Tech

Fact over tech. Will fact check if needed. 

Spread

Do not spread. 

Theory

Keep theory to a minimum.  

Tech

I am a tech judge; I will not fact-check as a result.

Spread

NO SPREAD

Theory

Avoid delving too deeply into theory

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

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

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

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

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

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

And because I cannot stress this enough..

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

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

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

_______________________________

Background

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

General

Tabula rasa

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

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

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

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

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

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I judge rounds

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

Case

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

CPs

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

Theory

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

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

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

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

My Background: I've largely competed in the WSDC format at competitions like EurOpen 2020 (Octofinals), Saskatoon WSDC, Oxford WSDC, Macau WSDC 2021, Gulf Debates, Modern World Debates (Finalist). Former member of UAE National Debate Team.

Some ground rules:

1. Debates are judged in terms of the use of clear argumentation and persuasive rhetoric - ad hominems and disrespectful language are not at all tolerated.

2. Mention your pronouns prior to your speech along with how you would prefer your POIs to be asked - make sure you respect and use the correct pronouns of your fellow debaters.

3. I will be flowing the entire debate - good organizational structure and clarity of thought in your speech would be helpful

4. Aim to take at least 1 POI within your speech.

5. Dropped arguments are not a guaranteed win or validation of the arguments - if the other side does not respond to a particular argument, tell me why the fact that the argument is still standing wins that point of clash (and successively the debate) and what this means for the debate.

6. Aim to engage with your opponents as much as possible - unfairly framing the debate so as to make it nearly impossible for the other side to debate or use of unreasonable definitions is highly discouraged. Being charitable (accepting the other sides' premise, and still showing why you win) in addition to showing why you win within your framework is key to winning messy definition debates.

I have judged in tournaments before and am always amazed with teams that have coherent warrants, proper definition of the topic and clear impact statements. 

I am an experienced parent judge and like clear and concise warrants, topic definition and medium paced conversation style

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

I am a parent judge (software engineer) with less than 1 year of judging experience. I value arguments that are clear and organized when presented. If you speak too fast or have a messy flow, this will only hurt you, so keep your information and end goal clear.

Theories: I don’t understand theories. If you absolutely have to run a theory, slowly explain what a theory is, and why I should vote on it over case. Make sure to also explain how the other team is violating your theory.

Kritiks: I don’t understand kritiks so if you run one, I’ll most probably get confused.

Make sure to be respectful during the round.

I have 1 year Congress debate experience from high school and have judged college debate last year.

I like thorough, structured arguments that are followed through. This means that I don't just want to see you blast through a bunch of warrants and move on. Please explain why what you're arguing matters, even if it's seemingly trivial and obvious.

If a point goes unaddressed, I will usually reward whoever brought it up, unless it's utterly irrelevant.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and argue with logic.

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and limit use of jargon.

I have no experience in terms of judging any kind or form of debate. Even though I have no experience but I will be fair and impartial with my decisions.
Always act with decorum towards other debaters.

I am a parent judge with oxford style (2 person) high school policy debate experience (many years ago), Lincoln Douglass, and  some CEDA and NDT debate in at the University level. I am less familiar with the newer debate formats, but understand the principles of argumentation and debate. More recently I have volunteered coached middle school debaters, and have coached  high school debate and taught at summer debate camps.

My judging philosophy has based on clear argumentation, presentation, and engagement as applicable to the debate format I am judging. I am not yet fully aware of all the debate jargon in particular debate formats, so if jargon or specialized language is used, please define it the first time you use it, and show how it is relevant to the arguments you are making.

Other than that I judge by what's on the flow, and rely on speakers to weigh the evidence/arguments, and make clear to me what I should base my decision on, and why. 

I am a parent/lay judge who has been judging since 2022. I do not have any debate background, but my son is always inundating me with debate information and I do have litigation/trial experience.

TLDR: Debate is a space for people to learn and engage in real-world topics. Please keep theory to a minimum. However, if there is real abuse occurring in the round, explain the theory in layman’s terms. I have a hard rule of no Ks, as devoted to them as my son is because I feel I cannot evaluate them fairly. Limit the use of complete debate jargon, but I know the basics (e.g. uniqueness, links, impacts, etc).

Case

My favorite and only type of debate that I like judging! Your arguments should have a three-part structure: claim, warrant, and implication. I won't count it against you if you don’t, but know that your opponents should be able to easily knock it down, so include it anyway.

On actual (dis)ad crafting, I won’t be upset if you don’t have the traditional UQ-L-MPX, but it certainly helps me judge the round. The easier I can navigate through your arguments, the easier time you will have winning. In terms of links, don’t make the tags generic like “plan passes”, you need to actually tell me what the plan passing does. BE SPECIFIC. On impacts, please terminalize them and put some effort into explaining your impacts. Don’t just say them and move on.

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. Too many teams forget to do this and it makes it much harder to judge the round. It also means that I have to intervene in some sort of way when adjudicating, which I try to avoid. Not weighing will not lose you the round, but it certainly won’t help you win it.

Miscellaneous

I take copious notes. Do signpost throughout the round (ie. "on the first UQ", "on the first advantage", etc.), not just in the first speech. If you tell me where you are, it allows me to follow better, which helps you in winning the round.

Spreading is a big no-no for me, although you probably already guessed that from my being a parent/lay judge. You can speak fasterif you are clear. If you go too fast for me, I’ll call out “slow”. Likewise, if you are having clarity issues, I'll call out "clear".

No tech debate in my rounds, sorry :( This includes tricks, theory, and Ks. The only exception is if there is actual abuse occurring in the round. In that case, I'll try to evaluate any theory that you run, but keep in mind that you have to explain it to me without so much debate jargon. Also, I will not evaluate a frivolous theory (i.e. tropicality, no shoes, etc.), as fun and entertaining as it may be, it does take away from the education of the debate round.

I’m usually fairly conservative in awarding points. I try to award speaker points based on the actual quality of argumentation made in the round. But, not being monotone and boring makes things more interesting and engaging for me. On another note, my son tells me I would be a fun judge if I bumped up speaker points for those who work in a Harry Potter reference. So, feel free to give it a go for some bonus points.

I understand that all people have unconscious biases, but I try to have a tabula rasa mentality when judging.

NOTE: racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other sort of discrimination is not acceptable. Don't be exclusionary and ruin the experience of debating for everyone. I’ll almost certainly intervene if there is anything of the sort and I may (probably) will drop you for it.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge.

I value argument reasonability over articulation. Don't think frivolous arguments have a place in debate.

I have some experience with parliamentary judging, for other formats, please explain the format before the round.

Hi, I am Jeff Ward. I am a parent judge, so I am relatively new to all of this. Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand you. If you say anything offensive you are at risk of being dropped. This will be at my discretion. Please ask your opponents about there pronouns and do not misgender them in the round. I go by he/him.

I'm a parent judge.