Parent Judge, for about 2 years

K's/ Theory

• Not too familiar with either, but if you run them be very clear

No Spreading, If I can't understand you, I cannot judge you

I judge with a blank slate, explain and develop all points

Signpost Please

Be respectful and have fun :)

For Debaters:

Hello,

I am judging for the first time and where I know about the flow of the debate , I am technically not familiar with counterplans and so on, please explain them thoroughly.

I prefer moderate to slower speed of speech of the given argument.

I always emphasize on clarity of speaking which will always make me take your side.

I am particularly against to emotional expression of arguments as I prefer more of a convincing content with necessary evidences.

Before the round ends a look at the case sheet of both the parties can always be a better help.

To end up with, I am totally against to the interruption in the flow of one's speech either by their team or the opposing team.

All the best !

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Speech :

Hello ,

As a person judging for speech I expect a combination of answers to the question (merely the topic of the speech) and your composition of words, statements and texts which should be a selling point to convince me , where I don't mind the way you try to emphasize the ways your view point is true or fair.

In most of the cases, I like to have some sort of factual info added in your speeches. to add with, a little bit of Humor, Sarcasm (if applicable) will always be plus.

To end with, I expect an effective speech (in the time boundaries given) which is an attractive one whether its a story telling or interpreting something or putting out your view point it should be able to make an impact .

All the best!

I am lay parent judge. I am good with progressive and critical arguments within right context.

I am a lay judge, so please try to do the following things!

- Make sure to speak slowly and explain terms as thoroughly as possible (please avoid debate or even topic-specific jargon unless very clearly defined in the 1st speech.) Remember, if I can't understand you, then that makes the debate harder to judge!

- Make speeches easy to follow: signposting, using road maps, clear speaking, and making flowing simpler are all advisable.

- Be objective with the information you provide, but there is room for creativity in how you present it.

- Be respectful and reasonable. Discrimination/unfairness in a round will not be tolerated. Debate is a safe space for discussion; it must be maintained.

- Avoid theory and K arguments. I have no experience with these kinds of debates, so it will be beneficial to stick to case level. However, if you can simply prove a reasonable abuse in a round, only then is theory acceptable.

- Have fun and learn! Debate is here to teach so many things, and enjoying the round brings you closer to winning it.

PARLI:

THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime roadmaps/thank yous. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.

1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.

2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.

3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.

4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.

5. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-90 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. 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. That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-90 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." That was 12-17 years ago. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY DEBATE

I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.

I value clear speaking and good speaking style - don't talk too fast, good speaking style is essential.

Make sure you have good content with with both evidence and reasoning. When it comes to these two elements, reasoning is more important. However, make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.

Make sure to impact out your contentions, and signpost clearly throughout your speeches.

Please respect everyone in the round. Be polite to your teammate and your opponents - I will dock speaker points if I observe someone being unnecessarily rude.

If you choose to run a counterplan, make sure that you explain why it's a better solution and link it to your points.

Hello, this will be my first time as a judge and my judging style should reflect as much;

This means that while I am familiar with the structure of the rounds and debates I will need you to clearly distinguish the different segments of said argument and highlight the start of new advantages. In addition, I'd provide significant weight to clear definitions of all novel terms pertaining to the resolution during either the 1AC or the 1NC speeches. Furthermore, I will be partial to slower speaking since I need more time to comprehend the argument in real-time. By corollary, If I can not make sense of your argument in real time, I will not be able to provide representative judging. Please keep this in mind during your preparation

Regards, Amrita

P.S 1: Because of my limited exposure to debate tournaments I will have little bias towards specific styles of arguments so run whatever your heart desires so long as I can understand it.

I debate Parli for four years at WHS and now I study nuclear engineering @ Berkeley

TLDR: I am a flow judge and evaluate tech>truth, I like evidence-based debates and will always evaluate evidence-based arguments and refs over every logical warrant unless you give me explicit reasons to do otherwise. If you are running a K you might want to refer to that part of the paradigm. I will also evaluate scientific evidence above all other types of evidence, I'll refer you to the K section if you want to know how this affects Ks.

Presentation:

please keep yourself to a speed that will let me comprehend you, (i.e. please don't spread your lungs out, I can take fast speeds but I'm growing old and my ability to understand speeches delivered at mach speed is waning).

I don't really care about formalities, just signpost.

I dislike speaker points, I will give you them based on how well you wrote your arguments

All texts in chat

Case:

This really should be like every other judge in parli debate. Evidence, warrants, impacts, extensions, etc. I like wide collapses because it gives me multiple reasons to prefer your advocacy. If you have a narrow collapse and it is a big-stick/round winner impact then I will obviously evaluate that above. You have to weigh impacts, if you don't you will lose. If both sides fail to weigh impacts, I will default to who wins their links.

- Constitutionality is NOT an impact, the constitution can be amended and changed.

Theory:

I am quite familiar with theory and was a bit of a theory hack in high school. I dislike lay theory a lot, don't try running it because it's really unclear what I'm supposed to do with it. If you are going to run theory, run it in Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters format. Theory is very viable when run correctly and I will not hesitate to vote on it. Also, extend your standards and make sure to do work on them because I often evaluate that before any major voter level arguments.

Some notes on Theory:

If your opponent runs Trigger Warning Theory, just apologize and make sure to read trigger warnings in future speeches. I don't want people arguing against the concept of trigger warnings because that's not only morally reprehensible but it also sets a dangerous precedent. If you still do not read relevant trigger warnings after your opponent has asked you or has run theory on you, I will drop you and tank your speaks.

"Friv Theory" is completely fine and I don't really have an issue with it unless it requires your opponents to do something like take off their shoes which can make them really uncomfortable. Otherwise, it is just as valid as any other argument in the debate. Tricks are super fun to judge and make the debate interesting.

I default to competing interps over reasonability; No preference for Fairness vs Education; If you run a K and decide to leverage it against Theory, it needs to be extremely well done. (If you say that Fairness skews eval of the flow, I will not consider opposition arguments about pre-round equity unless they manage to explain how it also skews eval of the flow); I will not eval "spirit of the interp" arguments.

I evaluate RVIs and have a fairly low threshold for them.

Finally, I am perfectly fine with replacing the weighing mechanism/definition if both sides agree to it and won't penalize either side. It's not necessary to run theory in those instances.

Kritiks

TLDR: You have to run the K super super well, I don't really have a tolerance for bad/weak argumentation on the K level. This means that given the information you provide, your links and impacts have to make logical sense to someone who has never read the source material. Your alt solvency also has to be really well explained, Ks are an all or nothing here, if you run a bad K that makes no logical sense I will point out logical inconsistencies and give your opponent the win by default.

Familiar Lit Areas:

- Security

- SetCol

- Anthro

- Religion

- Cap

Just because I mainly know these specific Lit Areas doesn't mean that I won't evaluate any other K. I love new and interesting Ks with interesting ideologies/ important systematic issues to highlight.

I love Ks and love seeing them be debated but there are very important boundaries to not cross.

POMO

I don't like pomo. I can briefly explain why if you ask but I would stray away from most pomo, nietzsche is fine tho.

Identity Ks

Identity Ks are important in debate because they are used as survival strats by marginalized groups in this space. That being said I have 3 main notes about Identity Ks.

1. Every other judge has already said this but DO NOT RUN A K ABOUT A GROUP YOU ARE NOT PART OF. I will drop you.

2. Do not assume your opponent to be CisHet, this can cause forced outing, and attempting to do so will result in you being dropped

3. Attacking the concept of religion or highlighting its rhetorical violence is NOT the same as attacking members of a specific religion. The former is a valid argument, the latter is an equity violation.

K Generics

Read extensive framework; Bonus points if your framework allows your opponent to leverage their case which means more clash

I will evaluate Theory against Ks so be prepared for that

Links are pretty important and I don't like the Epistemic Skew argument very much because it nonuniques itself imo. This means you have to actually win your links substantially. I am also very receptive to the perm double bind.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round or email me at mehulnair@berkeley.edu.

I am a parent judge and have enjoyed the role we get to play in student tournaments.

I've been a judge at multiple parli tournaments this past year so I have experience in the role and understand its importance. I've never been a debater myself however, therefore I am less familiar with the jargon that you use.

I will be flowing as you debate to make sure I provide a fair and well informed decision. I tend to value preparation, structure, clarity, and critical thinking.

My prior work experience involved a lot of public speaking so I very much appreciate what students are able to do with the limited time they have.

• Low judging experience
• I look for the candidate to be knowledgable in what they say, please know what you're saying and support it with logical evidence and reasoning. Do your due diligence on the topic during prep.
• I also look for your articulation and communication - concision is key.
• Show me that you're listening to your opponents; refute their points but also acknowledge them.
• Brownie points for members who acknowledge facts from the opponents and keep an open mind while still arguing their own points. Keep in mind that the point of debate is to be educational - so actually listen to what your opponents say and be open-minded.
• POIs are useful WHEN used properly. 2 POIs per round are okay(less than 30 secs each), but please don't be intrusive.
• Good luck! Stay calm, you got this :)

I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:

Approach to Judging:

1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.

2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.

3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.

4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.

5. Please no theory or kritiks.

6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.

7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.

8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.

Bonus speaker points if you say something in Telugu to end the last speeches.

Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!

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!

I'd like the debaters to craft their contention well and provide multiple arguments to support their position. I will also evaluate how well they deliver their speech, during the debate.

Background

I did parli, policy, and congress in high school. Artem's cool, so I decided to come. 

Pronouns - he/him/they/them. 

Judging Preferences

• Please speak clearly at a conversational pace because I cannot understand spreading at this point. It's been too long and I wasn't particularly good at listening to it to begin with. 
• I believe that debates do not fulfill their educational potential if the arguments are not understood by both teams. Some people have ADHD or other conditions that make debate more difficult. Even if your opponent speaks at a conversational speed, do not feel embarrassed to ask your opponent to repeat elements of their argument; I will not hold it against you. 
• Do an off-time roadmap before every speech. During each speech, clearly mark which ads/disads you are talking about so that I can switch between flows. If you don't, I'll get lost on my flow and that's never good for you.
• You should proactively call Point of Orders that for new arguments made in the rebuttal. I will not strike new arguments in the rebuttal from consideration unless you do it for me. 
• Offense wins. Defense negates offense. The team with more offense at the end of the debate wins the round. 
• Kritiks are acceptable. However, it should either be obvious in the way it is explained how it is applicable to the case or why the case doesn't really matter at all. If the relevance of the K isn't clear to me, you will almost certainly lose. 
• If you run a counterplan, state its conditionality and how it's mutually exclusive. 
• Personally, I do not value topicality highly unless I'm convinced otherwise. The reason is that there are topics that I believe cannot be debated, such as supporting modern apartheid states. In other words, do not simply explain why the case untopical and assume that I'll care. Explain why on a greater level it is bad to run untopical cases in debate (e.g. pre-fiat impacts). 
• After the timer goes off, you can finish the last like two or three words of your sentence. That's it. Any more than that, I won't like it. 
• Take the time to explain your links. A lot of teams neglect this and it is frustrating when it is glanced over in favor of spending half your speech on how there will be a chain reaction toward nuclear hell without telling me how we get there. 
• Define your weighing mechanism. Do not assume that I'm a utilitarian or a deontologist. Please specify what I should value/weigh in your offense. If not, I'll just default to whatever I feel my personal preference is in the moment. 
• Absurd arguments are convincing to me until the other team refutes them. Do not assume that I'll personally strike it because it's absurd. I'll vote for an FDA initiative to harvest unicorn plasma any day of the week if nobody convinces me otherwise. 

Formalities

• I'm down for handshakes. I'm also down for not shaking your hand. It's really your preference. I won't be offended either way. 
• "First I'd like to take the time to thank the judge"-- skip this please. Just make sure everyone is ready and start. 
• If both teams agree, I'll disclose the results at the end of the round. Feel free to ask me questions about whatever as long as time permits. 

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

I am a lay judge. I have been judging parli debate for 1 year. I prefer clear and not too fast speaking. I vote off of strong arguments and whichever team has the most points standing at the end.

Updated September 2021

I am a parent judge and it is my second year judging (mostly Parli). Having judged at least a dozen tournaments, I am comfortable with terminology and have heard a variety of styles and strategies. That said,

1. Please signpost - it helps me organize my notes and make a decision

2. No spreading if possible, I have trouble flowing when you speak fast

3. You can use theory but it has to be well explained.