Tabroom.com

Cal Parli Invitational

2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Open Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Hitha Amin San Marin None

Katie Babb Nova 42 Academy

Last changed on Fri June 16, 2023 at 5:05 PM PST

My experience: I've done 6 years of PF, 4 years of Worlds, some parli and LD. I won NSDA Nationals in Worlds with West LA Violet.

TLDR:Make it easy for me to vote for you: collapse to your best arguments, tell me exactly why you won the round, and weigh your arguments. I am a traditional debater, K's and unnecessary theory will fly over my head. Don't be a jerk.

Tiktok: @babbacious

Email: babbkati@grinnell.edu

I am so sorry but I will forget your off time road map immediately after you say it. You can still say it but please sign post, even in the beginning. ex: "starting off on their case..."

I do not take any knowledge or opinions with me into the round (I reserve the right to drop you if you blatantly lie to me). So you MUST tell me why I should prefer your rebuttal over your opponent's argument or vise versa. You must tell me why I should be more convinced otherwise it is a wash.

LD:

To sum it up, I am a traditional debater. What this means is that I don't have experience with Ks and generally do not enjoy theory, especially when the theory isn't helpful to the round. I leave my opinions at the door, so you have the benefit of me believing everything you tell me (don't lie), but the burden of telling me why/how your opponents are wrong. I vote off of weighing: you need to tell why your arguments/impacts are stronger than your opponents (are they more probable? do they affect more people? do they happen longer?) -- think impact calc. Additionally, this is not policy, link your arguments back to your value/value criterion. Please see the bottom of my paradigm for my general debate preferences.

PF:

I believe public forum is a debate event that anyone should be able to judge: debate how you would in front of your classic soccer dad (meaning don't spread, explain things thoroughly, treat me like a lay judge). That being said, I debated for over 6 years, so I will flow and evaluate arguments as such. Note theory and Ks do not belong in public forum, do not put them there. Please weigh. FF is the most important speech, tell me the key reasons you win, do not rebuttal. Please see the bottom of my paradigm for my general debate preferences.

For Parli/Worlds:

I don't care about your studies or examples or statistics if you don't tell me WHY they are true and the LOGIC behind them. TERMINALIZE YOUR IMPACTS, ASK POIs, and WEIGH. I vote off of weighing, it doesn't matter if you win your argument if you don't tell me why it is the most important to me.

If you don't offer at least 2 POIs you won't get higher than a 27.4 for speaker points.

Parli Specific

No friv theory. If you are running a K, I am not familiar with any K literature other than a spreading K. Make it easy and accessible or do not run it. I very much dislike Ks other than ones about spreading/accessibility of debate, or any if your opponents are racist, sexist, antisemitic... Do not spread. Accept at least 1 POI in your speech if given the opportunity. I will protect the flow but feel free to POO anyways.

Worlds Specific

I will not be excited if you speak very fast, if you use cards (don't mistake cards for examples), if you use debate jaron (ex: perm, squo), or if you don't collapse the debate in the 3rd speeches. Note: the reply speech is not the fourth rebuttal-if you do not weigh, I will not be doing it for you and will tank your points. Remember the protected time and ask POIs. I find POIs integral to the event and will be evaluating your strategy using them. I also value traditional worlds debate, please do not bring policy and ld into this event.

Key issues for all debate:

*Collapse and Weigh. Don't go for every argument you make-pick 1 or 2 and let me know why they've won you the round. That being said, if there's no clash or attacks on your case and you feel like you can fully explain 3 arguments go for it-but make sure to weigh or I'll just pick the argument I like the most (and we both won't be happy).

*I don't flow crossfire, bring up any important issues in speeches.

*Cards don't cancel out cards without reasoning, let me know why their evidence is flawed/why I should prefer yours. Examples don't cancel out examples too.

*I won't call cards unless you ask me to or unless it seems obviously false/made up. Don't make up evidence, cut evidence so that the meaning of the card is different, or lie to me, you will get the lowest speaker points available, the loss, and reported to the tournament. Debater: call out evidence you need me to check. I will call the card after the round to read it myself.

*I don't like tricky frameworks, keep it simple or have great warranting. Debates should not be entirely framework or definition debates-I dislike those.

*I have a basic understanding of theory/kritiks, but I have a PF&Worlds background so if you do run it, have warrants, but I won't be overjoyed and most likely won't understand. I am a traditional debater, if you do run these against another traditional debater and try to win on sheer tech, it will not go well for you.

*You have to explain warranting otherwise I will not buy your argument.

*Don't "card bomb" I prefer a couple of key responses with logic/evidence to support it. if you read several cards, take the time after to explain the importance and why I should care.

* I like empirics on top of logic, but if something just makes sense I will most likely buy it.

*Don't be tricky. Don't be condescending or rude, don't be a douche. If you are going against a novice be accessible in your words: don't use jardon or push tricky arguments on them. Debate is about accessibility and having fun and if you do any of these things, you don't deserve to win the round.

*Do not call your opponents or their case names. No personal attacks. I will give you a 24 for speaker points. Calling your opponents names is not an adequate refutation.

*I do not take any knowledge or opinions with me into the round. So you MUST tell me why I should prefer your rebuttal over your opponent's argument or vise versa. You must tell me why I should be more convinced otherwise it is a wash.

I go by normal speaker point standards where 27.5 is the average. 30 is I think you could win finals at the tournament and below a 24 is you stabbed your opponent with a pencil.

Dhanya Bakthisaran San Marin None

Rosie Bultman Berkeley High School

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 4:10 AM PST

Hi I am Rosie (she/her). I did American Parli debate at Berkeley High School for three years and I won the 2022 NPDL TOC. I am now captain of IPDA debate at UC Santa Barbara.

This is all you really have to read, if you want to read my specific ramblings see below.

Please don't give me an off-time roadmap. I like good case debate. Don't talk fast or use jargon. Quality over quantity--usually the team able to explain better wins. Be creative and have fun, just don't be unfair to your opponents.

Preface: I want my paradigm to be accessible to people who don't know debate language. If you are confused about anything I have written please ask me to clarify. I remember being very confused reading paradigms--I still am sometimes--so please, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. At the bottom of my paradigm I have linked a document that I wrote going over the basics of some of the debate terminology I have used. I have also included my email if you want to talk personally.

Long(ish) version:

My preferences are pretty simple: I enjoy case debate with good reasoning. I do not enjoy theory. I like voting issues in rebuttal--tell me what the most important issue in the round is and why.

Tabula rasa

I guess one could call me tabula rasa (meaning I pretend I know absolutely nothing about the world at the start of your round). However, if someone says something absurd, and you give a two second reason for why it is absurd, I'll believe you. That being said, don't expect me to do the work for you if your opponent lies or makes a large leap in logic.

Evidence

Evidence in parli is easily misrepresented or straight up lied about. Statistics should support your argument, not be your argument's backbone. I will be hesitant to decide a round based on one statistic or piece of evidence. If you want me to weigh your evidence more, provide details. Also, if you think a statistic is suspicious don't be afraid to call it out, tell me why I shouldn't trust it.

Counter plans

Counter plans are fun. I don't need plans to be mutually exclusive, but I will vote on arguments saying all counter plans should be. Run them if you wish!

Jargon

Do not expect your opponents to have read the same literature that you have. Don't expect me to have read the literature that you have. All jargon should be explained, even jargon as simple as "utilitarianism." If you are using a lot of jargon and don't take POIs it will be hard to win my ballot. Also, if your opponents use too much jargon, please POI them and call them out for making the round hard for you to debate.

Theory

I know some people can be unfair so run theory if you need to. I wouldn't use theory as your primary path to the ballot if you can avoid it. That means if your opponents don't state a weighing mechanism, you are better off giving me one yourself than telling me to vote against them because they didn't. Attack the plan/weighing mechanism/etc. only when you can genuinely prove it has made the debate less fair or educational. Also, as long as you get the point across, I don't care if you run theory in a proper shell or not.

Kritiks

I don't like them very much. Only run when abundantly necessary. If your opponents tell me that Ks are bad I will be inclined to believe them.

Don't spread and have fun everyone! I look forward to judging you :)

Email me at nataliabultman@gmail.com if you want to talk or have any more questions.

Document that explains things: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lnmSwREGG2zKGaC1PodU9wv1tED2oCxL_9qjPrO9upA/edit?usp=sharing

Diane Chao Hire None

Mwe Mwe Chao Menlo-Atherton High School

Karen Chen Hire

Oscar Chung Gunn Sr High School

David Eick Hire

Annalisa Federighi Hire

Kember Feuerzeig Hire

Sharyn Funamura Berkeley High School

Amaryllis Gao Juniper

Vishal Garg Irvington High School

Albert Louis Giang Hire

Sarah Grolnic-McClurg Berkeley High School None

Joel Jacobs Berkeley High School

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2024 at 9:41 AM PST

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 probably 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." You said your first words 12-18 years ago. That's a long speech. 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."

d. Eggs>Easy.

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.

Nandini Javagal Granite Bay High School None

Jack Jia Campolindo High School None

Neeraj Kapoor Washington High School None

timothy kassouni Granite Bay High School

Kurtis Lee Ridge High School

Andrew Lin Hire

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 7:36 AM EST

-Email me your speeches at lin.andy@berkeley.edu

-- CX/LD --

-Prep ends when the speeches are sent, and talking outside of it will lose your speaker points.

-Spreading is fine, but if you're incoherent I'll let you know only after your speech ends so watch yourself.

-I'm fine with any argument, and I'll almost always weigh tech>>truth, but you'll have a harder time convincing me of the solvency of your kritik alt than with a well-argued disad. If you lose the solvency debate on the Kritik, I'm going to treat it like a very weak disad.

-If you read a k-aff, I will default debate is a game unless you convince me otherwise.

-If the flow is unreadable and there isn't enough clash on either side, I will default neg - the 2AR has a chance to clean up while the neg doesn't.

-If you clip cards, that's an immediate loss and zero speaker points.

I'm extremely flow-oriented. Good clash and line-by-line will make your rounds 10x more winnable with me. If there's clash, good weighing will also be necessary to win debates, you'll make me very happy if you do good impact calc on every flow.

Theory- I'll judge theory debates based on the flow, but will ignore it altogether if an in-round impact isn't substantiated. (I always enjoy a well-argued Topicality argument, however.) Don't flood the debate with a laundry list of theory offense though because it will immediately lose your speaks and potentially the round because I'm much less inclined to weigh any of it.

History- I debated for 3 years in Highschool and am starting debate in college as a 2N. I am, however, currently unfamiliar with the literature in this year's topic so I will be judging your evidence on substance rather than otherwise staple tagline arguments.

-Prep ends when the speeches are sent, and talking outside of it will lose your speaker points.

-Points of privilege and order are both hard sells for me so try not to waste time unless it's particularly egregious.

-All of the points in the CX/LD section are applicable here.

Tina Lin Menlo-Atherton High School

Sriyanka Mandava Granite Bay High School None

Lokesh Mehta Washington High School None

Doug Miller Campbell Hall

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 6:49 AM PST

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST EXTEND it in every speech, BEGINNING WITH THE 2ND REBUTTAL. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as UNANSWERED LINK CHAINS AND IMPACTS that you want to extend from your own case. JUST FRONTLINING WITHOUT EXTENDING the link and impact stories MEANS YOU HAVE DROPPED THOSE LINKS AND IMPACTS, and I won't evaluate them at the end of the debate.
Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
Please send speech docs to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
Read tags to cards, or I won't flow them.
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(Sorry for the insane length. This is more an ongoing exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go.)

1. 2nd Rebuttal & Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in BOTH the 2nd Rebuttal & Summaries. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the 1st rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts in the 2nd Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. If you want to go for C1 in any meaningful way. you not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the 2nd Rebuttal and/or Summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril, especially if you are the team speaking 2nd. Also, if you do properly extend your links and impacts, and your opponents don't, call them out on it. I am very likely to boost your speaks if you do.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Bad Debate Practices

A. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.

B. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. This penalty will apply even if you have the cut cards available at the bottom of the document. That's still card clipping, and is bad. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

C. Read Tags

I can't believe I'm having to write this, but READ TAGS to your cards. "Anderson '23 furthers..." or "Jones '20 continues..." without anything els isn't a tag. It is hard enough to flow the super blippy cards that seem to be everywhere in fast rounds these days, but if you don't give me a tag, it makes flowing functionally impossible. Have some respect for the work your judge has to do to get everything down, and give us a tag so that we can both be more accurate in our flow, and also be able to know what to listen for in the cards. Simply put, if you don't give me a tag for a card, I won't flow it. I don't have time to go back to the speech doc and read every card after you read it in an attempt to reconstruct what argument you think it is making so that I can then take a guess at what you want me to write down. That's what a tag is for. That's your job, not mine. If you want to go fast, that's cool. But you have to meet your judge at least part way. Read tags. That's the price you have to pay for spreading.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

In general, I tend to start any evaluation of theory arguments through a lens of competing interpretations, as opposed to reasonability. However, I can be moved out of that evaluative framing, given the right well-warranted arguments.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat & Plans – For policy resolutions, while teams cannot utilize a "plan or counterplan,"—defined as a "formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation"—they can "offer generalized, practical solutions (GPS)." If you can figure out what that word soup means, you are a step up on me. The PF wording committee seems hellbent on continuing to give us broadly-worded policy resolutions that cry out for fiating some more specific version of the resolution. I used to be very much in the "Aff must prove their advocacy is the most likely version of the resolution" camp, but I am starting to move away from that position. I'm pretty certain that a 12 plank proposal with hyper-specific identification of agency, enforcement, and funding mechanisms would constitute a "formalized, comprehensive proposal," and thus be verboten as a "plan" under the above quoted NSDA rule. But does a single sentence with a basic description of a particular subset of the resolution meet this same threshold? IDK. I think there is room for interpretation on this. I haven't seen anyone get into the weeds on this as a theory argument, but I'm not sure just saying "plans aren't allowed" cuts it anymore, especially given the direction the topic committee seems to be moving. Does that also arguably leave open similar room on the Neg for some sort of "counter-solution" or an alternative? I honestly don't know. I guess that means I am open to debates on this issue, if people want to try to push the boundaries of what constitutes a "generalized, practical solution." One thing I am certain on, though, is that if you do attempt to offer some sort of plan-esque "GPS," you probably should have a written text somewhere in your case specifically committing to what exactly the solution is your are advocating. Moving target advocacies that can never be pinned down are insanely abusive, so if you are going to go the "GPS" route, the least you can do is be consistent and up front about it. It shouldn't take a CF question to figure out what exactly it is you are advocating.

Multiple conditional advocacies – When teams read multiple advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round (assuming that you also extend the other team's link and impact stories), and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it, or kick out of it properly. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure as arguments, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. Ditto for conditionality arguments, arguments on the nature of fiat in PF, or other arguments about intrinsic or severance-based alterations of advocacies mid-round. However, I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, I will likely shift to the extreme end of reasonability, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

7. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - I used to think that since PF teams don't get to fiat a counterplan, they don't get to fiat an alternative either. But as my ideas on plans vs "generalized, practical solutions (GPS)" evolve, so do my thoughts on alts. I used to think that the only alt a Neg could get was some variant on "reject." But now, I think there is more wiggle room for a traditional alt under that "GPS" language. I think most alt definitely are generalized solutions (sometimes overly generalized to their detriment). The question is, then, are they "practical" enough to meet the "GPS" language in the NSDA rules. Maybe, maybe not. My gut would tell me more often than not, K alts are not practical enough to meet this threshold, but I could certainly be convinced either way in any given round. That being said, I see no rules-based problems with reject or "do nothing" alts, although they usually have some serious problems on the solvency end of things, absent a good ROTB arg. And of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

8. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. Aren't you cool. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...") which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles (focusing mostly on national circuit PF), and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their root cause, “Alt solves the case,” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Daniel Norris Ridge High School

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 1:03 PM EST

Fifth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

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

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

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

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

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

Krishna Noru Papaya Valley None

Mihaela Nowak Upper St Clair High School

Saroja Pinnamaneni Granite Bay High School None

Hayagreev Sarvabhouman Campolindo High School

Sejal Shahri Hire None

Murtaza Shiyaji Hire

Bhupendra Singh Irvington High School

Ye Tang Gunn Sr High School

Rajeev Vohra Washington High School None

Pancheng Wang Lincoln Reyes Academy for Higher Learning

Nathan Wong Hire

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 2:07 PM PST

It's been a hot minute since I've updated this so I figure now is as good a time as any.

Background:

Nathan (they/them)

Experience: 4 years hs debate @ Bonita High School, i've done parli, ld, pf, so I will somewhat know what's going on. In my fourth year debating for UC Berkeley's British Parli / American Parli team, and have mostly judged parli tournaments.

Email: nwong1721@berkeley.edu

tl:dr: warrant everything and be comparative. I don't like being interventionist as a judge, so please make my ballot as easy for me as possible by making your wins on every clash explicitly clear, and outweigh your opponent on everything that's left on flow.

Full paradigm:

I've been debating for a while in mostly parli, so I'm fairly well versed in the game at this point. I make my decisions based on who can access the strongest impacts within round. Make sure everything you say has strong, believable mechanization and realistic impacts. Be comparative and charitable to your opponents. I don't like to have to insert myself into round too much, and I am more likely to vote for you if you do my work for me!

Case/Speaking:

Speed: I will flow as best as possible, but I recognize I'm not the fastest. Err on the side of caution with speed. I can handle it (I speak decently fast myself) and will flow it up to a certain point, but if you're unintelligible, I will miss things and I might accidentally judge-screw you. Signposting will help with this, so if you are going to go fast, make sure you slow down at tags and emphasize your impacts.

Evidence/Warranting: Specifically for parli tournaments that allow evidence from online prep: please please please do not just read me a card. You'll give me flashbacks of my pf days. Contextualize your evidence well and give me a mechanism behind why that evidence is true. If you're giving me a piece of evidence about the US about to go into recession and spitting out economic metrics at me, you better be explaining what is foundationally causing the US to head into recession and how y'all solve.

Impacting: If you mention nuclear war in a social justice round I will cry (make your impacts reasonable I beg of you).

Weighing: Every speech should at least implicitly weigh the impacts that your side is presenting with the impacts that the opposite side is presenting. Terminalize your impacts and provide tangible reasons (probability, magnitude, timeframe, reversibility, etc. ) why I should believe your impacts matter more than your opponents.

For parli whips: I should be able to find every substantive point that you're making on my flow somewhere. I'm usually pretty generous to whips on POO's, so as long as you've said something related to the point you're making in the prior two speeches, you should be fine.

Framework:

For almost every parli round, give me:

Definitions
A way to weigh impacts (weighing mech)
A model (what happens on the aff side that doesn't happen on the neg?)

Framework debates: If aff is proposing a framework that is never contested, I will default to that framework and both teams should weigh and whip with that framework in mind. I am receptive to counterframing, but neg has to provide a good reason as to why I should prefer their framework over the aff framework. Neg, if you wish to get into a framework debate, you better bring back your counterframework during your MO/whip speech, otherwise you have just wasted some of your time.I advise both teams to weigh and win on both the aff and neg weighing mechanisms,as I've seen good cases lose because they failed to weigh on the more reasonable weighing mechanism.

Theory

I adjudicate theory before case. The threshold for winning on theory for me is very high, so if you are running theory, bring a strong case to go along with it. I advise against running parli theory unless your opponent is doing something blatantly against the spirit of debate (incredibly absuive definitions, discriminatory statements, etc.).

On topicality: Run it if aff is running a framework that the neg could have never anticipated (e.g. aff is running that the entirety of communism = the Israeli kibbutz system), but understand that if the aff is being even relatively reasonable with their definitions, I will likely side with the aff. If you do run the T, propose counterdefinitions and pray that I buy them over your aff.

On ks, I'd generally advise you not to run the k with me judging. For some topics its warranted, and if you really believe in it, go ahead. But I'll warn you that I've voted for very few ks.

On RVIs - I don't find them compelling. Even though I don't like ks, I think there is a place for them in a debate. If your opponent's k is frivolous, explain why it's frivolous, and win on case. I'm not going to vote for you solely because you beat a k.

If you don't know what any of the above terms mean, don't worry about it, you'll learn about them when you need to.

Conclusion

Last thing. Be kind to your opponents please. I really hate the style of debate that a bunch of people go for where they say that their opponent's arguments are "ridiculous" or "non-sensical." I think it keeps people out of the activity yadda yadda yadda. But honestly, I just really didn't like going against people who did that, and I still don't like voting for teams who come across as uncharitable or rude. Don't be that team pleaseeee.

Okay, that's enough with the serious stuff. Parli takes itself too seriously sometimes. Just go out there and have fun, and you'll probably have me vote for you! I like wild arguments, and parli as a format lends itself to those types of arguments. Good luck in round! <3

p.s. if you email me for feedback, add your favorite emoticon to the end of the email and I'll add it to this paradigm!

Ellen Yang Avant Debate None

Peter Zhang Hire

Elizabeth Zhou Hire

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2024 at 2:48 AM PST

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

Please don't give off-time road maps. I'm just personally not a fan because I think you should be able to do that during your speech time, while maintaining good time management.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at eliz.zhou29@gmail.com

Login to Tabroom

Cal Parli Invitational

2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Open Judges Paradigm List

Judges