TL;DR

signpost, warrant, weigh, and HAVE FUN!!!

My rant on debate: I love debate, but more than that I am forever grateful to the debate community. I am so lucky to be the Executive Director of the NYPDL and the captain of the Dalton debate team. Both the Dalton team and the league for have given me never ending support and a great deal of confidence that I never knew I needed. Please be a good role model in this community, and be supportive of those around you. This activity is about love and not hate. Be a lover and not a hater.

Facts about me:

-6 years of debate experience

-experience in Parli(the GOAT format),MSPDP, PF, and World Schools

-I love history, anthropology, and critical theory. Making a reference to Benedict Anderson, Ian Haney Lopez, Loïc Wacquant, Frantz Fanon, or Franz Boas make me very happy. If you don't know them, look them up (AFTER THE ROUND), and I think you might learn a thing or two

-I REALLY need some help with economics

Things I like:

1. Weighing. I put weighing first for a reason. It is not something that should be reserved for the grace period of the rebuttal speeches where you just say the word scope and hope that I am going to figure that out. Weighing is something that you should devote a lot of time to throughout the entire debate. People need to stop calling the last speech of the round the weighing speech because it dissuades member speakers from weighing. If you are a member speaker, I would love to hear some weighing. If you are a rebuttal speaker, I would love to hear weighing for >50% of your last speech. I also love preemptive weighing in PMC or weighing in LOC. In any round where both teams have offense left, I will write my ballot based on which team has the better weighing. In other words, unless you refute every single argument that your opponent has, the debate will come down to weighing. Beyond just providing weighing of your own, I appreciate when teams interact with the other team’s weighing. A weighing mechanism is just like any other argument and therefore you can engage with it. This takes the form of refuting that weighing mechanism or meta-weighing(explaining why your weighing mechanism is more important). If both teams weigh, but neither team provides meta-weighing or refutation to the other team’s weighing, it is impossible for me to decide the round without intervening in some way. The overview here is that the more weighing that you do, the less I have to intervene as a judge. I want to intervene as little as possible so PLEASE WEIGH.

2. Signposting. Although I appreciate a roadmap at the start of your speech, it is much more important to me that you tell me where you are on the flow. If I do not get something on my flow, I am not going to vote on it. I should always know what contention you are refuting, what contention you are defending, etc. However, signposting even further than that is better. For example, if you are refuting the impact of a contention, specifically say that you are refuting the impact of the contention. Small note on this, I really appreciate it when member speakers number their responses instead of just saying “moreover” or something to that effect. I award speaks almost exclusively on organization, so please be organized.

3. Warranting. When in doubt, you should over warrant. Saying something is true in the real world is not a warrant. Unless it is incredibly common knowledge, explain WHY it is true in the real world. A perfect example of this is in a debate about nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, I made an argument about how large pharmaceutical companies donate unsafe drugs to the developing world. Although I happened to have background knowledge on this, I still explained on an incentive level why companies would want to do this (benefit to PR without harm to profits). Debaters love to assert that something will happen without providing any reasoning for why this is the case.

4. Collapsing. I will legitimately stop flowing if you try to bring up more than 4 pieces of offense in the rebuttal speeches. You should generally have 1-3 arguments that you collapse on, and weigh those arguments very well. Remember that I am only going to be casting my ballot on one argument and you do not get brownie points for having 4 arguments left standing if none of them are implicated or weighed. Opp teams should be collapsing in MO, because otherwise the MO wastes a quarter of their speech frontlining (defending) arguments that their partner are not going to weigh. Gov can start collapsing in MG, but does not need to (I often don't when I MG), but should definitely collapse in PMR.

5. Offense in the member speeches. Don't be like Jack the ripper, be like Zach the flipper (shoutout Ryan Lafferty). Turning arguments kinda just OP if you can do it. It makes your rebuttal speaker’s job easier and the opposing rebuttal speaker’s job far more difficult. However, reading a turn does not matter if you are scared to collapse on it and weigh it. I get very sad when a team reads a brilliant turn and then does not collapse on it. Turns can you be your best argument. Don't be scared of them!

6. Coverage and good flowing. Debate is as much about listening as it is about speaking. In order to respond to everything that your opponent says, you must listen and take note of everything that your opponent says. I value coverage very highly and if you notice that your opponents drop something you should definitely point it out. With that being said, do not think you can get away with the PMR BS that your opponent dropped 30 things that they didn't. I can sniff out a lie about a dropped argument from a mile away (more miles if it is an online tournament)

7. Humor. Debate is meant to be fun. I want to laugh. At the end of the day I am a human being and I enjoy judging a lot more when people are able to successfully incorporate humor into their speeches. However, I am not going to decide the round on who is funnier so please do not worry about that.

8. When debaters mix quality and quantity. These two things are NOT mutually exclusive.I love dense cases. Having 7 mechanisms with 2 warrants each is fantastic if all of the warrants are good. I would much rather you have that than repeat your one strong argument for 7 minutes providing 70,000 explains. If I did have to choose 1, I would choose quality, but combining both is the best option.

9. Running interesting argumentation. One of my favorite rounds that I have ever judged is when one team ran a Buddhism contention on a round about romance (shoutout Adrian Turkedjiev). Not only will it make me happy, it is probably strategic because your opponents will not expect it to come. This also includes framework. I have had a lot of sucsess with non-util framing (structural violence, animals > humans, deont, etc.). I encourage you to have fun with these frameworks.

10. Productive intros: they are a lot more interesting than just saying “hello my name is X and I am debating X side of the resolution: X.” We are all humans and getting the listener engaged with something somewhat interesting is usually a good start!

11. Teamwork. Never blame your partner. You win and lose together. If you don't like that, go do LD or mav every tournament, but this is a TEAM EVENT. I will drop your speaks if you scream at your partner and will raise your speaks if you are supportive. After the round, PLEASE BE SUPPORTIVE OF EACHOTHER. In terms of in-round stuff, you need to be on the same page. Coordinate your collapse. Prioritize the same arguments. I cannot stand when I know which arguments each debater wrote because that is what they spend all of their time on. You are a team!!!!

Things I don’t like:

1. MOST IMPORTANT THING IN MY PARADIGM: Being discriminatory/offensive(racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, transphobic, Islamophobic, ableist, classist, etc.) in ANY WAY. If you are offensive I will ignore the flow completely and give you the loss and <23 speaker scores. If the round is not safe and you want me to know, please reach out to me and I will be an ally to you. Your safety in the round is infinitely more important to me than a high school debate ballot.

2. People taking a lot of time in between speeches thinking they are slick when they are stalling by saying they are setting up their timer. You're not a slick as you think.

3. Being repetitive. One of the most important things in debate is word economy. Always try to think how you can say whatever you are trying to say in less words or in a less repetitive way. However, this also goes across a specific team. MG should not just repeat the case that was introduced in PMC.

4. Spreading for the sake of spreading. If you have a lot to get through, feel free to talk at a clip, but never using spreading as a way to make the activity exclusionary and always slow down if your opponents tell you to.

5. When people replace warranting with examples. I love examples, but they should be used to complement good warranting and not used as a replacement for good warranting.

6. Not providing content warnings before reading potentially triggering argumentation.

7. Abusive definitions. Don’t set them. Judging abusive definitions rounds are possibly the most disappointing thing in the world.

8. Being rude. You can be competitive, but please be nice to your opponents.

9. Running theory/Ks. These forms of argumentation are exclusive of those who have not had coaches teach them how to respond to these arguments. Parli is meant to be inclusive!! Good thing Ks are banned in the NYPDL—Expect the L and 23s if you try one on me (in the league ofc)

I know this is a lot of information in this paradigm. Please feel free to ask me any questions about any of my other preferences before the round starts. Also, if you did not understand/have a question about something in my paradigm, please ask before the round. I will never lower your speaks because you tell me that you still do not know what meta-weighing is after my really bad explanation of it in paradigm.

With that said, good luck everyone and have fun. Debate is meant to be competitive, but there is no point of doing the activity if you do not enjoy doing it. I love everything about debate: the activity, the community, and the process. You all put in a lot of work to be where you are, so I am going to do everything I can to be the best judge I can possibly be. I truly could not be more excited to be your judge!

Finally, please feel free to post round me on discord, email me at c24zb@dalton.org,or text me at 917-710-1816 I care a lot about helping people get out of debate what I am able to get out of this activity. I will always answer any questions you have so please, please, please reach out to me.

for pf, add me to the email chain c25ad@dalton.org

to keep it simple:

signpost, warrant, and weigh.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask before the round

Who's the girl who's got bad on her mind,
Who thinks evil thoughts with a smile and a wink!
Who's the girl with a plan to mess up mankind,
ME! I'm the Lady in Pink.
(Lady in Pink. Lady in Pink)
She's bad she's evil
And I'm worse than you think
ME! I'm the Lady in Pink.
Who's the girl who never plays nice,
And wishes that all rubber duckies would sink
Who interrupts people and never thinks twice,
ME! I'm the Lady in Pink.
(Lady in Pink, Lady in Pink)
She does terrible things,
Even worse than you think.
I'm the Lady in Pink.
She's selfish and cruel,
And I totally rule
She stops at nothin' to win,
She cheats and she lies
I don't even like pie
When there's bad to be done come to me
Those containers, you better forget it
They'll be mine before you can blink
Wherever they are you can bet who'll get them
Me, I'm the lady in pink
Lady in pink, lady in pink
Ain't she totally evil? Now what do you think?
Lady in pink, lady in pink
Me, me, me, me, me, I'm the lady in pink

Hey there! I'm Annie/Yuqi Liu (pronouns she/her), and I'm a parliamentary debater on the East Coast. Hence, I'm unfamiliar with West Coast parliamentary norms, and I may also be unfamiliar with jargon from other debate formats. I do have experience judging parliamentary and CTMSDL.

With that in mind:

- Please speak in laymen's terms or tabula rasa

- Only use topicality against abuse

- If you do use theory, explain it thoroughly - this is both for me and your opponent

- Be clear and organized; outline your contentions (claim, warrants, impacts) and clash

- Weighing and analysis is very important!

- For novice debaters: please refute your opponents with more than just with one-liners; don't just state your case and not counter your opponent's case. Remember that my job my job is to decide whether you or your opponent convinces me more. I don't want to and will not do the refuting/weighing/impacting for you

About speed: if you start going too fast I'll tell you during the round, but so long as you're not spreading you should be fine.

Above all, remember to have fun and be courteous! I'll do my best to be a fair and considerate judge in return :)

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm