hey whats up guys

my name's alper, ive been debating for 4 years now

Mainly cal LD

FOR LD

Value/Value Criterion is very important - will only evaluate impacts under the framework of the round. If you win an extinction impact but don't tie it back to framework and why it matters, I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.

Tech > truth, will vote on anything as long as you win the links to access your impact and then explain why it matters under your framework. (and i mean anything).

BIG EXCEPTION: I am a trad ld debater, I don't understand anything prog or circuit. You are welcome to try and read it anyways, if you do it well enough and clearly explain to me why I should vote for you then I will, but know that "first the interp, then the violation" means nothing to me.

Also I am fairly good with speed but only if you actually enunciate. To be safe, you should probably send speech docs if you are planning on going fast.

In cross just don't be annoying please. Perfectly fine to cut your opponent's off if they are rambling, but if they are actually answering your question let them talk. Being annoying in cross = less speaks.

Please please please actually have clash!!! Read arguments that directly tell me why your opponent's arguments are wrong/don't matter.

Weigh and extend in your final speeches. Don't be afraid to collapse on arguments you are losing - I think this is super strategic and a sign of a good debater. You should be telling me what arguments matter the most in the round, why they matter the most, why you won them, and how that means you won the round under the framework. Basically make it as easy as possible for me to vote for you; write my ballot for me.

If neither debater does this and at the end of the debate I'm left with a bunch of arguments with no weighing/connecting back to framework then I will default to evaluating the round like a speech round: best speaker wins. Please don't make me do this, I hate judging speech.

FOR EVERY OTHER DEBATE EVENT:

Don't run theory. I am a lay judge. I understand nothing except argumentation. Don't be annoying in cross. Be respectful and don't insult your opponents. Read arguments, clash, collapse, weigh, extend. Be good!

Funny:

higher speaks if you make jokes/good references in round
+1 speak if you tell me a good knock knock joke before round
-1 speak if you mention lebron james

have fun guys, debate is supposed to be fun! joke around, laugh, talk with your opponents and get to know them a little. lighten up.

I am a new parent judge. ????

Debate:

If I don't understand an argument, I won't vote for it.

Speech:

Speak clearly and enunciate.

Hello! I do parliamentary (parli) debate and POI (program oral interpretation)

For Debate:

I don't really know much about any debate other than parli so think of me as a lay, clear links, and an organized layout (especially for refutation speeches) really boost your performance. Also don't talk to fast because I suck at flowing lol.

For Speech:
umm... wait does speech even have paradigms?

TL;DR: I did traditional LD debate for 4 years but treat me like a lay judge.

I probably won't understand most circuit tactics (Theory, K's, etc.) and will drop you if you run it against an opponent that doesn't know how to debate that way. I'll take dropped arguments as true. If you'd like, add me to the email chain (raymond.l.dai@gmail.com)

LD: Connect your arguments back to framework, or I will be unable to vote for it if I do not understand why your point upholds your value/value criterion and why you should win. Make warrants, weigh arguments, and clearly articulate impacts too.

Everything else: I have a little bit of experience but I'm basically a parent judge here.

Don't be mean to your opponents and be careful when treading the line between pressing opponents and being rude during cross-examination thanks

hi, I do parli with Ryan. I don't like it when people are too aggressive or speak way too fast. Also please have introductions before your speeches. I prefer if u don't run theory because I don't really know about it but your choice. POI's and questions are good but don't be rude and ask too many. make sure you organize your case well and uh just think of me as a lay judge, I'm not sure what else to include here so ye gl hf!

Leland '23

Michigan ‘27

they/them

Chain: ngaodebate@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, read whatever you want. My opinions on debate are still very malleable and good debating comes prior to anything I believe outside of round.

Little topic knowledge – I’ve looked at a few chains and camp files but you should assume I know nothing.

I will not adjudicate debates over issues that occurred outside of the round.

Policy v Policy

Send perm texts.

You should slow down in competition rounds. My experience here isn’t the best and my comprehension will not be fantastic. No real other preferences for which CPs are legitimate.

I have a horrible understanding of legal processes and the economy.

Policy v K

Fine with whatever lit base you read so long as you explain it.

I think most Ks (and AFF framework arguments) are better executed with exclusive framework interps. I will only vote for interps made by either team.

K AFFs

Like above, I think exclusive framework arguments are often more strategic than counterinterps.

Fairness is an impact but you need the impact explanation to accompany it.

You should explain why the TVA and SSD solve beyond just saying that it solves.

KvK – do ballot instruction and please defend something. I think AFFs get perms but I think strong links can generate a sufficient opportunity cost.

T/Theory

You should probably have a caselist.

Condo is probably good and probably also the only reason to reject the team.

Like with competition, you should probably slow down.

Leland '22, Berkeley '26

I did speech and debate for 4 years in high school but mainly did LD! I haven't debated or judged since March 2022 so please dont use random debate jargon bcs I might not understand it.

I'm super big on respect and being nice to your opponent! Please be cordial and just a good person, we're all here to have fun and learn something new so please leave the weird reactions and rude comments at home/in your hotel rooms. If you don't respect your opponent or me I'll tank your speaks.

Some General Tips:

• Don't spread. I won't be able to flow most of your arguments if you do.
• Speak confidently!!! Even if you do not know what you're talking about I don't know that, so just fake it till you make it
• PLEASE do not say you "solve" for issues like racism, poverty, sexism, world hunger, etc (or other issues you are not going to solve with one resolution). It's lowkey very insensitive and sounds weird coming from a high school debater (who comes from a lot of privilege.) Please call your opponents out if they say this.
• CLASH CLASH CLASH!!! It's honestly really frustrating to see debaters talk about completely different things during the round and do not engage with each other. It makes judging a lot harder and makes everything really messy. Engage with your opponent's arguments, a response is better than no response.
• Don't have crazy link chains. Make sure your impacts from links are clear and make sense and don't need 10 links.
• SIGN POST! If you don't sign post I won't flow it. Just do it, it makes everyone's lives easier.
• Weigh your arguments! If you weigh well you'll probably have my ballot.

LD Specific:

• Value and Value Criterion are so important. Please make sure your framing is fair and makes sense. This is what makes LD debate unique so please spend time on it
• CX is so important! Use this time for strategic questions. It can really make or break the round so use all the time you can,
• Make sure you have a story that flows throughout your case. It helps me understand your side more and makes the debate more interesting.
• Don't drop arguments! Always respond to everything and collapse to voters in your final speech
• Make voters clear and concise. I want you to write my ballot for me and tell me why you won.
• Feel free to ask any other questions in round too :)

World Schools:

• Please don't ask too many POIs and on the same note don't ignore all your opponent's POIs. Be reasonable and engage with your opponent without bombarding them with questions
• Please frame the debate at the top just for clarity
• Make sure you collapse to key points and voters at the end.

Other than that have fun, that's genuinely the most important thing!

If you have any questions email me: khaddad@berkeley.edu

hey, i'm ben! (he/him)

i'm a policy debater (2N) at leland (2A'd like two times ever). i have almost no judging experience (except a middle school PF tournament and i don't think that qualifies for much). for speech events — I've done info/expos and duo :)
email - lelandhsdebate@gmail.com ('hs' stands for han shih, not high-school) and lelanddebatedocs@googlegroups.com

general
- tech > truth (usually)
- be clear — spreading is ok
- time your own prep
- done a lot of lay debate (w stock issues) — if I'm in a panel u can treat me like a parent judge

truth > tech

i will flow, but i will also factor confidence in arguments and depth of knowledge

if you run theory explain it well

no Ks

signpost

link/impact out args

please be respectful of your opponents -- no heckling/excessive facial expressions

Do parli, she/her

overall:

please dont be too aggressive

Content:

signpost please

please be somewhat organized during speeches (ex. case then rebuttal, vice versa, etc.)

Crossfire: please let your opponent have at least 1 question

I don't know any other debate structures

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

for flusters:

don't have a really deep understanding of other debate events so almost treat me like a parent judge

in general:

- clear warrants backed w/evidence

- make sure you know your ev or else that tells me you don't know what args you're really running for lmao

- weigh out your impacts & basically write my ballot out for me

- no spreading-- i wont be able to understand

- pls don't be ableist, homophobic or that sort or else i will tank ur speaks

other than that, have fun :)

i am a parent judge please speak slowly and avoid technical jargon

i default 25 speaks :)

Policy Stuff: If you spread, send docs. I'll flow speeches like every other debate format. If you see this paradigm, in round the words are "Vote Affirmative." I'll flow on a google doc to save time for me. Feel free to use any jargon that would suffice your policy self.

PF Debater of 2 Years and counting

A lot of tournaments on the national circuit both hs and ms divisions

Debate is a game, winning is cool but shouldn't be the main reason why you choose to compete, make sure to have fun. Don't use gendered language and read TW&CW when needed.

--Serious Debate Stuff--

Tech>Truth, make sure your clear with your narrative and avoid contridictions

Evidence: I'll buy it and trust your telling the truth. I only look at evidence when its highly debated upon, evidence challenge from opponents, or any reason why that piece of evidence should be seen by me.

My decision making calculus is very simple, and its just which side convinces me more with offense of their side, defense on the opponents, and weighing. Weighing is usually how I decide "close" debates.

Fun Stuffs:

Leland HL is the best novice team on the circuit, just call out for their Gupta '20 card and you'll be mesmerized. Leland HL gold toc 2023,2024,2025 champs!

Hello, fellow debater:

I have been competing in LD for three years, and I also did Congress in freshman year, so I am relatively familiar with debate structure.

I will flow your arguments, but please signpost, and summarize your arguments at the end of the debate so I can keep track.

Do not spread, or I will not flow your argument. My handwriting is already bad enough as it is (':

Finally, just don't be mean, because that's very uncool.

Anyway, I hope to see you in round!

--Shane King

.--. . .-. | .- ... .--. . .-. .- | .- -.. | .- ... - .-. .-

I like good debating where both teams are answering each other's arguments rather than ignoring arguments and presenting your own. Saying a lot of incoherent evidence without expanding on it or explaining it should also be avoided. Competitiveness is good but attack your opponent's arguments, not your opponent.

I've only seen/done policy debate.

flusters update:

if you're in pf, policy, or parli, i haven't prepped your topics, so please explain any acronyms and topic-specific arguments to me

--

yes, please put me on the email chain: ashleylee7173@gmail.com

about me:

i debated lincoln douglas all four years at leland and competed in lay ld. that being said, i'd prefer to judge a traditional round. but if you and your opponent are more comfortable with circuit, then go circuit. just explain all of your arguments (ks, cps, theory, das, etc) thoroughly and slowly.

i typically don't have an argument preference — i will vote on anything as long as you tell me why i should vote on it over your opponent's arguments. but i will never vote for something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

specifics:

speed: i'm fine with fast-speaking, but i'm not fine with spreading. if i can't understand what you're saying, then i can't flow it. i will say/type "clear" three times before i stop flowing.

cross ex: there is a stark difference between being assertive and aggressive/rude. please let your opponent answer your questions — don't let cross ex turn into a petty flight.

2ar: don't bring up new arguments or refutations in your speech, or it'll be reflected in your speaks.

if you have any questions, ask me before the round!

leland '22 | ucla '26 (computational and systems biology major)

he/him

yes, i would like to be on the email chain: yongjindebate@gmail.com

idk if anyone reads paradigms nowadays...if you do, add me on the email chain without asking. thanks!

update for long beach:i have been meaning to leave the activity for a while now, so this will probably be the only tournament i will be judging throughout the entire year. i don't know the topic at all so when you are in front of me, i would expect you to not throw around acronyms around.

tech > truth - this should be the general philosophy of every judge but there is no such thing as tabula rasa

top-level:

1. i thank Allen Kim, Young Park, Allison Harper, Caitlin Walrath, and Ms. Northrop for molding my views and perceptions on debate and how a debate should be held. that means that a lot of my preferences of what i would like to see in a round is a collaboration and hybrid of their amazing opinions on debate. so, if you are ever confused throughout my paradigm, their paradigms should be a lot more concise and straightforward and i wouldn't blame you if you defaulted to searching theirs up.

2. debate is a discussion between the debaters, i'm only an adjudicator of the round - do you what you do best, whether you are running wipeout to agenda ptx to baudrillard, my only job is to listen and flesh a clear ballot that gives me the easiest way to vote - any arguments that you can explain THOROUGHLY is on the table and it is your job by the rebuttals to write the ballot for me

3. BUT... i will not tolerate any arguments that pertain to sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, classism, etc. i will stop a round if i need to, if i find that the debaters are uncomfortable and will cap your speaks to the lowest it can possibly be. respect needs to be earned between the debaters; but, there is a fine line between aggressive and passionate debating and ad hominem incivility

4. speed is fine and be comfortable in the round - whether you spread at 450 wpm or you go at Cal MS's speed, i'll flow whatever claims, warrants, or evidence you are communicating to me - but if i yell clear once and i can understand a drunk donkey better than i can understand your speech, i'll give up flowing :)

5. tag team CX is fine, you don't need to ask me beforehand - but if your partner is clearly speaking for you in CX, i'll make sure to tank both of your speaker points so...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

6. as i might have sounded passive-aggressive in some parts, i'm usually (HOPEFULLY) not too mean unless you break one or more of the stuff listed here. i wish you the best of luck in your rounds and if you have me as a judge, have fun and touch some grass after the round please

7. pre-round disclosure is good...that's a nonnegotiable

policy specific:

1. t: usfg- i put this at the top because you probably ctrl+F'ed my paradigm for this so you're welcome - these are the best debates to see or the absolute worst debates to see - i have been on both sides of these debates debating for and against framework so i welcome K v FW debates openly

- for FW debaters, i see the utility of both fairness and education/clash but i believe fairness is an internal link for education and clash FOR STRATEGIC REASONS, NOT PERSONAL ONES. in all the FW debates i've been in, 99% of explanations of fairness impacts become tautological, repetitive, and defensive by the 2NR and there are no intrinsic or external benefits to having fairness ALONE being good for debate. Additionally, my pet peeves for FW debaters are that they throw out TVAs without explaining why their TVA resolves any literature provided by the 1AC. i view TVAs as crucial for evaluating the round but without any justification for your TVA, there is an extremely high threshold of winning on it

- for K debaters, it is your job to defend why your model of debate is a better alternative to normative debate practices and impact or internal link turn the FW impacts for offense. Also, explain your counter-interpretation and why that has a net benefit to the model of this round or model of debate as a whole.

2. k affirmatives - i love them a lot and i've experimented with them throughout my high school career - while i see the value of K affirmatives and i do not auto default to "defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan" - this does NOT mean i'll understand the nuances of your aff without explanation

- it is your responsibility to:

1. explain the thesis of the 1AC

2. warrant the method/solvency of the 1AC

3. justify my relationship as a judge to the ballot and the round

4. explain the 1AC's relationship to the resolution whether that be positive or negative.

Lack of sufficient explanation of these 4 things increases my chances of voting presumption and/or FW in the debate

3. k v k debates - one of the most underrated debates to have - for K affirmative, explaining the 1AC's theory of power, perm, root cause, and comparisons between the 1AC and alt will help me understand the interaction between the 1AC and the K - for K negative, explaining the link and its relationship to the 1AC and method v method will isolate the ballot for me

4. policy affs - case debate are great to see - whether that entails impact defense, impact turns, specific case defense or offense, every reason provided to the 2NR are reasons to lower the threshold of voting aff - presumption is a thing and i do vote on it

5. cp - i'll reward teams who read specific solvency evidence pertaining to the aff's plan while it is not a necessity - but, what is a necessity though, is internal and/or external net benefits to the CP and how it competes against the aff solvency - i like to see unique and strategic counterplans whether they are abusive or not - but, the more abusive a CP becomes, the more i'll grant aff leniency to theory, i.e. international actors or private actors

6. da - i believe that link portions in a disad are extremely underrated - more and more i see disad links become generic links to the plan and the internal link story of the disad becomes really sketch. in the end, it ends up being an impact framing debate by the 2NR and 2AR

- while i highly regard top-level impact framing and turns case arguments and i'll reward a team that does one well, i do believe that a disad should have a coherent link and i/l story to decrease my threshold on it - i would rather see an impact turn round than see a 1NR mindlessly read 10 UQ wall cards on Biden's midterms

7. k- this is the area where i have interacted the most in my junior and senior year - framework and link debates are the most important to me and this is where your debates should be focused on anyway - whether you read a 2 minute o/v on your K or do line-by-line, i want to learn about how your literature is affected by the 1AC, the 1AC's politics, or the 1AC's rhetoric. And, i want to know what is my relationship to the K and how i should evaluate my ballot.

- i do not want to listen to your prewritten blocks and overviews discussing the nuances of your literature; i could've spent my time better reading comments from 40-year-old moms on Goodreads about your book than you spreading to me 8 minutes in the 2NC about it.

- if you pull lines from the 1AC text contextualizing the aff to the link, i'll heavily boost your speaks - for the alternative, i expect you to tell me if you are judge kicking it or not. if you aren't, i hope listen to a coherent story on how the alt resolves the links and examples of the alt happening either within debate or in politics

- most importantly, explain your buzzwords because it becomes so easy to see when a debater is vomiting random words because they are unfamiliar with the literature. Remember, debate is a discussion between you and the opponent, and your speaks will reflect if you make the debate inaccessible to them.

8. t - i could care less if you read 4 T shells out of your 10 offs, but your decision to go for it in the neg block and the 2NR, purely relies upon your ability to articulate: 1. the warrants of your standards 2. the impact it has in-round and out-of-round and what their plan justifies 3. the credibility of your interpretation and why the aff violates it. When it comes to competing interps and reasonability, i default to competing interps unless given instruction and explanation why reasonability outweighs competing interps.

9. theory - my general ideology on theory or any miscellaneous theory args is: go big or go home - while it defers to a round-by-round basis, i want to hear a 5-minute theory speech than a shoddily extended 45-second theory shell in the 2NR or 2AR. it is your job to justify why the opponent provides an abusive world of debate and how that led to issues in-round. i have no biases in voting for quirky theory arguments (i refuse to call them frivolous bc that's what PF and LD call them and i don't want to associate myself with them). Theory debate legitimately makes my day and i love to see a round that invests their time in one.

miscellaneous:

my speaks start at 28 and will go up or down depending on how well u speak, coordinate w ur partner, being nice to ur opponents, etc. but here are some pet peeves...

1. pet peeves:

- stealing prep (DON'T U DARE TOUCH UR COMPUTER WHEN UR PARTNER IS GOING TO THE RESTROOM)

- taking a millennia to send out the doc (marked or not)

- speaking over each other in cx

- asking "did you read 'x' card" more than once in a cx

- calling me judge instead of yongjin or you

- card clipping results in max 20 speaks - but, card clipping accusations need to be debated in-round for me to assign a loss - however, i will only assign an auto-loss if it is a bubble round because i believe that those who card clip should not be in elim rounds

- not disclosing the aff and 2nr strats pre-round unless its new

Any mention against cheese automatically L30s. Any mention for cheese automatic win of the round (W30s).

If you condemn cheese or do not mention, L 20's. Say at some point why cheese is the greatest invention ever W 30's. If both teams mention how amazing cheese is, the team that comes up with more pros uses more creativity, and further indulging examples wins the round.

Pronouns: She/Her

Events: OO, PF with Sydney Sick

My debate experience includes the one year of PF I have participated in.

I'd prefer if you limited spreading and theory.

Make sure your arguments are explicitly and logically explained.

Don't waste cross ex.

Address all of your opponents' points.

Weigh your impacts.

Email: karin.liu2022@gmail.com

This is my 4th year of LD, and I look forward to a good round!

General:

- I am a more flow judge, but still expect analysis and weighing. Debate isn't a video game, don't try to exploit rules to
"technically win" a round.

- I am more tech>truth, but if your argument strays too far from reality and doesn't logically make sense, I won't evaluate it.

- Don't go too fast, a bit of speed is fine but I can't flow spreading.

- Limit your use of debate jargon; I don't know all the terms out there.

Case:

- Extinction arguments will only be evaluated if they make sense and the debater can prove they are likely to happen.

- Keep your arguments topical.

CX:

- Be respectful in cross-ex and also don't misconstrue what your opponent said in cx in later speeches.

- You can cut your opponent off, but only if they have already answered your question sufficiently or misunderstood the question.

Weighing:

- Please weigh in later speeches: just because I'm more flow doesn't mean I know the context of your event's topic.

Theory:

- In my opinion, when you run theory arguments, you are essentially asking me as the judge to intervene in the round; I will only evaluate theory if it is reasonable.

- Any theory shell must have all the necessary sections: Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters, etc. Don't read an interpretation and a 3-sentence justification and expect me to buy it.

- I will not evaluate frivolous theory arguments.

- experience in ld & parli

- i have small brain => pls do not be confusing

- have fun. if u don't have fun, i'll give u 20 speaks. :)

ty <3

hi folx—welcome to novice debate! I'm excited to see you begin your journey into NSDA—it's a rocky but fulfilling road and so many people are here to guide you through an experience that will change your life.

my pronouns are she/they

please put me on the email chain: xnmuix@gmail.com

TLDR for all events

Direct clash (LINE BY LINE responding to arguments ie "they said x, but y" and defending your argument), impact analysis and judge direction are the most important things to me. I think that evidence quality is very important in rounds—but more important is the performance of that evidence and your contextualization to the round as well as why i should vote on it.

I am a policy debater—which means my biggest preferences are those of quality evidence, clear explanation of arguments and voting issues. Do this and you'll do very well.

make sure to TIME ALL YOUR SPEECHES. I will cut you off if you go over but you should not be making me keep track of things—that's your job.

any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments or demeanor is unacceptable—be respectful in round!

I think something that can hurt you in round is using a lot of buzzwords, debate terms of tech talk and presuming I know what it means. Even though I have debate experience I prefer you to treat me like a new judge with no experience—needing lots of explanation, a slower pace and construction of arguments with good structure. Be patient with me!

also make things easy to flow :)) i love flowing and a good structure of arguments is great

POLICY

some general guidelines:

tech--x------truth

line by line--x------embedded clash

impact calculusx--------no impact calculus

you do you! these are just my general preferences but i love to see a creative debate where you argue what you are passionate about and refute the other side's arguments. the most IMPORTANT THING is to properly extend arguments and develop them in your speeches—if a piece of evidence was read in the 1NC/1AC, i want to hear some recollection of it (claim, author, qual, warrants) in later speeches so it's clear why it's important in the round.

i learned lay debate through stock issues + net benefits ---using general things like inh/sh/solvency/t/da/cp is good with me

PARLI, LD AND PF

I have read through the judging packet and guidelines for all three of these events, so i have a limited scope of rules like speech times, norms and objectives of each speech. The tldr stuff should work fine--I will keep a rigorous flow for everything in the round and do the best I can, but note that I probably will forget a lot and get confused so please go slower and explain things more.

Prateek Nedungadi

Prateek Nedungadi

(Pra-teek Ned-un-gadi)

Occupation: Prateek Nedungadi

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon.

I'm a college freshman rn.

Events: Oratorical Interpretation (Declamation), Duo, Congress, Policy, BQ, + College parli and LD very briefly

- I've seen PF before though so I am fairly familiar with structure, but guide me through the framework of how to vote in PF --> aside from that apply the relevant parts of my paradigm in the policy section

- LD/Parli: Please guide me on how to vote/what to prioritize according to the rules of your debate --> aside from that apply the relevant parts of my paradigm in the policy section

Have fun and run what you want as long as it's not offensive/discriminatory or blatantly false.

If the debate isn't policy please treat me like a parent judge and apply the relevant parts of my paradigm, however feel free to speak at a faster pace.

I am as tabula rasa as humanly possible. You may refer to me as "judge" or by my first name if during the round.

If the tournament is primarily fast, do a fast round. If a tournament is primarily slow, do a slow round. If you do want something different make sure that you tell me and ask permission from your opponents.

x<26 --> you said something horrifying!

26-27 --> more speech drills

27-28.9 --> average/good

29 --> great

30 --> god

Policy:

Keep the debate clean and sign post. I'm good with pretty much any argument. Don't try to run anything you don't know well enough

- give an off-time roadmap, FOLLOW the roadmap while you're speaking

- keep your link chains clear

- I will not vote on anything if I notice you dropped it

- Don't be slimy (DO NOT say that your opponent never answered something when they clearly did, DO NOT misconstrue your evidence, DO NOT misconstrue your opponents evidence, DO NOT make up a fact, DO NOT hand me a graph or chart you made)

- Impact calc is very important, tell me why this outweighs the other. Write my ballot for me

- Explain your warrants, don't just extend something without explaining why it's still relevant or which argument it applies to

- If you bring up new arguments in the rebuttals, especially the 2ar, I will be very annoyed and refuse to consider them.

Don't be racist/sexist/egotistical. You'll get the lowest possible speaks if you are and chances are I'll vote you down.

Circuit Policy specific:

If you run T/Framing/Theory please thoroughly go through the voters and standards and explain why I should vote for you based off that. While you're running T/Theory slow down on the voters/standards so I can actually flow it.

*I'm not stable on K's so please explain them well and slow down

I'll avoid looking at the speech doc unless absolutely necessary but BE CLEAR. I will call "clear." However if I have to tell you more than three times through the entire debate >:(

bonus for actually reading my paradigm which sucks:

+ 5 speaks if you judge strike me

here's my linkedin if you want to connect: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yong-ooi/

I am a 10th grader at Leland High school and have been doing speech and debate since I was in fourth grade. I like to play chess in my free time and will consider adding speaker points if you make good chess references in your speech.

Don't panic, this is most likely your first tournament, and you will do well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For Debate

Keep it simple, no off-topic or irrelevant arguments at all, keep improbable impacts off the table. Make sure you combine good, clear speaking with understandable arguments

For Speech

Simple and clear, good modulation and enunciation, and a topic to learn more about.

Let's try to keep it fast, fair, and efficient.

P.S.

K's, theory, spreading CPs are all allowed and praised.

Say the words "Aniket Mittal is a lifer" in round and I'll hack and boost speaks.

TLDR: Varsity PF @ Leland, standard tech, tabula rasa

This paradigm is awful so look at Leon Huang (except for speed and prog), Daniel Xie, and Sterling Xie also. If you got any questions go ahead and ask before round!

rayansg10@gmail.com for chain

Things I love:

• Having fun makes the activity more enjoyable, so do it
• Presumption args
• Prog (a little less K's but ill still vote for it)
• Weighing
• Actually good defense

PLEASE WEIGH

I'll always first look to the weighing to decide which case I am going to look at. If you win case and weighing you will probably win the round. If they are winning defense on your case then its a wash and I look to the other case. If they can win their case they win the round. If no one has offense I presume first speaking team (but will vote off of other args).

tech > truth

i'm fine with evaluating any argument as long as you explain it clearly

be respectful

"I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon." -Yongjin Lee.

Leland '22 Michigan '26

conner.shih.debate@gmail.com

Judging should be all tech, no truth. The only thing that factors into my decision is what has been said by the debaters. That means 'I don't care what arguments you go for or how many off you read in the 1NC.'

K in high school, policy in college. That just means do the better debating and you will win.

You can insert rehighlightings as long as its implication is explained. Recuttings of parts of the article not originally present in the card should be read.

I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the round or personal callouts.

Condo is good. Judgekick is good. Plan text in a vacuum is good.

Fairness is good. It is an independent impact. Unless it's not.

Big fan of the perm double bind. Not a fan of Kant.

Link uniqueness is important. You should read cards.

Hi!

My background: Currently in 4th year competing in parliamentary debate for Leland High School.

Please navigate to your debate below.

Parli:

- I vote for the team who best upholds the agreed weighing mechanism or value(for value resolutions). Your arguments must tie back into this. Essentially, if you show me why you uphold the weighing mech better than your opponents, you win.

- Use quality evidence and argumentation

- Refute all of your opponents points. Don't drop points ever(Only exception is if your opponents are spreading).

- Signpost!

- Explain your impacts! This is one of the most crucial points in the debate and can win you my vote.

- You must explain why you win the debate during voter issues. I highly encourage you to use a two world analysis and emphasize your impacts. However, it is up to you to decide how you want to do this but remember this is where you can show me why I should vote for you!

- Theory: I am not much acquainted to it- so please explain it very well if you run it. If you decide to do this, be warned that I will probably vote against you unless you explain it thoroughly as you would to a parent judge. 

- No Ks. Once again I heavily prefer on case debate. I believe Ks are unfair to opponents who are not very experienced debaters, and will vote against you for this reason if you decide to run them.

- No spreading. it is hard for me to follow and completely unfair to your opponents. If your opponents are speaking too fast for you, please explain this to them at some point in the debate or I will NOT consider your opponents to be spreading. If you are speaking too fast for me, I will stop you and ask you to speak slower(I usually follow average lay debating speed so as long as your not speaking so that you are out of breath, I should be able to follow). If your opponents or I tell you to speak slower, please follow the request or I will not flow your case out of fairness.

- Be Respectful at all times! Any racist, sexist, or other derogatory comments are not tolerated. Any sort of misbehavior will lose you the round.

PF/LD/Policy:

I have never done any of these debates so treat me as a parent judge. I encourage you to read the parli section and find if anything pertains to your event. Argumentation, organization, and impacts are key to winning my vote. Please be respectful, derogatory comments or misbehavior will lose you the round.

Good Luck and I look forward to see you soon!

parli:

yall know the drill, be organized, sign post, speak clearly, and have good impacts!

pls don't bombard ur opponents with POIs

other debates:

not really familiar but i'll be chill if everything is explained well

prob best to treat me like a parent judge that has debate knowledge bc i'm not too technical or anything

have fun don't be mean :D

Hi, I'm Allison!

I did PF for four years in high school

overall:

1. I'm pretty okay with speed but please don't spread like policy to the point where I can't understand. If I can't catch what you're saying it will be sad.

2. Please be respectful esp in cross! I don't take being rude lightly, ex. if you are more experienced and older, don't pick on a novice team.

3. Off time roadmaps are nice but keep in short and tell me where you start. If you say you're going to start on offense please actually follow it so I can flow better.

content:

1. Please collapse. In FF giving me one or two really strong flushed out arguments is a lot better (most if not all the time) than extending three blippy contentions or six different pieces of offense.

2. When weighing make sure it is comparative. Saying "we outweigh on probability" is not good enough without explaining. If you and your opponents have two different weighing mechanisms, then you need to start meta-weighing.

3. If you are going for an argument you need to frontline ALL the responses on it. If you don't i'll think you're conceding the defense and will not vote for you on it.

4. Extend warrants and card names but I don't need a card for EVERY little thing. Please fully extend the argument, response, and implication instead of just extending through ink thinking I won't catch it.

5. Second rebuttal must frontline all turns and and at least the argument you are going for

6. First summary only needs to extend defense if it's frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

7. All offense in final needs to be in summary for me to count that in my decision.

8. Cards are obviously better than no cards, but I will be very impressed with good warranted analytics.

9. I'll call for evidence if it's heavily contested in the round and it's important or you mention something like "I strongly urge you to look at this because..." If you horrendously misconstrue evidence and I find out, I may drop you.

10. If you make a good joke or add in a funny saying during cross I will up your speaks.

Please come preflowed and have cut cards ready. Personally, I think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure isn't necessary.

theory:

be warned i am not experienced in theory, t, k's, tricks at all. run them at your own risk because you will lose me

1. i've only mainly heard of disclosure and paraphrase theory

2. don't run friv theory i will drop speaks and most likely I will not evaluate it

Good luck have fun

I am a lay parent judge:

Leland ‘24

Team USA '23-'24

2x LD California State Champion and NSDA National Champion 2023

This format is weird, tab is not being the greatest so sick with me. I'm a trad LDer who has been debating in California since 2017, had various accomplishments including state and nats, various invitationals. Email chain (yes) eshanveli@gmail.com. Never been a fan of adapt or die, I'll try to be open to arguments as long as you respect my preferences. Ask questions if needed - I will also flow the round etc, feel free to ask for any specific feedback you want.

I WILL CHANGE BASED ON PANELS- IF ITS A 5 PERSON PANEL AND I'M THE ONLY FLOW(ISH) JUDGE, I'LL JUST EVALUATE LAY

General Paradigm

Tl;dr: no isms, don’t be dumb, have fun because debate is primarily a educational, inclusive activity that people should enjoy. Send docs if spreading and i'll evaluate basically anything that isn't racist, homophobic etc. If you have a card, cut it correctly: citation, highlighting, bold, underline, etc, otherwise I will autodrop.

Friv theory is fine if ur doing it for fun and you make it clear you've talked to your opponent about it before the round (someone please read one of the following i have a checklist im trying to hit: gregorian time K, anime rage K, santa clause cp, ai theory, 6 minute tricks ac)

My spreading comprehension is bad, send a doc, I can't vote for what I don't understand. Spreading should stay in policy but i understand if ur a circuit ld/pf-er who got dealt me as a judge: check with your opponent about spreading and i won't hold it against you. If I put down my pen, I cannot understand what you are saying (in the age of docs it doesn't matter anymore though) but also if you're spreading something leave 15 seconds at the end and summarize slowly in case there's any specific pieces of evidence you want me to note down that i may miss the emphasis of if im flowing off a doc. Tell me the order before your speech regardless of your delivery style (do it in a funny accent and I'll boost your speaks by .5). If your opponent is yelling clear please slow down. If you don’t it won't make me vote against you but I may end up tanking your speaks if it's clear that you're preventing your opponent's comprehension.

Evidence is important but not as important as your defense of it - don't just say “oh, he is from Harvard” give me proper evidence comparison and why a specific piece of evidence is more important than others. Know the methodology of your studies and read multiple credible sources. Ensure your studies are inclusive and well designed, use well qualified authors.

Or don’t lol

Any debater who has befriended me knows that my cards can be a tad bit. . . shady and I will leave it at that. I have cited Buzzfeed and Quora but I never made them the central thesis of my cases and made it clear that the source was not credible. As I said earlier, defending your evidence is important, sometimes more important than the evidence itself. I do not intend to encourage bad evidence ethics, but if you defend your argument better, as a tech judge should, I will vote off of it. If you so choose to walk this path don’t let an indict kill your entire case though that would be hilarious for me as a judge to watch. Note that it tends to be much harder to defend low quality evidence than it does to actually cut a decent study (google scholar exists for a reason)

Argument wise, read my notes on friv theory way up there somewhere.

Note that I am a lay ld debater who is not exposed to many theory type arguments (even though they are a lot of fun). Thus, either lay-ify or don’t read. Or read and pray I understand. A variety of options really. If you want to read the theory, say so before your speech, and if i do not understand what you are reading I will give you a thumbs down while you are speaking. Just like..re explain or send me the doc of the shell/k/T or whatever it is. I have read through a lot of theory but never actually run it if that helps you to understand where I am at with theory.

Quora>>>Tech>>>Truth, but usual notes of no racism, xenophobia, ect. (quora thing is a joke)

I have run some very very untrue arguments ranging from universal child care would lead to nuclear war and open borders would lead to the collapse of the ice cream industry (don’t ask). If you are running a long link chain, low probability argument, be prepared for a very solid defense. If you are running a historically untrue argument I'll evaluate it but be very unhappy (will not tank speaks, but at least try and make it funny). For all that is as valuable as cheese, make sure you signpost. Bring a stop sign with you into round, no questions asked, I ‘ll boost your speaks.

Kritiks are okay, explain the reason for using and why it is better/more necessary than clash specific to this topic. Please explain them well. Aff K’s are okay because I am a lay debater and don’t see the problem with them therefore have no bias against them! T’s are interesting, and tbh i have no clue how the relationship between T’s and K’s work if there is one at all so just T a K or K a T or K a T’d K and i'll just follow along with a smile on my face. (do not TKO though that may be an equity issue).

Abusive arguments are kind of mean but to tell y’all not to run them would be very hypocritical of me. I would prefer if people focused on debating the merits of arguments rather than using abusive definitions to box in an opponent, but if it gets flowed through, it gets flowed through and I can’t help your opponent's. (but also can’t help you if it backfires)

Dropped arguments are, firstly yes, dropped and extended through but it makes me a little bit frustrated to hear debaters just say “they dropped this card.” (totally not because I can never remember my own cards). Please explain the card and its significance even if it's just 3 lines. Referring to previous cards, give me the author, date, and tag/summary of what it says or even just like what it implies as long as I get what you are saying.

Framework wise, Ld very important, scroll to the LD section and read all about my views on the value and value criterion. Other events, I see framework as the lens for how to view the round so read it, defend it, link into it, and explain implications (use the words try or die if it applies!!). Also realistically (not too sure about how policy works) but PF I'm just gonna assume net benefits if y'all don’t give me otherwise. Thus, WEIGHING IS IMPORTANT. I like it when debaters prevent low reversibility, high probability arguments but any mech is fine as long as I get a worlds comparison or a comparison to their weighing and why yours is superior.

Claim warrant impact (uniqueness link impact) is a must. Warranting is very important, I like good solid warrants. Solid impacts that can be defended are good. Just write my ballots for me in your final speech and we should be fine. Be funny and say it like “ i thought the aff did a great job of defending xyz but ultimately the neg had xyz offense that made me vote neg.” (or don’t this is not mandatory)

Analytics are a lost part of debate that I would love to see revitalized. Please make the days of illogical evidence spam and winning off of drops go away, but until it comes, I will cope!

In cross, nothing much. Don’t read evidence, be respectful. Don’t interrupt. It's in your best interest to address the question at hand rather than bounce around it. Also, I have not prepped the topic so simplify the acronyms that may be used.

Here are some judge paradigms I agree with that are much more comprehensive than my own

1. Soderquist, Cammie
   
   

2. Slencsak, Matthew

The events are not organized by preference I swear.

LD

I lied, the events are organized by preference.

A lot of stuff here. First, generally speaking, and then speech by speech!

Framework: Must Must Must Must Must Must. (Must - be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)).

I understand that it is becoming more and more frequent for people to collapse frameworks but I have always appreciated a good framework debate and a debater proving why they win under both frameworks. If you run the same framework, provide me clear links into your framing and why you are achieving it better than your opponent. I am an exclusive framing judge - if the argument you win falls outside the winning framework, I won't evaluate it.

Value, as you should know, is what we are trying to achieve. Do not give me a nonsensical value that skews the debate to one side unless you can read me warrants and defend it well. Read me something that is interesting and well designed to evaluate the debate. Personal preferences of what I read right now are rawlsian justice, practical justice, social progress, and democracy. Morality is a generic set of values with no constant standard that can be personally adapted to each person's preference but if your opponent does not call you out on it I will not either. If you defend it, great, its votable. But really try to be more in depth with your argument development. Util makes me sad but is not a reason for me to vote against you. When you are defending your value my preference for link ins are resolution specificity (except ought for morality) >> implied value >> literature based value. Do note that the opposite is true for criterions.

Criterions: how you intend to achieve your value! Criterions are usually a verb + a principle. For example maximizing societal welfare, minimizing structural violence. Do not read me a generic term as a criterion. You fulfill your criterion based on the arguments in the round. Read me warrants for your evaluation, read me why your criterion is best for your framing. But you don’t need to if the panel is lay.

Arguments: the norm is starting to shift so i am going to split this into two parts.

Circuit: I like trad Ld. That won't change. But I know that its a dying concept so I won't complain. (I ‘ll complain a little, yall too aggressive, chill out and defend the whole res). I feel in terms of argumentation my general paradigm applies. I love a good philosophy case but it needs to be well explained and in depth, especially since not every debater is going to spend hours reading in depth ethical theory. Send a doc, please keep it civil (i ‘ve had bad experiences) and pretend like i ‘m understanding what you're saying. Honestly, I've never flowed a truly fast circuit round before because I have never hit a circuit debater so docs will be your best friend (and mine). Either way i ‘d prefer if yall slow down a bit so I can keep up. Strongly would prefer. But take the style that suits you best. High five to anyone who, after round, teaches me something about circuit that I don't know. There will be a lot of high fives. TL;DR if I'm on your panel in a bubble or bid round, I am so sorry.

Cal Ld: framework is really important. It would be nice to see more debaters who put framework based summaries at the end of each speech, or even at the end of every contention level argument. The more framework the better. If you are in Cal LD this is either one of the few remaining invitationals that we can compete at or this is a district tournament/nationals. In any case this is the event I main and I like it. I believe Cal LD has 3 goals: Communicate, win the philosophy, win the argument. Communication wise, flow speeds are very different from spreading. Flow speeds require you to still be understood to a judge who is not trained to understand spreading. As a debater, I do regularly read multiple pieces of offense on each of the neg contentions in my 1AR and still have a decent 1:30 or 2:00 left on the clock to defend my own case. I guess what i'm saying is a good traditional Ld round should have a high word efficiency without sacrificing word economy while ensuring time management is working out. Run a time split that works best for you and make sure you cover as much as possible without sacrificing your communication skills. Philosophy wise, first of all, in a lay round, just don’t. (especially if i'm the only one with a paradigm longer than a sentence). Second of all, if you are not comfortable with philosophy, don’t. Its easier to defend a case you've written and gotten comfortable with. I have run all types of cases from philosophical to straight argumentation and I know how it feels to lose a round off of an argument you were forced into running by a judge’s paradigm. But if you are running a philosophical argument or a strong framing, as with everything else, warranting. Also refer to the bolded note about me being an exclusivist judge and apply that to where you want. Winning the framework may just win you the round from the philosophical approach. Finally, on argumentation: try and provide multi-tiered responses that discuss links into impacts, impacts themselves, contention level, and/or links into framing. Any combination works as long as you have decent well developed arguments.

1AC- stay organized, speak fluently, and please dont read off of the paper or laptop like a robot.

NC - this too but try and have aff coverage and really attack the core of the aff - im fine with you chasing ink but good, intuitive responses are preferred. If you are reading shells, go shells first.

1AR - i want to see decent coverage and i would prefer if you place more emphasis on the arguments you may ultimately collapse on here but if you feel like defending everything equally go ahead and do so. It would be cool if you have a really solid 1AR that spaces your opponent out of the 2NR. A good rebuttal should both rebuild case and have intuitive argumentation, if you can get 1ar extensions of important evidence on case then collapse on to them that would be great. I tried my best to do this in 2023 nats finals and then absolutely messed up my 2ar

NR - same thing as previous aff speech, just swap the sides. Collapsing is good but should not really be necessary because of the time skew. Give me solid voters, maybe a worlds comparison, etc. Also look at the aff next speech and use similar techniques.

2AR - any framing level analysis, especially try or die, should be extended or reintroduced. Weigh everything under the framing, especially the voters. Collapsed arguments should have stronger links into the actual argument as well as links into the framing. I'm fine with a more generic not line by line 1ar as long as the points you choose to center voters around are interactive with most of the flow.

Worlds

Team USA 23-24. I believe worlds should be accessible and fun to try, and I expect debaters to treat it as such. Any violations of educational norms will result in a loss. Specific to team USA: bring a coach I would love to say hi, and please conduct yourselves well.

Debates should be clash centered and be charitable to your opponents. Be reasonable in your interpretation of the motion, and try to think from a global perspective, don't just debate the topic as though it is US centric.

Style wise, I expect clear and accessible debate, but also intuitive debate. Don't stare at a piece of paper the entire time and try to expand on arguments in clever and intuitive ways. Content wise, make sure you have context for everything you are saying, characterizations make a break a debate. The more specific your arguments, the better, especially when it comes to debates on principles. I come from an LD background, so evaluating principle arguments will be treated like a philosophical debate, and try to keep it as specific as possible, especially if you choose a principle that follows norms from another country. Clear cut examples are a must, and if you have a good one I want to see it in the 1, or as early on in the debate as you possibly can. A good example extended and weighed throughout the debate is priceless. Providing whys is an always, whether it's for an actor on a motion, or a warrant for an argument. Strategy wise, POI's play into your score (1-2 per please). The team should be consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round and be clear about where the most clash is in the round.

The 1's are by far the most important speech in the round. A well developed, polished 1 with clear examples and intuitive argumentation that doesn't rattle off of a paper to me will set your team up for success in the round, and can help you gain footing in the debate very, very quickly. Debate is always comparative: don't prove to me your world is good, prove to me your world is better for the actors in question than the opposing world.

PF

Debate like devesh kodani or ishan dubey or leon huang and you'll be fine. Things aren't sticky please extend. Don't be annoying in the grand cross. Be funny. There is no inbetween. Evidence is good. I'm just too tired to finish this paradigm right now so check this later. Overall do your thing i don't have expectations i'll vote for the person who extends better and weighs better ig

Parli

Just debate like you know how and I will vote based on the flow. Technically parli is a mash of all other debate events so just read all 5 pages.

Policy

debate lay and since it's a long round don't be afraid to get casual/ ask for food and or water if needed.

I am currently a varsity public forum debater, but I have some experience in lincoln douglas.

Pf

- You may go as fast as you want with your speeches, but remember anything I do not catch will not be counted in the round.

- Do not run theory or values in the round I will solely be judging by the arguments given that are related to the topic.

- I do not flow but value cross exes. Be sure to be polite and let each other take questions.

- Make sure to extend your points in summary, and do not bring up new arguments in final focus.

Ld

- You may go as fast as you want with your speeches, but remember anything I do not catch will not be counted in the round.

- I will judge off your value and arguments be sure to weigh and tell me why you better fulfill your value criterion.

- I value cross's and will take it into account when judging the round.

- I will not be voting off counter plans unless the negation proves that it happens in the status quo.

good luck ! 

Pronouns: he/him

Speed: an understandable pace, please

Do not read procedural theory or Kritiks unless absolutely needed.

I enjoy clash and emphasizing warrants.

I have debated Policy for 4 years in high school

Email: sandalfoot101@gmail.com

If you walk up with a legit BQ case and make me listen to it, you get an auto 25.

leland '22, berkeley '26, she/her

read almost exclusively kritikal arguments in high school & college, but am also down for a traditional policy v policy debate - do what you do best. yes, please put me on the email chain: iriszhou.iyz@gmail.com & lelanddebatedocs@googlegroups.com

- disads - the negative needs to have an articulate disad story. quality of evidence, recency, and link specificity to the aff are all examples of good metrics of comparison i evaluate in later speeches. + impact calc is super important!!

- counterplans - the negative needs an internal / external net benefit that isn't just "we solve better"; other than that, you can run whatever. i'm not super familiar with competition theory and probably wouldn't be the best to adjudicate an in-depth debate about it.

- topicality - for the negative, case lists go a long way in proving that your interp is a viable model of debate. not a big fan of 2nrs that collapse down to t + another off case position since that proves viable neg ground.

- framework - a big factor that determines my vote is an explanation of why education / fairness / clash / etc is your terminal impact and how it turns the other team's impact. tva's are a great defense to a k aff's exclusion da's, but i hold the negative to contextualize the tva to the 1ac's net benefits and literature.

- kritiks - i mainly went for one off in high school + college, and i'm most familiar with the theories of antiblackness, settler colonialism, cybernetics, and capitalism. i've read a bit of psychoanalysis and bataille, but am unfamiliar with other high theory k's. if you can explain it well, go for it!

- link specificity to the aff is very important, and i'd prefer not to vote on a topic link unless the aff flat out concedes it. i think that smart analytical da's backed by empirics and contextualized to the aff is often more persuasive than card dumping generic topic links in the neg block. i also love re-highlights of aff evidence as links / link boosters.

- the negative's alt explanation is crucial, and the aff can persuade me heavily that the alt is not viable with smart cross ex questions & analytical pushes.

- k affs - i pretty much exclusively went for k affs, so do your stuff! some things i look for from the aff: why your advocacy is net beneficial; the method of the 1ac & why the ballot is key; the role of the judge and role of the ballot.