round. Should you need anything during the round, I am here to support you!

- I won't intervene or pretend to know everything, and I'll analyze the round based on what is on my flow. Therefore, please signpost as much as possible and clarify what goes where.

Good luck and remember to breathe & hydrate! :)

I’m an alumna with three and a half years of parliamentary debate experience and sporadic judging experience in the decades that have followed. My senior year I was 3rd speaker of the year by cumulative speaker points. Since then I have judged at several worlds and NorthAms and organized and attended Canadian debaters’ outreach visit to Ukraine behind the Iron Curtain.

Courtesy and parliamentary language should prevail in all rounds: I abhor the recent trend at the collegiate level toward gutter language in rounds. Don’t use it! It won’t benefit you in debate or in the real word, either. It should go without saying that racist, sexist, homophobic and other abusive language has no place in the debate world: it has no place in my rounds.

I take notes during debates, but I’m not a slave to flowing. To that end, I appreciate debate in normal, conversational tones during rounds and am put off by speed talking. The same goes for spreading. Signposting is a wonderful way to organize and reinforce arguments and is greatly appreciated, though debaters need not feel they must number their arguments.

New arguments in rebuttals will be ignored, but POOs pointing them out are not a waste of time. I do not expect debaters to shrink from POIs, but I do not impose a quota: those who ignore all of them will be marked down for it. Neither theory nor kritiks thrill me: I prefer the round to be about the round. That said, I will consider any reasonable argument that is clearly enunciated.

What I value is style, content and clash – not necessarily in that order. Bring your best and treat your opponents with respect. The rest will take care of itself.

Brief blurb: If you’re reading this right before the round, the shortest bit of info I can give you is that I’m open to any position you can run, so long as you run it well and you’re not rude to your opponent. Give me clarity and give me clash. I would rather see you do good comparative analysis than dump out several cards to prove you're winning. Warrant your arguments, weigh your impacts, and you'll probably like where the round goes. If you do these things and tell me exactly what I should vote on, you should be golden.

Longer blurb: I debated LD on the national circuit in high school, and did APDA and BP nationally in college. Outside debate: I'm finishing my PhD in chemistry soonish, and am going into management consulting after ye olde doctorate. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible. However, I get that most judges – particularly former debaters – have specific eccentricities in their philosophies, so I’ll try to explain mine.

Framework: Whatever you want it to be. I don’t really care if you provide a traditional framework, but provide some type of burden that tells me how to vote. I always care more about the intuitive link level rather than the existence of a specific card, so have a compelling link story. Even if Professor Google can tell me your card is true, tell me why it matters to the resolution and how it impacts the round. If you want to do something squirrelly (like PICs, imo, but kicking CPs is fine as long as you work to give your opponents room to engage), I expect you to be abundantly clear about how your strategy fits the context of the resolution, why it is unique, and where you see the clash going from there. Explain it like I’m five.

Speed: I’m fine with spread if your opponent can also follow it, but do not try to spread your opponents out of the round. Slow down to ~50% (make it clear!) for tags and key arguments. I’d recommend sticking with 75% of your top speed with me, and I’ll yell “clear” and “slow” if necessary. Slow down if you see me drinking coffee; if my camera is off/we are in Zoom university, <70% top speed is better. If your opponents yell “clear” or “slow”, do it so they can engage in the debate. If you do not, I will happily tank your speaks.

POIs/POOs: As a speaker, I expect you to take at least two questions. As the person asking questions, do not shout over the speaker or be deliberately disruptive to get your point taken sooner. It’s so rude, and if your opponent isn’t taking your point you can be sure I’ll notice, too. POOs: I’ll flow the new arguments made in rebuttals unless you make the POO. **TOC update: Judges protect the flow. You should still raise the POO if you think it's unclear.

Big picture: Please no offtime roadmaps or thank yous - you don’t need them if you signpost well. In rebuttals, tell me the key issues and why you’re winning them. By the end of the round, I want a clear picture of your advocacy and where you see the clash. I prefer hearing stronger, more developed arguments that clearly matter to the resolution over several blippy arguments trying to cover the whole flow poorly.

tl;dr: How would you condense the round for a CEO on their blackberry? what issues truly matter to you, and why are you winning them? take your opponents at their best, and find a way to beat them anyway. Any questions, email aberl at berkeley dot edu.

Other than that, be kind, have fun, and learn new things.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

I participated in a debate club (my school did not compete in any league or particular format) and mock trial in high school. I debated for 5 years for Columbia, University of New Hampshire, and Harvard on the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) in the 1990's, including serving as the board member in charge of novice development and co-director of the national championship. I consistently broke and finished in the top ten speakers at tournaments my last two years. I have judged at dozens of tournaments across APDA, CUSID (the Canadian equivalent), APDA Nationals, North Ams, and the World University Debating Championships. I have also judged at the NPDL TOC and Harvard high school tournament.

The things I value most in a debate speech are logical consistency, well developed arguments supported by analysis, and the ability to convey these ideas through speaking style. Dropped arguments are not appreciated. I will track every argument and take a tabula rasa approach; I will not allow personal opinion or arguments which were not introduced in the round affect my decision. Arguments will be weighed based on their impacts, how well they are developed, and how persuasively they are presented. It is not a numbers game so that the side with the most arguments automatically wins, nor does a single magic bullet argument guarantee victory if it is not well developed. The winning side is the one which presents the best overall case that would convince a group of thoughtful people who held no preconceived position on the topic. Complexity of argument will be rewarded.

I am open to theory arguments to check demonstrated abuse in the round, particularly to address situations where one team is denying the other a fair debate, or when one team is being offensive. I’m skeptical of kritiks, but I am open to your presentation, and will evaluate it like all other arguments, based on the analysis presented. I am My strong default for topicality is reasonableness, as competing interpretations standard tend to cause the topicality debate to occupy much more space in the round than is necessary to ensure ground for both sides.

Debaters are expected to refrain from verbal abuse of each other and show respect, including using preferred personal pronouns.

From my perspective, the point of parliamentary debate is persuasion. Speaking very quickly not only counterproductive to this end, it also makes arguments more difficult to flow. Debaters wishing to speak quickly should still ensure their points are clearly made and land with impact. Please heed warnings to slow down if they are offered. Pace of delivery is a key component in the speaker points awarded, and could also play into a decision on the victor of the round.

Signposting is helpful, but not a requirement.

Points of Information can add to a round, but I have no minimum threshold for their use. Refusal to entertain POIs at all does reflect on the confidence of the debater, and may impact the scoring of the round.

New arguments should not be brought up in the LOR, and only in the PMR to address an issue that was introduced in the MO. However, it is the responsibility of the debaters to call out such arguments through a Point of Order. POOs may be ruled on in real time or taken under consideration.

Tag-teaming is not appreciated.

General

I have been a parliamentary debater for four years, having competed at the national level multiple times.

Judging

Case

I place emphasis on specific impact scenarios, warrants and weighing arguments. Weighing is the most important and must be done to win the round. An experienced debater should present me with a weighing mechanism/crystallization I find convincing to vote on.

Counterplans

I love to hear them, and the more specific the better. However, those proposing a counterplan MUST make sure that the CP is mutually exclusive in its nature, or else the whole CP would not be effective.

Theory

Theory can be useful, but should never stand alone. When used well, theory must be accompanied by warrant and impact arguments.

Speaking Style

I find arguments to be the most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of objectivity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. Overly technical language or simple compilation of data is not sufficient.

I do not have a preference for speaking speed, as I have no issue flowing to any speaking style. But clarity should always be your first and foremost concern.

Signposting is important, as I will judge the round in whatever is in my flow.

About Me

I have debated for six years competitively and judged for four, and am currently on the University of Chicago's debate team. I debate solely in the parliamentary style, particularly BP and APDA. Beyond that, I've coached high school BP debate for several years as well.

I encourage you to ask me about my paradigm at grantthchen@uchicago.edu if you have any questions or queries.

OVERVIEW (tl;dr)

I weigh rounds based on round engagement, argumentative contribution, and which team facilitated these the most. In this spirit, I greatly emphasise (implicitly or explicitly) fulfilment of team burdens, mechanisms, and clashing / weighing. All speeches are best concluded by summary of contribution and/or brief weighing against opposing claims.

Theory is only relevant if it facilitates better argumentation, and/or if you are able to convincingly prove that taking the debate 'straight' is unconducive (because the topic or the other team's framing is abusive, etc.) If you highlight that a team is being abusive, make an effort to engage with them, and then run your own disparate arguments, whilst they do not do so for you, they will lose by default; you do not need to provide me theory even if their arguments are watertight. Conversely, engage even if your arguments are clearly superior.

I will only reward speed if it is accompanied by clarity. I have never failed to flow APDA speeches but if you go beyond that and sacrifice clarity for speed, and I drop your warrants, I will not give your flow the benefit of the doubt. Do not spread and if your opposition cannot keep up and voice as much, slow down. More warrants do not improve your chances of winning if you do not mechanise and weigh them; one well-fleshed out, weighed, and clashed warrant will beat five half-baked and mutually dropped ones.

By default, my judging style is tabula rasa, unless your point is both outlandish and largely unwarranted. In general, I will not weigh on unwarranted points. If both teams unanimously agree, I will change to average informed voter voting.

Below are things you might want to ctrl-F for:

Speed, signposting, POIs, POOs, tag-teaming, theory (incl. kritiks), topicality.
(Try not to spread and slow if other teams request you.
Signposting will only benefit you, but I will not penalise you for lack thereof. (NPDL ToC gives you 15 seconds for roadmaps – use them!)
You will not be penalised for POIs unless you refuse to give / accept them and fail to engage.
(NPDL ToC suggests active flow protection for judges which I adhere to, you do not need to call POOs unless you deem absolutely necessary).
Tag-teaming is discouraged but will not penalise you.
Do not run theory unless it facilitates better argumentation, or demonstrates why better argumentation can't happen.
Topicality is very gov-skewed and I vote on reasonableness, but it is not an RVI)

ACTIVE PENALTIES:

– Broad, prejudiced rhetoric towards anyone, whether they are in the room or not.
I do my best to give the benefit of the doubt, but if your point is egregiously prejudicial, derogatory, or paternalistic, it will tank your score severely. As such, I do not encourage extensive equity theory, because I will penalise on this actively myself, unless you believe it is uniquely valuable – if so, keep it brief.

– Theory that runs contrary to the spirit of argumentative debate.
I believe that debate is about the creative dexterity of the well-prepared student, not one who memorises theory blocks and applies them to every situation. Even when a round seems abusive, you need to make a good-faith effort in debating the motion directly and convincingly demonstrate, within your theory, why even that effort is insufficient to make it a good round. Both initial theory and responses to it should be accessible and warranted – I will not reward jargon, and if theory is used to avoid a good-faith debate by the other team for no reason other than a competitive advantage over a team who does not know it, you will be penalised if not dropped. Not knowing or being experienced enough is a valid, and even admirable, reason for losing a debate – you can improve in the future.

I am somewhat open to argumentative kritiks, as long as you link them to the round (i.e. of the sort that questions the basis of the motion, or the society around it). However, meta-kritiks about the debate itself (and the value of the ballot) are almost always dropped unless there is glaringly abusive behaviour from the opposing team, which will tank their engagement score anyway – two wrongs do not make a right.

– POI (Point of Information) barracking.
POIs are important and valuable for clarifying a round or as an offensive tool, but offering them repeatedly (notably verbally, if online) is disruptive. If the opposing team does not take them and refuses to engage, they will be penalising themselves in terms of round engagement. A team may not offer a POI within 15 seconds of one being rejected, and even under those circumstances, if I judge that you are using the act of announcing a POI to intentionally disrupt an opponent, you will be penalised.

PASSIVE PENALTIES:

– Speed, when highlighted by opposition and ignored.
I flow and will likely be able to keep up, though since I emphasise mechanism, explanation, and clarity over quantity, spreading your speech will likely not benefit you – keep it parlimentary. However, the other team can request you, within reason, to slow to a speed that they can engage with. If you do not do so despite their request, your points will be flowed and weighed as well as I can manage them, but I will not penalise the opposing team for dropping spread points, nor lose sleep if I drop them myself.

– New arguments in rebuttals (+ POOs)
Normally I request POOs but in NPDL ToC I am obliged to protect flow actively. You will be wasting your own speech time, and calling POOs will likely only be disruptive. I am, however, relatively generous to new interpretation, weighing, and mechanisation, just not new argumentation or response.

– Lack of engagement (incl. no POIs, topicality)
Not taking a POI is fine, but if you fail to engage – particularly on differing frameworks, straight up disregarding the other team's points without confronting their framing – your round contribution will obviously decline, especially if it is pointed out by the other team. In a similar vein, if you had plenty of opportunity to give POIs but refused to engage or attempt clarification, and ended up being highly uncharitable, your contribution and score will go down.

Topicality is related here. I am generally charitable to government interpretations, unless they are clearly abusive or unreasonable. In any case, if you are going to run topicality, make it extremely relevant to the debate (instead of broad theory) and substantiate it very well, or you will only be wasting your time – it is not a reverse voter issue.

NO PENALTY:

– Lack of signposting.
I understand that knowing what you will say before you say it is difficult and often suboptimal. Clarity will only help my final weighing, so try and signpost if you can before and during your speech, for I will flow better, but you will not be penalised for not doing so.

– Tag-teaming.
I do not come from formats where tag-teaming is the norm, and I encourage the speaker on the floor to be largely independent of their partner. But if it will help your speech and is not overly egregious (feeding line by line), tag-teaming will not penalise you. I would rather you defer POIs to your partner's speech instead of having them respond, because you will have to repeat them (I will not flow anything your partner says during your speech), and I will not penalise deferral, though it may inherently disadvantage you because you are not engaging.

So apparently I haven't judged in a while..

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

I'm just down to hear some good args and chill

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

Mostly everything below still applies. Main update about kritiks: I am pretty down to hear kritiks, but will get sad if the kritik misrepresents source material. Buzzwords and tags only will make me sad, but if you've actually read the source material, actually UNDERSTAND what the arguments mean, and can EXPLAIN CLEARLY the argument, I will be very happy :)) THE K IS NOT A TOOL FOR EXCLUSION. IF YOU DO(and with any other argument as well), THAT IS GROUNDS FOR ME TO INTERVENE IN THE ROUND.

K affs should be disclosed, and if you do not disclose, I am very sympathetic to disclosure arguments.

And because I cannot stress this enough..

On weighing: SUPER IMPORTANT DO IT. PMR should have access to weighing arguments, unless it's a new internal link scenario. I would generally like to see weighing arguments starting in the MO, but will allow LOR to make weighing arguments, but depending on the scope of the weighing, may give it less weight. Generally speaking, whoever does better weighing tends to win the round. Hopefully that incentivizes you to weigh.

ALSO please i love helping people with debate, so if any questions, email me at shirleych@gmail.com

(and i literally mean any, doesn't matter if i've judged you before or not, PLEASE reach out to me)

_______________________________

Background

debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years, coached MVLA for two years and in my third year of coaching Gunn parli

General

Tabula rasa

tech over truth, but keep in mind subconsciously I may be more likely to believe arguments that are the truth if the tech debate is close

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs on new arguments in case I do not catch it, if there are things that are kind of new but not really, I will give them less weight in the round

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

WEIGHING WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. WEIGHING SHOULD ALWAYS BE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL TO THE ROUND. The easiest way to my ballot is to weigh. I don't like bad weighing arguments that are generic and not comparative but if nobody else makes weighing arguments in the round, then I will appreciate your effort in at least trying.

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

Incorrect: "We win because our adv 1 has the biggest magnitude in the round since they did not refute our adv 1" (does not contextualize and compare to other arguments in the round)

Also incorrect: " " (<- the reference here is not doing weighing)

Correct: "We win because our adv 1 saves MORE lives than their DA 1 due to the fact that [x thing mentioned in Adv 1] affects more people than the potential [y problem in DA] would affect" (note how this is comparative and contextual)

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims

I hate voting on presumption and if I have to intervene a little bit to not vote on presumption, I will do that. This is not to say I just randomly like to intervene. I find that the times when I get close to voting on presumption is when BOTH teams have not made explicit offense but rather have gotten close to making an offensive argument(usually in some implicit form). In that case, if one side gets closer to making an offensive argument than the other, I will generally be okay with doing the work for them and considering that just offense. Note that this is just what I default to, not that I will never vote on presumption if the argument is made.

I generally dislike voting off of arguments that are not in the LOR, even if it's in the MO. I do not need the full explanation in the LOR if it's explained in the MO, but it should at least be highlighted as a tagline in the LOR.

How I judge rounds

to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Case

I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing specific impact scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I look at strength of link * magnitude. I rarely vote on magnitude in a vacuum.

CPs

I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics, these are just what my preferences were when I debated, but I'm open to hearing arguments that go both ways

Theory

I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will probably have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory.

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, orientalism, and some nihilism args, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.

Things I have read actual lit on: critical race theory, ableism, and Daoism. I have also read literature that references orientalism and discusses applications of orientalism, but have not read Said's original work. Reading these arguments could go in your favor but it could also not. I like seeing these arguments, but I'll know when you're misrepresenting the argument if you do, and I don't like it when people misrepresent arguments.

I am okay with K affs, but if you do not disclose, I am sympathetic to disclosure theory.

Speaker Points

I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks. I tend to find that the better and more weighing you do, the better your speaks will be. Hopefully this an incentive for you to do more weighing.

also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

Kathleen Clarke-Anderson- Ridgewood High School, Ridgewood, NJ

Pretty simple-

I have been a speech and debate coach in NJ for 38 years. Judge of LD, PF, Parli, some CX.

I know I need to hear everyone's contentions, sub-points, etc. I don't like spreading. I would like to hear the evidence clearly. For Parli- don't make a POI/POC every 30 seconds. I realize the differences in debate styles throughout the world and nation; however, I want to see a rational, solid round that includes a clash of ideas and evidence for any contentions. Philosophical thoughts and ideas are welcome; please be able to defend. Not a fan of "gimmick" cases. Saving lives always wins.

Basically- stock issues- clear presentation of contentions, off-topic or surface arguments tolerated, but not preferred.

Will weigh advantages/disadvantages.

If I don't believe you are using your evidence correctly or out of context I will ask you for it.

Please do not be abusive you will lose speaker points. Above all keep in mind equity, diversity, and inclusion, this means, no hating, no discriminating of others, and no triggering comments/contentions without warning.

Background:
I debated on the Oregon circuit in LD and Parli. I am an open-minded judge and enjoy any type of argument.

Specifics:

- I'll mainly vote on the explicit voting arguments you make.
- Extend dropped arguments through to voters if you want me to vote on them!
- I'm alright with speed but will inevitably miss stuff if you get too fast! Absolutely make sure to slow down on tags.

If you're racist, homophobic, et., I'll vote you down.

Debate:

I did Parli for most of my time as a competitor. I judge through a policy lens, so please give me very specific impacts in each of your "worlds". All theory is open game if its done well. If no one brings up theory or metadebate, I won't vote on it. Whatever you tell me becomes reality- so build your reality well and remember to address all parts of the opponents' reality! Please be kind and respectful to one another.

Tell me what to vote on, or else I'll just default to whatever I think is most important. If you tell me that one impact is more important than the others, and have good reasoning to support that, I'll vote on it. Comparing your side's "world" vs. your opponents "world" will make my decision much easier. How will voting one way or the other actually manifest in reality?

Impact calculus really helps me decide how I will vote. If you have a really low probability high magnitude impact (like nuclear war), tell me why that matters more than your opponents high-probability, low-magnitude impact.

Speech:

I vote based on the following criteria:

Structure- If you have a hook, intro, thesis (if necessary), a few points and a good conclusion. For interps, just having a good intro and clear points is good. '

Content- Having interesting content is my second way of ranking people. I especially like personal anecdotes.

Rhythm / Clarity / Tone- Having consistent word density, memorizing your speech well, and hitting the 'highs and lows' of your speech are all important to me.

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

Things I Don't Like:

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

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

Things I Do Like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns:She/Her

I am an experienced parli debater. I won state championships and qualified to TOC twice. My partner and I did mostly lay debat but Im comfortable with most styles.

-Keep everything respectful and inclusive, this goes above all else. This includes respecting everyone in the round and the subject you are talking about. Respect pronouns and content warnings.

- On that note, if anything happens in the round that makes the space hostile to you don't worry about getting the format exactly right, or making a perfect theory argument, but please let me know. Debate must be safe and inclusive for everyone.

-I am someone who doesn't come from a big theory background, but I am open to it of course, just help get there.

-Please don't abuse tech debate skills, if you use a word make sure you understand it. (And that I do.)

-Jargon is okay, but not if you are using it to make things difficult for your opponent, that will count against you.

-If you can make me laugh, not only will I love it, it might just help make your point. Please only do this in a way that is reverent to what you are talking about though, I do not buy into the idea that the debate space can be divorced from reality.

-Generally I think speaker points are too easy to be biased and so as long as you are respectful and doing your best that's all I care.

-I really appreciate rebuttals that make an effort to take stock of the round and don't just go line by line. Give me lots of weighing, figure out what is most important about your case and ignore the little stuff if you don't have time.

-Remember to breathe. Literally. I know I personally could get myself all worked up in the moment and it made it harder to think and the whole experience a lot less fun. I know this activity can be stressful, I've been there. Just do your best! :)

-I am new to this world of virtual debate so if there is anything I can do to make the experience better, or anything that I'm doing that is making things worse please let me know! :) (That actually goes for just everything.)

I look forward to a wonderful round!

Debate Background

• 4 years of high school debate - state competiitor, California

• 4 years of collegiate debate - numerous first and second-place awards in national and international tournaments

• Assistant Debate Coach at Willamette University

• CEO of an online debate school teaching debate to 500+ students across three continents

Behavior

• Any inequitable language will not be tolerated as it does not lend itself to productive discourse

• Unacceptable language includes anything that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

• Please state your pronouns, or position title if you are uncomfortable stating pronouns

• I expect respect from all debaters in the room.

Debate Expectations

Speed

• Spreading is acceptable, but only if the student is skilled enough to spread properly

• Spreading your opponents out of the room will not be tolerated and will affect the debater’s speaker points. As communicators, debaters will be expected to ‘read the room’.

Signposting

• I prefer signposts but they are not necessary.

Points of Information

• I expect a minimum of one question asked and answered per person.

Tag-teaming

• I am not okay with partners jumping in orally to suggest an argument to the speaker or to answer a POI

Dropped Points

• Dropped points aren’t an evaluative measure of a win, especially if the debater is spreading

Specific Practices

Theory

• I am fine with case debates or theory debates. If the debaters choose to make a theory debate, I expect a proper justification.

Kritiks

• If debaters choose to run a k, please ensure there is a strong link to the motion/resolution or the other side’s advocacy.

Background:

I debated 4 years of NPDA parli in college for CSULB. I have since received my M.A. in Spanish, and am currently a Global Studies PHD candidate at UCSB. I have been out of the circuit for a while, but I think parli is a very important form of debate and I care a lot about equity and access within it.

General:

I am pretty rusty with speed, and I will call slow/clear if I can’t understand you. Please put all your texts for plans, CPs, interps, ROTBs, and alt texts in the chat, and say them slowly. Please take at least one POI in your speech. I like it when teams are respectful, substantive, and engaging. In general, I believe the debaters in the room are the ones who should decide what the debate should look like, and my defaults/preferences are not hard and fast if you decide to argue otherwise .

Case:

Weighing and signposting are very important to me.

I am comfortable with all counterplans and see perms as a test of competition.

Theory:

I think I have a higher threshold for theory than most judges on the circuit, and I am not a huge fan of generic and blippy theory shells. I really dislike theory that discards entire forms of debate such as Ks bad theory. I will vote on whatever layer you tell me to vote on, but I will be much happier evaluating a case or K debate. I default to competing interpretations and am not a huge fan of RVIs.

Kritiks:

I love Ks and have debated them a lot. While I am not up to date on circuit preferences and arguments, I am pretty open minded about kritikal debate. I am widely familiar with most K literature, but please err on the side of caution and be accessible to both me and your opponents with your arguments. I personally prefer materialist arguments, but I am okay with any literature as long as your alt text is clear and your solvency is coherent. Please be especially slow and clear when reading a K, it’s been a while since I have evaluated kritikal debate.

Truth v. Tech:

I won’t Google or verify your claims, and I don’t vote for unwarranted arguments. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but I am very willing to intervene against exclusionary and problematic (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc) arguments.

I believe debate is an important place to discuss real world issues and I am very supportive of debaters centering their experiences in the arguments they read. However, I ask debaters to remain cautious of reading arguments that are reliant on their identity, particularly when it involves making assumptions about your opponents identity. I support every debater's survival strategy and understand that these arguments can be necessary to read, but ask that debaters be explicit in providing me a framework with which to evaluate these arguments and experiences when doing so.

Speaker Points:

I will generally give around 27.5-28.5 points and won’t go lower unless you are rude or exclusionary.

I have four years of experience judging and competing in parli debate at high school and college levels (APDA and BP).

I take careful notes on paper. I tend to privilege reasoning and analysis over sources and evidence. I take a tabula-rasa approach and like when all assumptions are stated. As for behavior, just be respectful.

Signposting. I like speeches that are well structured (numbered or otherwise distinct arguments). A dropped argument does not mean an automatic loss.

Points of Information. They can make for a more vibrant and engaging round but I do not keep count of them.

Point of Order. I try to ignore new arguments in the last round but pointing them out to me via POO is helpful.

Speed. I do not enjoy high-speed speeches.

Tag-Teaming. In an online debate, tag-teaming is too messy.

Theory. I am open to theory if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is unfair or abusive. Theory must be well explained.

Kritiks. I think that kritiks are almost always poorly applied.

Topicality. Your interpretation of the motion should be reasonable.

One good argument can outweigh several bad ones. I don’t come into the round with a defined set of ethics - I like debaters to explain why a given outcome is good or bad.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

I am a recent graduate of Brown University and was an active member of the Brown Debating Union for all four years of college, including being ranked as 8th team in the league my senior year. I do not have a high school debate background, so keep the theory reasonable / to a minimum. I will write as fast as I can, but if you spread too much I may not be able to understand you.

I am a sophomore in college and competed in a parliamentary debate in high school. I am also an experienced judge. My pronouns are she/her.

-Above everything be respectful and enjoy the debate! I know debate can be stressful sometimes so just make sure to breathe. If something in the round is making you uncomfortable, please let me know. Nobody can debate their best in a hostile environment.

-If you remember and feel comfortable in doing so, please introduce yourself with your pronouns at the beginning of your speech.

-No off-time content, you should have enough time to say it in the actual speech.

-Spreading is acceptable as long as you are clear and are not outspreading your opponents.

-Take POIs!

-Try to avoid PICs, Ks.

-Please don't abuse tech debate skills. Make sure to use words not because they seem like they sound nice but also because you understand them and they are applicable.

Looking forward to overseeing a productive and respectful round, and if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to let me know!

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

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

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I served as NPDL Reporting Director in the 2022-2023 season. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns. I really love debate.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace (for formats with a grace period). I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

I do not especially like frivolous theory (tropicality, note the r, makes me sad) and will do my best not to vote for it.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that (I would actually encourage you not to take more than that).

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

For me arguments are most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of clarity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. I tend to frame it like this: I prefer articulation over information. I've heard many brilliant cases made that unfortunately ended up going over my head because they were delivered at a dizzying pace. The flows that tend to be the most effective are slightly more measured.

For me, ideas and concepts that can be explained to anyone who just happens to take an interest are more effective, in my experience, than overly technical language or abstruse rattling off of sheer data. As a judge, I value transparency and accessibility above anything else. This informs my judicial philosophy and shapes my attitude towards what makes for an effective debate.

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

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

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

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

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

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

Over a decade's experience of being a parent-judge. Feel free to spread - if the opposing team can track you and debate you, I can follow. I flow - help me by clearly enumerating your arguments. Theory and kritik arguments are ok to an extent - don’t make the entire debate about that.

In the end persuade me.

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

I am a lay parent judge. If you spread or speak quickly and I cannot follow your arguments, I won't be able to flow or vote off of it so please articulate your words and don't speak super-fast. If you run theory arguments I will flow to the best of my ability, but please have a clearly structured shell and don't run frivolous theory. Clear links and impacts are important; explain to me why your arguments matter.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

Currently I am affiliated with UC Berkeley through the Debate Society of Berkeley. I am most familiar with BP and APDA. When judging, I will as objective as possible. I look for well structured reasoning and logical arguments. I prefer when debaters outline their contentions. I tend to weigh analysis over evidence and value arguments over style.

I am a lay parent judge so please speak clearly so I can understand all of your contentions/arguments.

I also prefer that voter issues be included in your final speech.

In general, I don't recommend progressive arguments unless you feel they are absolutely necessary.

And finally, please be courteous to your opponent(s) and enjoy the experience!

I am a parent of a debater. I am looking for clear definitions and frameworks. Clash is extremely important.

Pronouns: She/they

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.

Longer threads;

• 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.

• Other items

• 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.

Go gaters

I did high school parliamentary debate four years, so I have quite a bit of experience and knowledge of the activity. Personally, I prefer case over theory, but I can understand theory and understand that sometimes it is necessary in round. I have a little bit of K knowledge, but so if you do run a K, please try and make it as clear as possible for me and the other team what your links are. I'm also Tabula Rasa as much as possible so if your opponent brings something up, try not to leave it unrefuted! I was a second speaker in parli, so sign-posting is a huge thing I look for.

Other than that, I care if you speak clearly and use logical arguments. Ultimately, speaking style does not really matter to me.

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary for the past 3 years. I appreciate clarity and logic above everything. Make sure that you thoroughly address your opponent's points. Don't speak too fast, I find that debaters often lose out on content and emphasis from "spreading."

I prefer case debate, but if you must run more technical arguments, make sure to explain them thoroughly. I will require more explanation and convincing for arguments that are further away from the topic.

I have a basic understanding of topicalities. Not too familiar with theory (dislike frivolous theory) or kritiks.

Have fun and good luck!

I approach judging tabula rasa. I do not act as the thought police. I value deep dives into difficult subjects and honor the free speech on the issues that emerge. I enjoy open robust discussion at any speed. I appreciate self-control.

I monitor arguments. I protect the flow as a judge. I especially observe how the original position evolves and if any declared main points are dropped, left open or ignored. I notice if there are new arguments in closing. Brief points of information/order may be raised.

I prefer less debate the debate. Yet if you really want to get metaphysical on some topic and are adroit at this, bring it. I encourage competitors to use a strategy that highlights their skill set. One may use kritik or “theory”. I discourage these elements as the entire content of a speech.

I look for a high level debaters to adapt rapidly. Adeptly follow tournament rules or strategically abandon if there is a consensus to toss out rubric. Do not be shy to voice preferences on this because it is your round. My one rule is do not be a jerk.

I have judged debate competitions at three levels: high school (6 years), college (9 years), and professional/graduate (2 years). Those are overlapping years.

I studied Philosophy in college, specifically Metaphysics & Logic. I was a collegiate debate team officer. I went to graduate school for an MA in Speech. I also have an MBA.

My debate awards include being a collegiate APDA National Semifinalist. I also earned collegiate individual speaker awards, college top ten finishes, break out rounds, North American and World tournaments and a world ranking.

As a passion, I designed scoring in the recent past for real community debates, and earlier for college intra-murals, and most notably back in the day for the Oxford Union, which they used at their world tournament, and was then adopted by others.

LD: I am a traditional judge. I do NOT believe is SPREADING. Do NOT speak fast! This technique of speaking does not show your ability to be clear in stating your contentions and using concise arguments. If you spread, I will miss your points and then most likely, you will not get the win. Definitions should be clear and concise. Competitors should have clash in the debate round. Since this is a philosophical debate, I would expect to hear which philosopher reflects your value/criterion and explain the connection. Stating voting issues at the end of the round is very important. Also, competitors must support their V and VC in their speeches. Stay away from WOKE responses...they are distracting and tell me that you can't defend this resolution. Careful that your sources are not from partisan sources.

Parliamentary debate: define the government and any pertinent definitions; stay away from LD jargon; convincing arguments are important; since this is less source-based, I want to hear the general reasons that support your argument; NO new contentions in the final speeches; each speaker should take at least one questions during their unprotected time; each competitor should pose at least one question during the entire round...this indicates understanding of your opponent's position and your engagement in the issue being debated; choice of strange or a very narrow definition of the "government" does not help a debate and wastes the round. Woke arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with the topic do not help your team. These arguments only distract and say to me that you can't address the issue at hand.

Congress: If you are the first speaker/author of the Bill/Resolution, your speech should explain the Bill and its importance. First negative, you need to explain why this Bill should not be passed. While sources are sometimes important in supporting your stance, use sources that are non-partisan. (ex. MSNBC leans to the left). Also, if you use a source such as Breitbart which I've heard often, cite the specific researcher or pollster who authors the supporting evidence. If you are 3rd or 4th on Pro or Con, you must have new information as to why you support this side of the Bill. Stay away from Woke arguments.

PF: remember this type of debate says that a person off the street should be able to come into the room and judge a round. Stay away from LD language. Fighting over sources is a waste of time in my opinion during the debate. If you have researched the topic, you have the sources that support your side of the resolution. Be specific in the source and use non-partisan sources. Sources that are stronger include governmental departments and possible university research. If you are using a source such as a magazine such as The Atlantic, mention the author and his/her qualifications in presenting the information that you use. No Woke arguments.

(Real paradigm here)

TOC update: here are some resources I put together for the housing topic area

Background: debated in high school. That was fun! Included in my impressive list of accomplishments are such gems as: going 2-3 at Vassar, being told I am “dry enough to go straight into law” by a judge at Ridge, and spending approximately 23 seconds arguing that free will doesn’t exist in Yale Octos. Outside of debate, some of my hobbies include debating, débáting, and dëbätïng. For instance, if you ever find a college debate round with like 7 views on YouTube, 5 of them are probably from me.

Some notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences:

- “Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

- If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will likely assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of. I’m kritical and kwestioning of the konsistent kustom of katering to adjudikators through kritical klaims in kompetitive debate. Konsequently, I kan’t komprehend komplicated kritical klaims. In short: kick the Ks to limit the Ls and wrack up Ws

- If you pull out one of those tripod-desk-stand thingies, I will assume you are using it as a table for brunch. And then get offended if you don’t offer me food.

- If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

- If you time yourself using your phone’s alarm and the ringer audibly goes off, I will assume the noise is coming from my microwave and immediately rush off to make sure my food isn’t burning

- Sometimes, when I’m walking around on the streets, people’ll come up to me and shout “RYYYAANNNN – WHAT’RE YOUR THOUGHTS ON USING ABUSIVE DEFINITIONS TO GAIN A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE???” to which I always respond: “Roses are red, violets are blue, don’t use abusive definitions, for I will hate you :)”

FAQ

Q: Are you okay with PICs?

A: Not sure why you capitalized it like that, but I absolutely ADORE dog pics, cat pics, fluffy cow pics, or basically any [insert cute thing here] pics

Q: Do you like theory?

A: Depends on the theory. Like, for instance, I’m really into the theory that colleges are just money laundering fronts for the massive #2 pencil lobbying industry. Watch out folks: it’s not just Big Oil and Big Pharma that runs the world. It’s also Big Pencil

Q: Do you enjoy POIs?

A: Oh yes for sure! But please, for the love of all things good on planet earth, under no circumstances *ever* should you pronounce the word “POI” phonetically in a way that rhymes with words like “toy” or “boy.” Please.

Q: Will you give me an extra speaker point if I bring you food?

A: I’m actually such a generous person that I’d rather bring you the food! To make sure I’m delivering it to the right place, just shoot me an email with your name, address, preferred type of pizza, social security number, mother’s maiden name, and the name of your first pet.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

I am a former college parli debater and broke at several tournaments in both domestically and internationally. I have a fair amount of parli judging experience, having served as the chief adjudicator for several college tournaments across the East Coast.

When judging debates, I take notes on the main arguments and rebuttals of the round. I try to capture as much detail as possible, however, when debaters speak very quickly or try to give a lot of information in a short amount of time, it may make it more difficult for me to write down everything that was said.

It is important for teams to weigh and frame their arguments, as I will use frames presented in the round in my decision. It is also important for me that teams give high quality arguments with warrants/explanation as to why the argument is correct. Simply mentioning an argument or an impact does not count for me as meaningfully contributing to the round. The team that is best able to persuade me (as an average person) for or against the motion and contributes the most to the round wins the debate.

Topicality/Being true to the motion: In my mind, motions are set for a reason and it is important that people argue in the spirit of the motion for the round. While gov may have some fiat power, it is important that the model is not so complex or exclusive of too many scenarios. Arguments questioning gov's model or whether arguments are made in the spirit of the motion will be considered and weighed based on the quality of the argumentation.

*Updated for TOC 2023:

Quick reference for prefs based on your strategy if you don't read anything: Case (1), K(2), Theory/FW(1), Phil(3), Tricks(4), Heg lol (1)

Background: Debated hs parli for 4 years with Los Altos. Last debated in 2019. I haven't done anything related to debate for a few yrs now (other than periodic judging) so I won't be well versed with whatever's popular - be clear and explain.

In general, I will evaluate almost every position and be willing to vote on it, so just debate what you want and make sure it's well articulated. If you think you have an interesting argument that will make the round fun, read it! I debated with Shirley Cheng for the most formative parts of my time in debate, so her paradigm pretty much lines up with how I view things: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=24626

My method for evaluating rounds is very similar to the paradigm above so this is copy pasted from there: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Be accessible or I won't be against intervening

Some other notes:

General:

Call point of orders, but I'll try to protect.

Signpost, slow on tags, repeat interps.

New in the block means I give the aff a lot of credence in answering it - that being said, 2a theory will probably be held to a higher threshold in terms of accessing golden turns

Claims require warrants. Warrants require explanations. I might be less willing to vote solely on blip claims/tricks without warrants and explanations if I can vote elsewhere.

Add sequencing questions in rebuttals and be sure to collapse. Super strategic and makes my evaluation a lot more straightforward. You rebuttal should be my RFD + any preempts.

Case:

I essentially only read case in hs. It would help to have a strategic uniqueness and a good link/internal link scenario. Impacts should still be fully impacted out. Ex: better economy means very little to me while extinction means a lot.

While I will default magnitude absent any weighing, I tend to prefer probability weighing if it's given to me. For me, that comes from the link debate. Link defense can serve as mitigation of the probability of an argument as stated above. Explain how different arguments interact with the links and what that means for my evaluation. Flag specific things in the last speeches especially.

Case turns only would be interesting to watch.

Theory:

Down for theory debates

I could be convinced that pics, condo, etc are good or bad.

Nebel T against super small squarely affs would be a fun strategy to watch if you can properly explain it.

Will default competing interpretations

Seems recently in parli, there's been a lot of 2a theory and even 2n theory :// In that case, please layer and order - otherwise it's an even larger mess.

What if all T interps were read as a POI in the 1A?

Split the ballot theory is cool if you both need a 1-1 split at TOC

Ks:

I was not a K debater, so I don't have much background in the lit. I was mostly around methodology Ks, but you can read whatever you want. Regardless of what you read, still make sure explanations are clear and explain jargon.

If you read a K from a backfile and don't have any idea what it says, it will be clear, and I will find it really easy to drop you.

I think nontopical Aff Ks specifically should be disclosed. If they aren't, I'm sympathetic to disclosure arguments and probably have a lower bar for T or other theory arguments. Note this is distinct and doesn't apply to defending the topic and deriving critical impacts + framing. In general, the further you are from defending the topic, the more sympathetic I am to t-fw.

Assume I haven’t heard of your lit.

Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.

Judging Experience – In the last several years, I have judged at numerous debate (mostly parliamentary) and IE tournaments throughout the country. I judged at a few IE tournaments prior to then.

Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.

Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.

Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.

Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.

Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”

Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

Prefer typical conversational speaking cadence with arguments organized in numbered talking points.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

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

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

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: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should 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” you probably should. 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.

Parli specifics:

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

Name: Klaudia Maciejewska

School Affiliation: N/A

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: -

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: -

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 7

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? BP Debates, WSDC, AP

What is your current occupation? Competitive coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: writing down important points, trying to type as much as possible fo being able to deliver RFD

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Comparison of both sides, depends on speaker if prefer clashes or other structure, should provide crucial points for the debate

Role of the Final Focus: unclear what final means

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Allowed but unstrategic - left little time for rebuilding and responding to rebuttal

Topicality: important, arguments should be linked to the particular context

Plans: structure and strategy are helpful

Kritiks: depends on the format

Flowing/note-taking: im writing most of speeches, marking my comments to be sure after the round what i add

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Ideally rebuttal, conclude outcome of rebuttal in summary speech

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

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

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

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

I am the president of the Williams College Debating Union. This is my 9th year of competitive debate. (3 years APDA, 4 years PF, 3 years Worlds) I was a captain at the Trinity school in NYC and attended TOC twice.

I can handle speed, but for the sake of everyone's sanity, CLEARER is better than faster.

I am not tech over truth, but I can only evaluate what is brought up in round. So, while I am more likely to vote for what is true, you must convince me what the truth is or tech can absolutely win.

Don't misquote your cards. I won't call for them unless there is extreme disagreement over their content (which I would prefer not to happen), but I will if necessary.

Comparative weighing please. I will only vote off of what has been comparatively weighed, preferably earlier than FF.

Extend both evidence AND warrants for your contentions. Preference for warrants is cut for time. Not just the tagline. Same goes for responses.

Defense is sticky.

Please be friendly to each other, and if not friendly then at least civil. I will be very hesitant to vote for you if you are obnoxious. Debate is supposed to be fun and that is difficult when people aren't nice to one another. If not, I will drop your speaks.

If you make a hand motion at any point during the round that I have never seen before, I will increase your speaks by 1 point. (This only works once per round; I will not infinitely increase your speaks if you spend all of cross doing the macarena).

No theory.

Yay debate!

Hey everyone! :) My name's Vidushee and my pronouns are she/her/hers. I am a second-year at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach for Berkeley High School. During high school, I competed for Irvington for 4 years and some of the highlights from my debate career were: three-time TOC qualifier, state qualifier, semis at Cal Parli, semis at Stephen Stewart Invitational, etc.

General notes:

- From David Gomez Siu's paradigm: "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. Also just as important, if not more - if you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). I am an empathetic judge; my threshold for voting on that theory is based on how much abuse is present to me, and trust me when I say I usually know when people are being abusive in round. But I'm not perfect nor can I see all forms of violence, so, help me help you make sure that teams who read abusive and violent arguments lose the round. Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Ignoring them / deliberate misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people in any sense / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab."

- I'm usually tech over truth unless someone is being problematic in round.

- I appreciate weighing arguments, collapsing (especially in the rebuttal speeches), IMPACTING, and being organized/sign-posting throughout the debate!

- Tag-teaming is fine but I only flow what the speaker says. This means that if your partner is tagging for you, then you have to repeat what they said in order for me to write it down and evaluate it.

- I don't like intervening in debates unless it's absolutely necessary so if you're going to be reading a blippy argument that calls from judge intervention, I probably won't buy it. If you do want me to intervene, make sure to explicitly JUSTIFY it.

Speed:

- I can flow moderately fast speed, but if you aren't clear I likely won't be able to understand you. If you want to go extremely fast then please make sure you're clear. I will tell you to slow or clear if I can't understand you, and if you choose not to, then I won't flow what you're saying.

- Also from David's paradigm: "If you are using speed to exclude your opponents from the round and/or refuse to make your speed accessible to the other team, I will not hesitate to vote on theory against it. Inclusivity is important. Interps/texts twice, please. I will almost 100% of the time ask for a text. PLEASE HAVE ONE WRITTEN FOR ME AND YOUR OPPONENTS."

Case:

- I loved case debate, so I prefer it, and I appreciate unique/interesting arguments that go beyond just general links and blocks of uniqueness that can be recycled for all of your rounds.

- Please make sure to pay particular attention to weighing, impacting, and signposting here because a messy case debate isn't fun for anyone!

- I prefer if you cross-apply certain arguments after explaining why they're relevant in a new part of the flow rather than repeating the same things over and over again.

- I'm fine with basically any CPs but please don't be annoying about small things like funding, time frame, consultation, etc because all that does is take away from the quality of the debate (unless it's a legitimate issue, of course). Also, PICs are cool. :)

Theory/Topicality:

- I ran and debated all kinds of theory and topicality so I'm familiar with most arguments and I think that they can definitely be useful in round.

- I don't think that trying to win on frivolous theory is a good debate strategy, especially if you're running it against a team that's inexperienced in answering it. However, if both teams like debating with lots of shells and are comfortable answering them, then that works for me too!

- I default to competing interpretations, but if you want me to vote on reasonability please give me a clear definition of what that means and reason to do so.

- I will vote on potential abuse if the argument is articulated well but I prefer if there's proven abuse.

- I don't have a preference for either fairness or education; it really just depends on which one is argued better.

- If you want me to drop the debater and not the argument then you need to give me a strong reason to do so, otherwise I will default to dropping the argument.

- RVIs are fine, they just need to be articulated and argued well.

- Remember to weigh the theory and tell me how to evaluate it in relation to other arguments, whether that be compared to case, Ks, other theory, etc.

Kritiks:

- I didn't really read Ks when I was debating, but I've hit and listened to enough of them to know that most people don't really understand the literature that they're talking about. That being said, however, I'll evaluate them if they're read.

- If you use a K to exclude someone from the round, I will NOT hesitate to drop you.

- Performance-based Ks are fine, but I never read one myself and I've only ever hit one before.

- I really don't like K affs unless there's a really good reason for you to do so (which obviously needs to be articulated in the PMC).

- I'm probably not the best judge to read super confusing or high-level Ks on because I might get confused, but if you think you can explain them well, it should be fine!

Some parting thoughts, that were also taken from David's paradigm:

"Be a civil and respectful human being and we'll have a great debate.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you! I am more than happy to stall the round a little if talking through non-debate related things makes you more relaxed and able to compete at your best. If I have done something that you find problematic or has made the space harmful for anyone, please do not hesitate to either let me know or let the tournament know so that I can fix it for future rounds."

Please feel free to reach out to me via email (vidusheemishra@berkeley.edu), Facebook, etc. for anything at all! Debate was a huge part of my high school experience and I'm very familiar with the feeling of not knowing anyone on the circuit or having a coach to ask for help, so I'm more than happy to help you out in any way that I can! :)

*Small note about my judging history: I don't always vote aff but that's how my ballot ended up being at the SCU 2020 Invitational, so don't worry about that.

4/8/2022 Update: I haven't judged tech debate in a while so I'm not as used to it as I used to be, so take that as you will.

she/her

email (feel free to use either one, i look at both):

isabellacastmor@gmail.com

icm2122@barnard.edu

hi i’m bella! i did four years of parliamentary debate at washington high school. i broke at a few tournaments (including TOC woohoo) and got some speaking awards but upfront i am not a huge fan of speaker points as a concept and i will rarely give you low speaker points unless a truly staggering circumstance arises (ex. you were bigoted, in some way overtly excluded your opponents from the round etc.). but honestly, i don't care at all about the way you speak the only thing i care about are your arguments. throw around some jokes, toss in a few swear words if u really want to. just have fun in the round!

i ran a lot of kritiks throughout my last two years in debate and i LOVE them!! if you run a kritik i will probably be happy (for more details on that, head over to the kritik section of my paradigm). that being said, im not a k hack so don’t expect to win on a badly run k you don’t know the lit on just because i like k’s. i think kritiks are most valuable when used as a way to gain access to a debate space that is often inaccessible (which is why i am less excited about super highbrow kritiks that not many people know the vocabulary for). additionally, they can just be super valuable for bringing non-topic-specific education to a debate space that usually prioritizes and benefits people who fit certain categories and benefit from the societal structures surrounding policymaking. tldr: love kritiks but know ur stuff and run it for the right reasons

i’m now a first-year student at barnard college with an intended major in history with a concentration either in money, markets, and labor or in colonialism and imperialism so if you have any college questions feel free to chat with me! if the other team is late im so down to just chat with y’all -- ask me about college applications, ask me about my classes, ask me about new york, ask me about debate, anything!

overall i have very few preferences and would like to put as little restrictions on you as a debater as possible. of course, if you are being overtly bigoted (being racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) i will have no qualms about dropping you immediately and your speaker points will reflect the contempt i hold for that kind of abusive behavior.

now onto the good stuff:

• first and foremost, please use content warnings! it’s just good practice and also makes me as a judge feel more at ease.

• on speed, i am ok with spreading if that is truly your heart’s desire. if it really becomes an issue or i think the other team is being disadvantaged, i will yell slow or clear. if the other team yells slow/clear and you do not accommodate them that will probably affect your speaker points. i understand having many points to go through but also try to manage your time well! if there are times in your speech where you can slow down, do so! it’s better to speak a little slower and use up your time than to speak incredibly fast with minutes to spare and nothing else to say (imo).

• call the point of order. i will do my absolute best to protect the flow but everyone makes mistakes! so please do so! don’t be gratuitous with it, though, unless the team you are challenging is being gratuitous with new arguments (it can just end up being such a barrier to someone’s speech when they are being barraged by poi’s or poo’s and as someone who has been on the receiving end of that many a time, it can get annoying, so just be considerate)

• off-time road maps are cool and i welcome them, they make things a lot easier.

• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost!! tell me exactly where u are on the flow throughout the round because it makes my life a little less complicated. im going to be flowing on a laptop for online tournaments and when i don’t know where ur at it becomes far more difficult for me to evaluate the flow at the end of the round. so….have mercy on me and signpost.

• PLEASE PUT TEXTS IN THE CHAT (online) PASS TEXTS (in person)!

• i will also try to be as tabula rasa as possible. i won’t inject my own personal biases into the round and won’t fill in for any gaps in your arguments unless it is absolutely necessary for me to have any sort of comprehension of the round. but point is: don’t have gaps in your argument in the first place so i can remain as non-interventionist as possible!

• if you are encountering arguments in the round that from a technical standpoint you have little experience with, please let me know in round and let me know how i should thus be evaluating your arguments and i will try to adopt that framework to the best of my ability. (ex, you are encountering a k and you have never responded to a kritik before, let me know! i would hate for a k, or any other argument, to be used to exclude people from a round)

• i default to net ben/util unless someone in the round tells me differently.

• tag teaming is fine

• please do not take more than 10-15 seconds to ask your POI. please.

• make it easy for me. tell me where to vote and why.

• if you have any questions at all about the contents of my paradigm please ask before the round and i will be happy to provide clarification!

• im also perfectly happy to be postrounded!

case debate:

• love it. when i was not running k’s, i stuck to good ol’ case debate. i think there is a lot of value to debating in this manner so i welcome you to have fun with it!

• i have a lot of fun evaluating tricky CP/plan texts that give you some unique offense but i also would not hold it against you if you went for generic arguments - it probably just means i won't be as excited by the round.

• links are probably the most important thing to me. if you don't have links i have no real reason to care about your impacts (which should be terminalized).

• also EXTEND. I won't make the extensions for you, it is up to the second speaker to extend points on the flow.

• also weighing is super cute. PLEASE do that. if u say the words magnitude, probability, and timeframe i will be very happy

• i default to probability in regards to impact calculus unless you tell me otherwise

kritiks:

• as previously stated, i LOVE kritiks and the kind of education they bring to the debate space!! please just be mindful of the reasons behind running your kritik. are you utilizing dense and inaccessible literature so u can get an easy win or are you trying to use the k to spread education and/or point out abusive behavior in pursuit of making debate more accessible/more socially conscious?

• most familiar with marx and other cap k's as that was my particular preference when i ran k’s in high school.

• please do not have generic links or i will cry and also not be so willing to vote on it.

• i am inclined to believe you should not run k's that hinge on making assumptions about the identity of your competitors.

• i would ask that you tread lightly when (or honestly just avoid?) running k’s that revolve around a group that you do not in any way belong to when you have another plausible way of winning the round without defending something morally reprehensible

• if you truly want to go for some really obscure philosophical stuff, explain it to me WELL ....if i hear the word hyperreality again with no explanation of what it means....i think larger philosophical discussions in the debate space through K’s can also end up being pretty exclusionary if the team running it does not explain it very well so just tread lightly and make sure you know your stuff if you’re going to run it.

• if you’re running a k on the aff please disclose to your opponents before the round starts. im also still trying to figure out how comfortable i feel with aff k’s so i may not be the best judge to run it in front of. that being said, if u run an aff k i will still evaluate it to the best of my ability but there should be a good reason you as the aff are not being topical.

theory

• is also cool. i honestly strayed away from theory a lot as a debater mostly because i did not use it as a strategic move but rather out of necessity when someone was obviously being abusive in the round. that being said, if u want to use theory as a strategic mechanism go for it.

• not a very big fan of frivolous theory especially when you have arguments you are able to go for. but if you do good work on your theory i will vote on it even if i don’t like the fact that you ran it.

• in regards to the above statement, if u are running theory on something that could have easily been answered in a ten-second poi.........eye roll. debate rounds, in my view, are meant to be educational and if y’all end up spending the entirety of the round arguing over some technicality that could have been clarified/resolved easily i will not only be a little annoyed but ill just be bored:(

• thus this is also a warning for teams who say “ill take it at the end” in regards to poi’s, maybe take some during your speech!

• ALL OF THIS BEING SAID…even with my dislike for friv t, if you are the team that is tasked with responding to it, PLEASE RESPOND TO IT. i won’t hack against friv t SO give me a counterinterp. give me responses on the standards, voters, all that jazz. or else i will literally have no choice but to vote for the friv t.

• open to hearing RVI’s

most importantly, have an educational debate and have fun! or else i'll be forced to tell a joke in the beginning of the round to lighten the mood and i am not that funny.

Miles Morton

Policy/LD:

Speed is fine

Not a fan of non-t critical affs

Don't love Ks either

I enjoy t debates

PF:

Speed is fine, but it's mostly up to your opponents. If they say "clear" or "speed" or something you should slow down.

Please just flash cases, if you don't I'm going to be annoyed if you call for like a half-dozen cards.

I'll evaluate most arguments barring anything offensive or insensitive.

Disclosing boosts speaks

Flashing cases probably means perfect speaks

If you flash cases or disclose and your opponents don't theory is super viable and a voter imo.

Be nice.

Weigh... That's what the decision is based on, don't focus on the line-by-line in FF, instead explain why your impacts matter more than the other teams.

Parli: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not feel obligated to fill time if you're a beginner or just don't have 7 or 8 minutes worth of argumentation. I would much rather you give a 4-minute rebuttal than an 8-minute rebuttal where half of the speech is you just repeating the same things over and over again. Speed is cool so long as your opponents are fine with it. Any arguments will be evaluated unless they're discriminatory

Let me know if you have any questions

email for chain: milesmorton2@gmail.com

Have fun!

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

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

Short Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

I am former parliamentary debater and I competed in GGSA for three years.

I value presentation and speaking style, so a clear, concise, and logical case is always appreciated! Please sign post your contentions, as I will be flowing. I am not a huge fan of overly technical debates, especially in Parli, so please try to avoid kritiks unless you find it necessary. That said, if you are going to run one, make it good!

I don't have a strong preference on POIs. It is nice if you take one, but I won't look poorly on a team that doesn't (I have seen some team try to abuse them to waste other teams time, so I totally understand if you don't take them). Also, please try to refrain from asking your parter POIs. I want everyone to have a chance to speak.

Once your time is done, please finish your thought/sentence, but do not start a new argument after time, as I will ignore it. I am fine with phones being used as timers. I will be timing with my phone.

I do know the rules of debate quite well, so please don't make up imaginary rules.

I love Parli! Between 2020-2022 I was the 2nd and 3rd highest ranked APDA debater, I've also done some BP. I'm not tab rasa and I generally prioritize strongly warranted + low impact analysis over weakly warranted + high impact analysis.

Conduct in Rounds. Be a good person. Rudeness isn’t persuasive so you’ll be penalized for belittling opponents. Also, discriminatory behavior means you’ll be voted down. Disclose your pronouns if you are comfortable. If a debater doesn't disclose their pronouns, refer to them by speaker position.

Frameworks. Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. I will intervene in weighing if neither team weighs. I rely heavily on weighing to vote.

Speed. I can follow very fast speeches. However:

(1) I prefer a slow pace.

(2) You must be clear because I won’t evaluate incoherent arguments.

(3) If opponents clearly cannot follow I will penalize you.

Points of Order. I don't protect the flow, please POO.

Theory. I prefer case debate over theory debates, purely for pedagogy. But I can evaluate theory (especially if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is clearly unfair or abusive).

Kritiks. I am generally unreceptive. I strongly default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon.

Counterplans. I'm supportive of counterplans and I'm okay with kicking them. The counterplan must be mutually exclusive with the gov plan.

Topicality. Should not unnecessarily replace substantive debate. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters.

Have been judging speech and debate for the last 4 years. Iam pretty current on the national and international events. What Iam looking from the debaters are - No spreading, Kritiks, or Theory. Make sure to refute all the important points raised by your opponent. I have my own opinions but i dont go by them when judging a debate, i go with whoever is able to convince me better.

Student USC but not involved in their debate program. I graduated from Head Royce School in 2019 and debated all 4 years there.

I have no problem judging policy or k debates - run whatever you want to run. When I was a debater I leaned towards K debate, so do with that info what you will. But, I am also in the process of applying to law school and all that jazz, so I'm not totally ignorant to policy leaning things. Regardless, I'm not going to be up to date on your politics DA scenario.

I will be slightly sad if you read 8 off in the 1NC, because that's unnecessary and usually means the arguments lack depth, but I won't vote you down for it.

I think judge intervention is bad. All i ask is that your 2AR/2NR makes very clear why i should vote for you - basically write my ballot for me. This means I'm fine with any argument that's not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

please add me to the email chain: tynavarro3@gmail.com

My background:

Hi, I'm Dimitri! I have 5+ years of debate experience in British Parliamentary and APDA, having competed mostly in BP. I was an ESL quarter-finalist of Doxbridge Worlds 2021 (BP) and I have 25+ breaks at BP tournaments across Europe, Asia, and the US, including London Open 2019, Pan-American Queer Open 2021, Munich Open 2019, Athens Open 2018, Riga IV 2019, etc. I also have multiple judge breaks at BP and WSDC tournaments.

Judging paradigm:

1. Overview. I judge a debate from the perspective of an average intelligent voter who can follow complex logical analysis and is well-informed about current events, but doesn’t have pre-formed views on the topic of the debate and isn’t convinced by logical fallacies. I try to be non-interventionist to the extent possible and do not insert my personal knowledge that goes beyond what an average intelligent voter might be expected to know when evaluating the debate. The quality of argumentation is more important than the number of arguments. Dropped arguments are not a guaranteed win and matter only to the extent that you explain their importance in the debate relative to other arguments. Weighing arguments is highly encouraged.
2. Theory. I rarely make calls based on theory alone. If you decide to run theory arguments, make sure (1) they are clearly explained and that (2) your case content is diversified and includes non-theory arguments pertaining to the motion that can be voted on independently.
3. Kritiks. I’m pretty skeptical of kritiks, but I am open to your presentation and will evaluate it like all other arguments, based on the analysis presented.
4. Flow. I do flow every argument and response in a debate carefully. I’m also comfortable with off-the-flow speeches.
5. Speed. I’m not comfortable with high-speed speeches.
6. POIs. I’m not going to penalize speakers for not taking POIs, but I do prefer that each speaker tries to take at least one POI.
7. POO. As per Legislative Code, I’m required to disregard new arguments (including new responses) during rebuttal speeches, regardless of whether a Point of Order was raised. At the same time, I don’t consider “new” application as new material.
8. Tag-teaming. Tag-teaming is discouraged.
9. Topicality. Topicality arguments are generally discouraged unless they can reasonably be assessed to be necessary as a result of the government team clearly misinterpreting a resolution or its part.
10. Equity. Please, be respectful of everyone in the round and avoid making claims based on generalizations, especially pertaining to marginalized groups. A speaker who engages in, for example, racist/sexist/homophobic behavior is likely to be rendered less persuasive overall as a result of that material.

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

I am a lay parent judge. Please avoid spreading, speak clearly and concisely. Make your information and arguments palatable to the general public, and stick to the merit of the debate. I do not appreciate K's and theory. I value civility in debaters, overall just be civil and respectful. Be well researched and prepared for your topic, and for logic based arguments make your link chain clear. Signposting is absolutely necessary for clarity in the debate, and is greatly appreciated and aids in flowing the debate. Most importantly, have fun!

Note: Any judge's paradigm is not the way they actually judge but the way they think they judge so take this paradigm for what it is.

I have debated various forms of parli for 6+ years. I come from Connecticut which is a pretty lay region in parli and that background frames how I judge. However, I think I do judge the flow fairly well.

I won't intervene in weighing unless neither team weighs.

If you give me a clear path to the ballot using your arguments and the other team doesn't I'll be more inclined to vote for you even if you individual arguments may not be as developed.

I want your rebuttals to TELL me why you win, you can be explicit about it.

I can understand theory arguments but don't run them frivolously. I may intervene and drop you.

Warrants + Stats > Warrants > Stats

If you exclude an opposing team with speed then I will drop you.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.

P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

High school teacher - economics, government, history.

Pronouns - he

Approach to judging

- I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round; defense almost never wins rounds.

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

- If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

- I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, and in these cases, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

- I prefer teams to take at least two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, if the tournament doesn't allow POCs, you should take clarification POIs after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Tag teaming should be kept to a minimum. Pass notes.

- Don't go over time in your speech. I stop flowing when the timer beeps. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

I debated in BP and APDA at UC Berkeley. I believe that the best debaters are not those who can recite the most facts to me, but the those who can use facts in logical argumentation throughout the debate. Effective and systematic clash with an opponent's arguments are important. Throughout the debate, teams must treat each other with respect and ad hominem arguments should not be made. If one team makes a round unfair, the other team must prove to me why this is so.

I have no major political biases and am not a fan of spreading, but I understand if you have to do it.

I'm a former university debater and currently a post-grad student-judge with 7 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged 20+ parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com

I'm okay with spreading.

Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution and impacts are provided

Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution and impacts are provided

Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.

Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.

Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.

Public Forum

Speed: Okay with varying pace and speed

Preference of arguments: None specific, as long as they are explained well and their impacts are proven

K's and theory arguments: Open so long as their impacts are proven

Tech > truth: I will evaluate the argument/s provided that the logic and impacts are proven and the opponents' arguments are engaged and rebutted

Evidence: Direct quotations on trustworthy sources and statistics are highly welcomed especially when they are linked to proving the extent of the harms and benefits of your case or your opponents'

CX, Crossfire, Grand crossfire: Questions that cast a shadow of doubt to the opponents' case are welcome. Be creative and sneaky.

Summary and FF: Should be consistent and evolve with the progression of arguments and rebuttals raised during the debate. Evaluation of questions and responses during CX and crossfire should be integrated as well, if necessary.

I have done LD Debate for four years and BP Debate for one and tend to flow individual arguments and responses made to them. I expect debaters to be professional, so no personal insults, sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks, and please refrain from cursing.

Please do your best to signpost and have an order to your arguments. I prefer case debate over theory debate, but if theory is used it must be well-explained and relevant to the debate. I am alright with topicality arguments, just be sure to elaborate as to why you are making that argument. With that, I would prefer it if you did not spread (speak really fast). I do not like to see kritiks during round.

I'm an experienced judge and a former APDA debater from Amherst College. I was an equal opportunity facilitator for 2 yrs. Finally, I was also queen of humorous extemporaneous speaking and placed 2nd at Worlds.

The best rounds are based on creative topics, allow room for argument on both sides, and when you are lucky, also incorporate some humor. I am almost impossible to offend unless a good debate is ruined by excessive points of information (keep it to a minimum/ disrupts flow), sniping about kritiks, or canned cases built purely to win while boring an audience half to death.

I will write down all strong arguments but I don't want to be bombarded by a laundry list. Depth of an argument is more compelling than a laundry list offering breadth.

I am always happy to rule for the best argumentation, regardless of my own personal opinions.

Theory: let's avoid this. A great debater, who will be the most convincing voice at the dinner table for decades to come, wouldn't waste time on this.

Kritiks: let's not go there or force the other team to go there. It's sucks the fun from the round. Let's debate and not descend into squabbling.

Tag teaming: prefer to avoid. I would like to be able to asses each team member on their own ability and merits. Again, this potentially layers in more interruptions and disrupts flow.

Debate is the safe space to explore pretty much any idea ; just make it worthy of the time spent.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

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

some random things about my judging methods:

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

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

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

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

- case debate:

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

- theory:

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

rvis are cool.

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

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

- kritiks:

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

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

good luck!

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

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

General

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

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

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

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

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

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

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

Case

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

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

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

Theory/Topicality

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

Tech v. Truth

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

Good luck :^)

I expect debaters to be courteous, which is to say I prefer 'our opponents claim of X is incorrect/flawed/incomplete because Y and Z' to 'claiming X is ridiculous', as both more civil and more persuasive. I appreciate when everyone keeps to time. Please do not resort to language that is discriminatory or disrespectful.

Debaters are free to inform me (or not) of their preferred pronouns when/as they choose.

I can follow a fast debate, but I prefer it when debaters speak at their own normal rate. I do not love speed for the sake of speed or jargon for the sake of jargon. If a team does not meaningfully slow down after being requested to do so (within reason), I will dock speaker points and be more forgiving of dropped arguments.

I have no objection to theory, but I expect the connection and relevance between the theory and the topic to be clear and convincing and in no way abusive. I generally dislike topicality arguments, unless the government's definition/framing is unreasonable. If teams introduce a weighing mechanism, I appreciate when they use it to weigh the competing arguments.

Overall, I judge each round on the cogency and strength of each side's argument as a whole rather than the quantity of evidence or arguments presented. For me the flow is to keep track of the debate, it is not the debate.

I did parli. in college and some judging then and more recently. I prefer to outline the debate to keep track of both the arguments and the structure of the debate itself.

About me: Senior at UC Berkeley majoring in Environmental Sciences and Legal Studies. Current Head Coach of Maybeck HS, former Assistant Coach for Berkeley High School (2021-2022), former captain of Washington HS's team 2019-2021). During my competitive run, my partner and I championed Stanford's national invitational and broke at Tournament of Champions; I now compete on the Cal Mock Trial Team

Case Debate:

• Argument structure - Please use a consistent argument structure throughout the round (e.g. uniqueness, links, and impacts) and signpost throughout your speech

• Always weigh your impacts - please terminalize and weigh your impacts. It's not enough for you to link out your advantages/disads to death or climate change. You have to explain how I should weigh those against the other impacts in the round.

• Citing evidence - Follow any rules for citing evidence that the tournament provides. If none are provided, citing the name of the source and date of publication is enough for me

Theory Debate:

• Feel free to run whatever kind of theory you want as long as you do sufficient weighing/layering (tell me how I should evaluate this argument compared to everything else in the round)

• Not a fan of frivolous theories and anything that's run to skew your opponents out of the round.

Kritiks:

• I'm generally unreceptive to K's but feel free to run them. If you do, please explain your framework, links, impacts, and alt very clearly and do sufficient weighing/layering.

• Please signpost because I may get lost if you don't

Final Comments:

This is just a brief summary of my judging preferences. Feel free to contact me at abishiva@berkeley.edu if you have any questions! And just remember that debate is a fun and educational activity, so just enjoy yourselves and you'll do great!

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

I think the flow is important but not the end-all-be-all. I take a largely tabula rasa approach - i.e., I try to limit my bias and focus only on the arguments in the round - but being convincing is also essential which I know involves some subjectivity; it's important to remember that you're trying to convince a person, not a robotic flow-evaluator. At the moment the round ends, I will have a very good idea of how I'm going to vote. Zealous argumentation is great but don't be a bully. Don't trick the other team into taking your points of information. Tell me why you should win the round even if you don't win every argument in the round.

Welcome to my paradigm. My name is Daniel Sorial, and I debated in High School for the Academy of Information Technology and Engineering (AITE for short) for three years, the latter two heavily in parliamentary. I'm now a junior at Yale, and a member of the Yale Political Union.

As a judge, I most value weighing and effective rhetoric. Final speeches on both sides should go off the flow and paint the bigger picture. Why does any of this matter? What are the future implications of passing or not passing this motion? 

As per debate techniques, spreading within reason is acceptable. Feel free to speak faster than conversational pace, but necessitating hyperventilation does not pair well with good rhetoric. Spreading should be avoided, but I understand if it is necessary. If you genuinely can't offer your entire case in your first speech, you can give more arguments in the second speech. If you think of a new argument before the second speeches, give it. However, purposefully designing your first two speeches to give some arguments in one and others in the other is bad debate etiquette because it does not allow full engagement by your opponents. It therefore ought not necessitate the same level of refutation. As for other things, Ks and T-Shells are fine, but explain them well incase your opponents are not familiar. Different parts of the country have different techniques, so use them as you please, but ensure everyone is on the same page.

In parliamentary, take POIs, as it shows you have control over your speech. You should offer multiple to your opponents in every speech you can, though the speaker should only take one or two.

I appreciate civility, but being too nice is awkward. 

Good luck!

Background: I've debated for 8 years between high school and college (since 2015), mostly in Extemp & Amercian Parli. I have tons of experience competing, judging, and running tournaments.

Paradigm: Arguments that focus on weighing and logic are more persuasive than those that rest on statistics. Statistics are often biased; logic stands the test of time. I heavily value weighing mechanisms in rounds. A debater with a consistent vision in a round that carries through in all speeches is most effective. Accordingly, rebuttal speeches are very important and should consist of much more weighing than further argumentation. Really take the time to explain why your argument leads to a better outcome than your opponents'. This means that constructives should be extremely well-organized and easy to follow to set up rebuttal speeches in a way that does not make the round messy.

Other miscellaneous things:

1. Definition debates are the worst, I generally err on the side of gov/aff unless there is good reason not to (usually abuse that is called out by opp/neg);

2. Treat everyone in your rounds fairly and do not belittle arguments or speakers. Remember why debate is important: for education & in order to have a constructive conversation -- no side is inherently better than another;

3. Spreading is fine but signposting is always important (if you want to make sure I flow it--signpost it!) Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1;

4. And finally, theory shells should only be used if absolutely necessary and reasons for doing so should be explained in ways that apply to the specific round at hand (and not to all rounds in general).

Good luck!

Easter egg: If you use the phrase "dandy" in one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)2

1 credit: preston bushnell & 2 inspired by: cara weathers

I debated for 4 years in highschool, parli for 3. I was relatively successful, my partner and I won UOP, Polygon, Nueva, States, and qualified to TOC twice. We mostly did lay debate, but I'm familiar and comfortable with most styles.

Just keep it clean, theory and PICs only if necessary, not very receptive to Ks but run what you want. Speed is cool but not full-on spreading, most importantly though adjust your speed to not spread your opponents out of the round. If you are going to use jargon make sure you understand the words you are saying. If I or your opponents look super lost we probably are and that isn't great.

Don't let your opponents get away with with silly points just cause they sound confident, call them out, I probably agree with you.

If you run dumb stock arguments run them well at least, and make it clear that it connects to the resolution.

Don't be rude, please. My threshold of when theory is being abusive is quite low.

If you have specific things or questions ask me before the round.

Good luck y'all.

Pronouns: He/him

I debated 4 years in high school parli and PF and I’m a year into college British parli so I have a lot of experience!

Here’s a list of things that I do and do not want to see in a round!

1. Introduce yourselves and make sure that you are following proper etiquette when entering the room.

2. Don’t stall the round I’m here to judge and you are here to debate.

3. It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of your case and the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit.

4. Theory debate is something that I know can be imperative for a round but please avoid at all cost and if not use it properly and not to pigeon hole a debate via some specific definition

5. Make sure you properly tag and flag rebuttal I will pick it up but I shouldn’t have to do that for you.

6. Speed is something I don’t mind when it is because you have a natural habit but if you are purposely spreading I will most likely drop my pen.

7. Rude debaters aren’t fun to watch at all so really try to not.

i weigh rounds based off of 1. Impacted out arguenents with proper explanation and linking 2. Understanding and context 3. Etiquette

General

Please signpost everything and impact out. Argumentation needs to accessible. Please be civil to one another, I will vote you down if you're racist, homophobic, etc.

Parli

I judge parli from a policy perspective. I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real-world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

If it's a policy resolution please have a plan on aff or at the least a specific approach to affirm. If you perm a CP as a test of competition I will not let you drop the CP. If you need to test completion just run theory and fully extend the argumentation on why the CP isn't competitive. If we're in Oregon doing Oregon parli I expect you to operate under Oregon parli norms. If we're in Califonia doing California parli I expect you to operate under Cali parli norms.

NPDL Parli

I'll vote on just about anything but, conditional counterplans. If you take up everyone's time to read and have your opponents start argumentation I expect you to follow through. If you run an Aff K you need to run theory on who's ground you're on and why it's theirs. I'm fine with speed, K's, theory etc. I vote on the set WM and Value of the round so if you don't set either I'll go point by point on the flow. So whoever has the most standing after clash will likely win. Finally, I like some questions please don't refuse all questions in the round.

Policy

I'll listen to and vote on everything but conditional counterplans. If you take up everyone's time to read and have your opponents start argumentation I expect you to follow through. If you run an Aff K you need to run theory on who's ground you're on and why it's theirs.

LD

I won't mark you down for spreading but I will mark you down if your judge or opponents can't understand/follow your argumentation. In general, I have a preference in favor of traditional LD over progressive LD. I don't flow cross or questions if you find something significant please bring it up in a speech and tell me where to put it on my flow. Other than that have a good time and ask me for any specific information.

PF

I know part of PF is the culture of respect, but you don't need to waste time with thank-yous before every speech. I don't flow cross or questions if you find something significant please bring it up in a speech and tell me where to put it on my flow. Other than that have a good time.

Please ask me if you have specific questions or would like clarification.

I was a college parliamentary debater (elected twice as the President of the Swarthmore College debate team). I won several APDA tournaments, and broke at the World University Debate Championships and other international BP IV tournaments. I have also coached the Stanford debate team after graduating from college and been a judge for the finals of the APDA national championships.

I flow, but care more about major arguments being adequately addressed. In other words, please do not give a long laundry list of small arguments only to point out that they have not all been addressed. I would prefer you to focus on a few good arguments. I do not like dropped arguments, but the fact that an argument has been dropped does not guarantee a win. I also expect you to signpost where you are on the flow.

I’m relatively skeptical of kritiks, but I am open to them, and will evaluate it like all other arguments, based on the analysis you present. I'm generally opposed to topicality debates and use a reasonableness standard. Both sides should have plenty of ground to work with.

I will not consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I will vote for the side that is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful well-informed people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

I expect you to crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Evidence without impact will not be incorporated into how I judge a round. In addition, I will not make comparisons between arguments that are not explicitly pointed out in the round. It is your responsibility to convince me that your arguments are more persuasive than the other side, while also providing good-faith credit to the arguments advanced by the other side. Please avoid strawman arguments. I am open to theory arguments if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is unfair or abusive, but these are not my favorite.

I'm ok with tag teaming, but it's not my favorite. I will not include any new arguments made in rebuttal, but I will expect them to be pointed out with a point of order.

Jargon heavy arguments are not persuasive. Please explain arguments in plain language when possible. I also prefer you to speak as close to the conversational speed you would use over a dinner time conversation.

I care deeply about you respecting your competitors and the tournament. I expect each speaker to take at least 1 point of information. However, if they become disruptive or excessive, they will hinder a good debate. I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Hello!

I am a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience in parliamentary debate.

Case Debate:

Please clearly articulate your arguments so I can understand them. I love impact analysis in 3rd speeches, especially if you've extended them through all 3 speeches. Please do PMT analysis (probability, magnitude, timeframe). Call POOs if you spot them, but do not be excessive since it is disruptive to the speaker. I protect the flow. If there are any topics with necessary background information or context, please provide it for me at the beginning.

K or T:

If you are running any technical arguments, please explain them so I can understand. I do not like kritiks since they are very difficult for me to understand. I understand theory on a very basic level, so please only run it if you really must (I do not like frivolous theory), and even then, explain every aspect clearly and slowly. I appreciate strong reasoning and analysis to make it clear for me to decide who wins the round. Good luck, and I look forward to a great debate!

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

Background

I'm an experienced volunteer judge with quite a fair amount of recent parliamentary debate judging experience. In college, I was the captain of the Ethics Bowl Competitive Team, which focused on debating a broad array of economic, social, political, and philosophical issues. Additionally, I was an active member of the debate team (the style used was Lincoln-Douglas debate).

In addition to debate experience, I am a bioethicist with knowledge in metaethics; normative ethics; rules, rights, and codes of ethics, including medical codes of ethics; public health ethics; research ethics; the social ethics of medicine; and implementation of ethical policies and unintended consequences.

Professionally, my focus is on health care benefits and value-based employer health care purchasing strategies.

Judging Style

I track / flow every argument in writing, and as carefully as I can, in an excel flow chart.

I judge within “the reality created in the debate round.” For instance, incorrect facts will be accepted as the “working truth” within the round unless successfully challenged by a team. Please don’t knowingly make up facts or statistics for the sake of argument, though.

I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round, and will only infer an argument to a reasonable extent.

There are many ways to win a debate and I enjoy hearing, and am open to, all types of arguments and argument styles (complex, resolution, theory, kritiks, topicality, etc.). I weigh arguments qualitatively, on the strength, logic, and rationale of the arguments made. Debaters can win in a variety of ways from my perspective, including win by flow of main arguments, strategic framework (i.e., premise based), definitions, etc. Excluding abusive cases.

I do not let my personal opinions or beliefs impact how I assess the round.

Speed / Speaking / Signposting

I have heard many different ways of speaking / debating and am not opposed to anything in particular. I do not reduce speaker points merely for what I consider to be an individual’s speaking style.

That being said, I’m not comfortable with high-speed speeches as I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world. Feel free to speak at 100mph, but consider this a fair warning that you risk me having to drop an argument because I simply could not capture it in the flow.

Signposting is preferred, but not critical.

Debater Expectations

I really enjoy hearing competitive debates where teams clearly want to win and are passionate about their arguments.

However, please keep things professional. Don’t harass or interrupt opposing teams (obviously, formal POIs and such are acceptable). Additionally, arguments should never devolve into personal attacks or rude comments.

Language that is sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. is not tolerated by me, or any tournament officials.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

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

Specifics for Parli:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I flow POI answers.

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

Speaker points:

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

Theory:

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

Counter Plans:

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

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

DAs:

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

Kritiques:

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

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

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

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

Alternatives:

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

Impacts:

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

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

Framework:

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

Links:

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

Case:

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

Specifics for Public Forum:

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

Evidence:

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

Refutation consistency:

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

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

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

Theory:

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

Kritiques:

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

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

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

Speed:

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

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

Specifics for Lay Policy:

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

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

I have some minimal experience with debate having taken it as a class in high school and competing at a few parli/speech tournaments throughout that time so I know the basic conventions of debate but for all intents and purposes treat me as a lay judge. When trying to convince me that you have won the round make sure that you have a clear weighing mechanism that you reference to prove that your points outweigh your opponents. For impacts, make sure that they are clear and that there is an obvious line of reasoning to how you get there. Finally, I would like to think of myself as a knowledgeable and unbiased person but with that said make sure that your arguments are understandable and not overly complicated as I believe that that would make my job as a judge easier and more accurate and provide a more educational debate on your own and your opponents' part.

If you have any questions, please let me know!

UPDATE:3/14/22

I have had time to rethink a lot of my paradigm. I have included my old paradigm after I returned back to debate. I am a huge proponent of accessibility and inclusion and if you need any accommodations, please let me know. I love this activity and believe everyone should have access to the same kind of love/stress. I still hold a lot of my beliefs in regards to K's and the structure. Now that I have been out of the activity and outside of the community, my threshold for speed has definitely changed but I can still pick up most things. If there's anything you need, please ask :)

--------------------

4 years of high school debate with two of them doing circuit tournaments- I did LD and International Extemp.

4 years of college debate doing both parli and LD.

I was the DOF for Eastbourne College in the UK where I taught BP and LD. I'm back in the states working in a non profit.

I'm all for whatever strategy you use as long as its accessible to your opponents. I switched between styles so I'm all for a good enjoyable debate.

Procedurals/Theories: I usually evaluate these first as I think they are a prior question to evaluating anything else. I also look at framework too prior to looking at the rest. I am keen to more proven abuse but if your articulated abuse is solid enough, I'll be responsive to it.

CP/DA: Like a good solid cp/da debate. I do need a competition block as why perms cant work and why the CP doesnt link for/ me to buy it. Ill buy PICs if there isnt much work done.

Ks-Im all for a good K. I like a solid framework and some good links instead of some nebulous links. I'll buy any K, I just need a solid weighing mechanism and framing of the impx and solvency.

so basically I'm just down for a good time not a long time, I like the voters to be succinct and dont like repetitions cause thats no fun. Its your debate so I don't want to input too much in here. Last speeches should be making things clear for me, I dont like doing the work for others and refuse to intervene.

Also as a side note, Im cool with spreading I just am not down for the mumbles.

Also be nice, thats always cool.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

What I look for: I am a traditional debater but I can follow theories and K's. The event will determine what I will value more in the debate round. For example, LD I focus on the moral clash and impacts and less on solvency. For PF I care more about the actual policies and implementation. I like when debaters weigh the two worlds in the round so that I can see clearly which side has more impact. I want a coherent and cohesive framework that aligns with the value and value criterion. Once you read a piece of evidence don't just move on. Please elaborate what the piece of evidence means and how it relates to your argument. You have thoroughly researched the topic while your judge likely has not, so it can be easy to assume they can see correlation when in fact they cannot.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire but if you reference a subject brought up in crossfire I will take that into consideration and add that to my flow. For example, if your opponent concedes a point in crossfire I won't write that down but if in your rebuttal you mention that they did, and you explain how, then I will write it in.

Speed: I am good with fast-paced speaking but if you plan to spread please share your case with both me and your opponent. I do believe debate is meant to be a dialogue between two people so I value clarity and understanding rather than just overwhelming people with words. Please be respectful of one another.

Judging Experience: I have done speech and debate ever since Elementary School and since I entered high school I have judged many tournaments. I am most familiar with judging LD debate and occasionally PF.

Note for LD: Please do not run morality as a value. Morality is a set of values. So you are essentially saying you value value. Furthermore, whose morality are we to follow? My morality? Yours? Hitler's? Please choose anything but this.

Extra Note for LD: My job as a judge is not to vote for the better debater but to vote for the case that best upholds the framework. The better debater tends to have the better case but not always. Your opponent could drop your whole case, but if your arguments are incompatible with the framework, you lose. Please keep this in mind.

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer

My background

While I am new-ish to judging, I am a former parli debater with many years of high school debate experience in parli, extemporaneous, and congressional debate. My partner and I previously won the California Parli tournament of Champions and were runners-up at the California Parli State invitational. I also have experience competing at Nationals and national invitationals at the semi-final level and above.

My judging philosophy

I track every argument carefully and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I weigh arguments qualitatively and will allow one very strong argument to outweigh mediocre ones. I place heavy emphasis on signposting and clear communication.

* Behavior. I expect debaters to engage with each other respectfully. I will reduce points for teams that use racist or sexist language. I also expect debaters to take and reciprocate POIs throughout the round.

* Flow. I protect the flow and will ignore all new arguments in rebuttle.

* Theory. I am open to theory discussions. However, I'm unlikely to decide a round based on theory alone.

* Kritiks. I am open to Kritiks, but I am unlikely to decide a round based on Kritiks alone. I'd ask that you still engage with your opponent's arguments if you do make a Kritik.

* Speed. I am anti-spreading; I find that spreading makes it difficult to track arguments. If I cannot track and understand your arguments, I will not award speaker points for them.

* Topicality. I enjoy topicality arguments and encourage you to make them when appropriate.

* Tag-teaming is fine.

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

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

Remember to respect one another and have fun!

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- 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."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

I'm a lay judge who has judged at three tournaments now. Speaking will have to be slow for me to take it down and the arguments need to be explained in clear terms. sue.zjxu@gmail.com

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.

Clarity with emphasis on the most important points of your arguments are very helpful. Please do not rush - 'slow down' is a comment I find myself writing over and over. Please introduce yourself.

Debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate your arguments to the best of my ability. Most important: have fun.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at elizzhou@berkeley.com