As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!

Elisa Batista is a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. She used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. She credits her experiences as a high school debater to fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

Her judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. Judge is pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate.

• Judge does not disclose ballot decision, unless it's the last round and inconsequential in terms of debaters' morale.

• High school debaters are awesome and judge wants to see them keep at it! Good luck!

I'm Oliver (he/him); I debated policy in high school and currently judge APDA and BP for UC Berkeley. My email is ob.debate@tuta.io.

Basics

A few miscellaneous things:

- I will stop flowing when speech time ends.

- I will give one team the win.

- Don't steal prep.

- Arguments need to have both a claim and a warrant.

I will not vote for the following arguments:

- X debater is a bad person because of Y occurrence that happened outside the debate round.

- Violence against other people in the debate is good.

- Speech times are bad or any argument which fundamentally breaks the activity.

Parli

General things:

- I default to tech over truth.

- Dropped arguments are presumed true for the rest of the round.

- I am fine with speed as long as you are clear.

- Feel free to read whatever kinds of arguments you want.

- Be organized and give me a roadmap.

- Do line by line.

- Speeches are evaluated as quantity times quality rather than quantity or quality over the other.

Regarding Ks:

- I will hear and vote on Ks but please explain your literature to me; don't assume I am familiar.

- Have contextual and specific links and please don't go for links of omission.

- Avoid long overviews when possible; do the heavy lifting on the line by line.

Regarding theory:

- Theory, absent extenuating circumstances, is an a priori voting issue.

- I will vote for theory but would rather judge a debate on substance.

- I have a NEG bias regarding conditionality.

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. That being said, treat me as you would any other lay judge: refrain from speed, jargon etc.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Boca-Delray (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 14 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 5 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida to national circuit.  

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments).

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.


Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Small note for LD: Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

As of the Hoosier Invitational, I will be judging the policy topic for the first time, so assume I have ZERO topic knowledge. I mainly judge NPDA so it's probably best to hover around 75% too speed (especially given the online setting). I advise readers to explain and crystallize over fast blips and tricks for your sake as much as mine - I could otherwise hang but in this setting it's frankly not worth the risk to your ballot.

email chain pls: jobro.debate@gmail.com

(he/him/his)

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a decent amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm fine with fast debate, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this can (and often does) negatively affect your argument quality and consequently your speaker points.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards to go with your impacts. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - just hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally competitive with the plan, or it's a non-starter for me.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently run kritiks and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the kit base inside and out - be sure to explain how the link story and how your alt solves your offense as per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well versed in other literature, but I can generally always track a well-explained and cohesive thesis.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

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

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.

The short version: not a super technical debater/judge, but mostly tabula rasa; explain things to me don't just cite evidence; don't give abusive definitions; tag teaming is fine; don't speak quickly; take POIs but I don't care a ton. I'll vote against you for abusive definitions.

Long(ish) version:

My preferences are pretty simple: I enjoy case debate with good reasoning. I do not like abusive definitions. 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). Basically, assume I know nothing about the world. 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 (AT LEAST source, date of publication, author. If it is a poll, number of people surveyed, who was surveyed etc.). 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 perms. 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

I am a middle school speech and debate coach. I have been a coach for over ten years, and  I have been a judge for the high school level speech and debate tournaments for over five years. 

My decisions on debate are based on familiarity with the topic and the complexity of understanding the topic, and refuting the opponent's arguments. Also, important facts should be cited unless you are doing Parliamentary debate, then no citation is needed . Off time road maps also help me keep track of what I should be looking for in your structure. 

As for speed, I do not mind speed of speeches but debater must be able to articulate what they are saying. Debater will need to present their speeches rather than just read them from a device or paper. Communicate with the judge . 

Structure of the speeches must be clear and when asking questions make them purposeful. Also when asking for cards, have a reason to do so. I have judged many debates where the opponent asks for a card and then finds a flaw with the source or finds the context was not as the opponent attended it to be. These are examples of what I am looking for when asking for cards. 

I do appreciate the debaters standing  when speaking. Try not to be monotone but  I do not want a debater to yell at their opponent. Do not mock your opponent. Be respectful when debating. Always a good idea to fist bump or shake hands with your opponent/s after a round or simply saying great job. But DO NOT tell them good job DURING a round. 

I am always impressed the moment I see you in a room. Joining the speech and debate team in school has so many advantages not only while in school but later in life as well. 

Great job!

A short summary of who I am:

I'm a former Parliamentary debate competitor from San Francisco who competed for 4 years at Lowell High School. I currently attend UCLA as a Philosophy and Comparative Literature double major, and am a member of the UCLA debate union. I'm primarily interested in applied and normative ethics especially in regards to the biomedical and artificial intelligence fields. I have competed on the UCSB Ethics Bowl Team.  Have also had experience in CX and competed at the Senate level in student Congress during HS. I use he/him pronouns.

Judging:

Fine with K, Theory etc. Feel free to spread.

I flow. Try not to be abusive in definitions or VC. I will dock speaks but if your opponents don't call you out for it that's on them.

I'll try to be a tab judge as much as that is possible. Of course, I have personal biases. I am a registered independent in the state of California. I supported Bernie Sanders during his 2020 presidential campaign, so if your arguments leans towards progressive policies, I'll probably agree on a personal level.

Personal Preferences: Try to be respectful at all times. In my opinion, debate is a space for learning first and foremost. Whether we vote aff or neg has no substantial real world impact regarding the issue at hand, but the way you treat the people around you does. If your argument negatively impacts the continuation of debate as a forum of discussion and creative argumentation I will vote against.

I vote neg on presumption.

I will stop a round if I hear homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist rhetoric.

If you have any questions regarding how I judge that are not in this paradigm, feel free to ask beforehand.

If you have questions about a specific decision feel free to email me at stevenchow313@gmail.com. I'll try to respond as best I can. 

I'm a student at UC Berkeley who competed in parliamentary debate in high school. I placed 7th in California my senior year, and made it to quarterfinals at the TOC. Ranked 20th nationally per NPDL rankings. 

I'm attaching some general preferences below, but in general I'm looking for teams that are interested in having a genuinely educational, interesting debate round- I don't like things getting caught up too much on technicalities. Remember to have fun, take deep breathes, and no matter what happens know that you're still an amazing debater and you've got this. 

General Preferences:

- POIs are fine, but calling them excessively to throw off your opponent will lose you speaker points.

- Weigh impacts clearly in rebuttal speeches. I won't weigh your case for you, so even if you have stronger impacts on my flow after constructive speeches, you won't win unless you take the time to tell me why.

- If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread please give it to me, but be warned that I do flow, and will only be judging you off of what I can HEAR.

- The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent.

- Evidence is great, but until you can link it to your case and show me WHY its relevant to your contention, it won't matter. Evidence is there to support your claims. Don't give me an entire speech spouting statistics without showing me their relevance.

- Don't ignore the main points of clash in the debate. In final speeches, I want to hear every main point of clash encountered and why you deserve to win it. Don't focus on one point they conceded and try to win the round off of just that. Focus on the debate at large and how it went.

Good luck to all competitors!

Stop spreading plz :) It more important that I understand your stream of thought, than how fast you can speak. I am a volunteer parent judge with no debate experience. 

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

Background: College professor teaching journalism and mass communication courses for more than 20 years. 

1. Experience

• In 2022, I judged several rounds in speech at the National Speech and Tournament in Louisville, Kentucky.

2. General Preferences

• Original oratory
• Storytelling
• Rhetorical speech
• Dramatic Interpretation
• Humorous Interpretation
• Prose
• Poetry

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for 3 years.

Please speak at moderate pace and with clarity. Be respectful to your opponents and keep track of your time so you can end your arguments. When I am judging, I look for:

- Critical thinking about the arguments and supporting your arguments

- Rebut your opponents

- Don't go in circles and keep repeating

- Be logical and realistic with your arguments

- Eloquent communication of your arguments

Good luck and have fun.

If the topic is complicated and less in news, it is OK to spend a few moments educating the audience/me (judge). If providing context helps you build foundation for your arguments, go for it.

Quickly listing your position/arguments during the debate a few times is a good strategy. Ability to list, at a high level, your arguments and what you have covered helps the judge and you. It also reflects a methodical approach on your part.

If you have limited number of arguments, it is OK. You can explain why your argument(s) have the weight and why your argument(s) matter more than the number of arguments that the other side may be making.

If you notice that the other team introduced a new argument late in the debate and/or cited a source, when sources are not to be given credit for (say, in late rounds), I would notice that too. You are free to point out. I would prefer that you make your point quickly, and move to discussing substance. Also, you are free to tell me what arguments "flow" and what do not. As I am listening, I am making up my mind and such suggestions form the speaker do not generally make a difference in how I perceive the debate.

Above everything else, I look for:

* how you assign weight to your arguments,

* how critically you think about the impact of both side

* do you acknowledge obvious weaknesses and weigh them against the benefits

* how well you address what your opponents bring up

Many times, I do not know immediately at the end of the round who the winner is going to be. I take notes aggressively during each round. I review my notes after the round, some times agonize, and then decide. Regardless, of when I make up my mind, I do not prefer to share the results immediately after the round with the teams.

I am a relatively new judge, so please explain everything clearly and thoroughly. Prefer debaters write the resolution on the whiteboard (if available ) and their names who is in affirmation and who is in opposition

1. No spreading (speak slowly)

2. Be articulate and speak clearly and loudly

3. Off-time road mapping is preferred

4. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time.

Debated in high school and specialized in Lincoln Douglas, but dabbled in just about everything I could.

General

Good jokes will always help your speaker points(especially in the hook), but bad ones can't hurt. I am not telling you to roast your opponent, but roasts can be funny(just don't make it personal). For any Cross-x, I won't flow unless you bring it up in a later speech. Make sure to extend your arguments and evidence in later speeches. The biggest decider of the round is based on weighing, so if you win a lot of your points but you do not weigh it right then I won't have a reason to vote for you. If you have prepared cases, I prefer to have the case sent to me, regardless of whether your spread or not. My email is gorisggo101@gmail.com. If you spread, you must send your case. If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round. Fake evidence = insta-drop. This is the cliche line of me telling you that any cases or arguments that support racism, sexism, or other bigotry/hatred against a marginalized group will result in an insta-drop. If I'm allowed to. I will give my decision post-round along with any feedback I have. 

Lincoln Douglas

Depending on the tournament, I'm fine with traditional or progressive. If the tournament is a local traditional, don't go hard on progressive. 

For progressive tournaments, I love judging larp and phil debates, especially with well-written K's. Don't get too abusive with topicality, topicality debates are boring. I'm too lazy to write out much more, but just don't read trix unless both of you want to(trix rounds low-key fun to judge). 

If it's a traditional round, I'll judge it similar to a larp round(don't worry if you don't know what that means). Don't spread, but talking a little fast is fine. Make sure to use your framework to weigh your cases.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order.

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace. I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that.

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

Hello!

I am a parent judge, and I don't have that much experience judging so please bear with me. Make it clear where you are at within your speech, and give logical reasoning. I will vote off of whichever arguments convince me best, and have proper impacting. I am fine with whatever speaking style you are comfortable with, but try not to speak too fast.

I look forward to judging you!

Hello,

My name is David Kleiner and this is my first year of judging.

- Weighing is less important to me, usually

- I favor arguments backed up by numbers and sources

- I'm not well-versed in theory so cases are preferred

- Please speak relatively slowly and clearly

Best of luck!

She/Her

Hey yall!! I'm lila, and I have been involved with debate for around 10 years (with 7 years of HS + collegiate competition). I competed in LD for all 4 years of highschool, qualifying to and debating at the TOC my senior year, and competed in NPDA for 3 years in college - the lovely Jessica Jung and I won NPDA nationals in 2019. Have been coaching CX, LD, and Parli for the 6 years to varying degrees. Currently, coaching for both EVHS (Parli and LD) and MVLA (LD)!!  

Email Chain: For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain, email is "lilalavender454@gmail.com." If you have any questions or revolutionary criticisms of my paradigm, I would love for you to email me as well!! ^^ To keep my paradigm as short as possible, I have also omitted my thoughts on how I evaluate specific positions (i.e Ks, theory, ADV/DAs, etc). So if you have any questions about that, feel free to email me or find me before prep/the round/etc!! 

Paradigm - Short: 

• Tech > truth.
• Go as fast as you want, i'll be able to flow it.
• I judge every debate format in the same way: on the flow and based on (in one way or another) which team or debater wins offense that outweighs their opponents. 
• I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, imperialist war good, fascism good, bourgeois (like US) nationalism, normalizing Israel or Zionism, US white fascist policing good, etc.  
• Barring the above, read whatever you want and i'll vote on it if you win it!! 

HS Parli Update - 10/3/22

Given events that happened during the 2022 Stephen Stewart finals, I now have a very specific threshold for voting on Speed Bad theory. That threshold being that unless you have disclosed to your opponents that you have an audio-processing disability and/or show me your flows (your lack of ability to flow the arguments being spread), I will not vote on Speed Bad theory. The way this will function on the technical level is that if that threshold is not met, or another threshold which objectively not subjectively proves engagement was not possible (because of speed), I will grant the other team a we-meet on the interp - regardless of what happens on the flow. To be clear, this is not because I don't think that there are legitimate justifications of Speed Bad theory or that teams don't abuse speed in reactionary ways, there are and they do. But rather, it's because this interp has and continues to be used in an actively counterrevolutionary way. I.e., to advance monopoly capitalist and thus imperialist propaganda, and justify blatant male chauvinist harassment. This does not apply to novices.     

Paradigm - Long: 

Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I have realized as a result of this, I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when i'm judging - as thats both impossible and opportunism. If you have had me as a judge before, this explicit decision of mine does not change how you understand I evaluate rounds, with one specific exception: I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. Meaning, arguments/positions which defend the bourgeoisie's class dictatorship (monopoly capitalism and thus imperialism), from a right-wing political form. I.e., the politics, ideology, and practice of the right-wing of the bourgeoisie. 

Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc. In the context of a debate round, by default this will function through 'drop the argument.' I.e., if you read an advantage or DA that represents the right-wing of the bourgeoisie, I won't evaluate that advantage or DA. If your whole 1AC or 1NC strategy is rightest capitalist-imperialist in nature, I won't evaluate your whole 1AC or 1NC. This only becomes 'drop the debater' if you violently and egregiously defend counterrevolution. 

For example, if the arc of your argument is about how Afghanistan can never be self-reliant and is inherently 'full of terrorists' (thus requiring US imperialist rule), you will lose regardless of what happens on the flow. The brightline for what I described above is liberalism. Or in other words, I will still evaluate 'soft left' positions/arguments - those which represent the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. To be clear, this is not because liberalism is any less counterrevolutionary or less of a weapon of monopoly capitalism than rightism is. Nor is this the modern revisionist nonsense which posits that there is a 'peaceful' wing of the bourgeoisie and thus imperialism. 

Rather, it's because it's a practical necessity given debate's class basis. In one way or another, given debate's bourgeois class basis and function as imperialist propaganda, the vast majority of 1ACs/1NCs are liberal in some form; this includes the vast majority of Ks. Thus, if I were to extend this paradigm to correctly also cease evaluating liberal arguments/positions, it would mean either it would be impossible for me to evaluate 99% of rounds or there would be a even higher chance of me getting struck out of the pool. Which in the practical sense is not a decision I can make, because as a result of US monopoly capitalist exploitation, I rely in-part on judging to eat and survive bourgeois class warfare otherwise. 

So within that context, as much as I can, I will use my power as a judge to propagate the Maoist line and remove as much of the most explicit reactionary arguments/positions as possible. As Aly put it, "some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary." I know that there are going to some individuals who are greatly upset by this paradigm. For the vast majority of you, thats fine, the class antagonism is clear. For the rest of you, whose concerns may be genuine, consider the following. 

Every single judge exerts a paradigm that, to differing degrees, will not evaluate particular arguments/positions. Most judges do not explicitly state or justify what that entails, and many judges do explicitly as well - in both positive and negative ways. For example, many judges (correctly) will not vote for openly racist/cissexist/misogynistic/nationally oppressive arguments; it goes without saying, but I won't ever vote for and will drop you for these arguments as well. Or in another way, (incorrectly) debate conservatives refuse to vote for Ks all the time. 

The only reason this specific paradigm will seem especially concerning, is because of the bourgeois class nature of debate and thus its' ideological function in service of imperialism. One which is inherently in contradiction to proletarian revolution and human emancipation, and thus antagonistic to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This is demonstrated well by the contradiction that most judges correctly will vote down debaters for being openly racist, yet will vote for positions which endorse the butchering of colonized and nationally oppressed People by US imperialist wars; something ive been guilty of in the past. As always, if you have any questions or good-faith criticisms of anything I mentioned within my paradigm, please don't hesitate to email me - I will always get back to you as soon as I can!! :))                   

Proletarians of all countries, unite!!

Misc Thoughts:

• Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/ Note: don't use this as an opportunistic excuse to not defend or have a line on New Afrikan national liberation, as thats gross and chauvinist.
• I am a transgender woman who has a deeper voice, please take that into account. It's exhausting to see judges and debaters who are unable to resolve this contradiction, either attribute my RFD to men on the panel, or treat me like a man as a result of my voice. 
• Cap debaters need to stop reading modern revisionism or 'left' opportunism guising itself as 'Marxism,' and truly grasp what Marxism is. This is a good place to start study wise: https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Collected-Works-of-The-Communist-Party-of-Peru-Volume-2-1988-1990.pdf
• It's a real shame that as a result of bourgeois feminism, be that white feminism or cissexist feminism, debaters have abandoned advancing the necessity of women's liberation. The proletarian line on feminism needs to be brought to debate, here is a good place to start study wise: https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/S02-Philosophical-Trends-in-the-Feminist-Movement-9th-Printing.pdf 
• For Parli Only - I will NEVER vote for an argument that says "reading Ks is only for rich schools and only rich debaters read Ks." There is a reason why this argument is read 99% of the time by schools and debaters flush with capital, it's because it's a bourgeois lie and distortion of debate history. Particularly one which, among many things, enables and was enabled by white chauvinism in debate. There is a good chance I will drop you for making this argument as well, so either don't read it in front of me or better yet strike me.
• While their are certainly contexts in which trigger warnings are legitimately necessary, i.e in graphic descriptions or displays of counterrevolutionary violence (sexual or otherwise), there are also ways in which trigger warnings are weaponized by bourgeois politics for counterrevolution. I.e., how it's used to obscure or mystify ongoing exploitation and thus oppression, or to protect bourgeois sensibilities. Merely discussing the existence of counterrevolutionary violence DOES NOT require a trigger warning, that is absurd and nothing but liberalism. If this occurs in a round that I am judging you in, I am very receptive to revolutionary criticisms of this liberalism. As Black Like Mao puts it "it is important to steel oneself because real life has no trigger warnings. This is not a call to willfully subject oneself to a constant barrage of horrors, because that is a recipe for depression and all kinds of other nasties, but a reminder that this stuff is happening and if you happen to be in the midst of one of these incidents there is no running away or covering one’s eyes."   

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

Thank you for your participation and good luck. I am a non-practicing lawyer — I am a businessperson in a highly-regulated industry. I am not a former (or current) debater. This is my second year judging parliament format debate. Few things to keep in mind:

1) I am primarily focused on the strength of the argument. Please focus on your core arguments. Make sure that the logic works.

2) This is a communication exercise. Please focus on clarity. Speaking quickly and providing a lot of facts is typically not an effective strategy with me. A slower, clearer, and focused approach is the way to go. You are leading me through your arguments and the limitations of your opponents arguments. Making one or two points really well is a lot better than trying to “machine gun” multiple points.

3) I care a lot about tone and demeanor. Again, this is a communications exercise. You are “selling” a position. Please be respectful of your opponents. No personal attacks. Watch your comportment when the other team is speaking. Think about the most effective communicators that you know or have seen. How do they engage the person or audience.

4) I am focused on the arguments. I find arguments about theory or process distracting. I also find interrupting the other side to ask a question or make a process point — other than time — to be distracting and not helpful. Please consider logging the points you would like to make, or the lack of clarity of the opponents argument/factual assertion, in your rebuttal.

Thank you and good luck. For what it is worth, while I am not a former debater, I wish I were. This is a tremendous program to build effective communications skills. Have fun.

Teacher at Benicia High School (English/Speech & Debate). More compelling logic wins. If no clear winner, decision based on flows. 

Please DO:

• Give an off-time roadmap
• Signpost
• Have fun

Please DO NOT:

• Spread
• Run complex theory without explaining

I am former WHS debater and I now go to 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:

If I'm judging you in person, any speed is completely fine. If I am not judging you in person please keep yourself to a speed that will let me comprehend you through zoom please don't spread your lungs out.

IDRC what you do just know that formalities are a waste of your time, you lose precious speech time every time you invoke a formality. However, signposting is not a formality, it is a MUST.

I dislike speaker points, they're ableist and bias breaks. I don't give 30 speaks like some judges but I will give you them based on how well you wrote your arguments

Because of the above, I don't care about "aggressive" debating. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't cause an equity issue or aren't rhetorically violent towards your opponents.

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 a bit of a theory hack. 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:

No Equity Violations should be established by your interp

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.

Policy debater, judge, coach a couple decades ago (pre-tabroom.com days); recently returned to judging and coaching (Parli)

Can flow speed, but don't think I should have to in Parli. An organized flow is important to me, so please signpost, avoid jumping around the flow. Generally prefer good clash, line-by-line, etc

Prefer good case debate. If it's not against the rules (including equity expectations), it's generally up for debate, and I'm not categorically opposed to any argument types. That said, Parli isn't the best forum for a lot of complexity. I think it's a good idea to disclose to your opponents anything that may surprise them. I have more patience than most for debate theory.

He/Him

1. Experience

*I did parliamentary debate in middle/high school 

*I attended various tournaments mostly in the NPDL circuit

*I have an intermediate understanding of theory

1. General Prefs

*Flay judge

*do not spread. I won't flow it. 

*Off-time roadmaps are okay as long as they are only roadmaps

*debate order of operations(How I decide who wins): PEMDAS

P:aPriori voting issues: abuse, skew, theory, etc.

E:Exceptional IMPACTS(a mediocre arg impacted will beat a good arg that was mentioned)

M:general arguMents/flow

D: Details(evidence, anecdotes, etc)

A:Addition(crucial)

S:Speaker points(If its too close I will just give the win to whoever has more)

*I like clash

*I dont believe its possible for anyone, including myself, to be a tabula rasa. But I will try to compensate for my biases.

*No overly speculatory arguments

*speaker points graded on: the quality of your argument structure(are you detailed?), using LESS jargon(jargon is fine but I am looking for explanations to prevent gatekeeping), the organization of your speech, the strategic style choices made, persuasive word choice.

*I will NOT give speaker points for: how you dress/posture, whether your camera is on, the volume of your voice, your passion(Although I will enjoy listening to more passionate speeches), the speed you talk(as long as you're not spreading), accents or "speaking clearly", how "happy" or "agreeable" you are. Everybody, no matter what style of voice they were born with, has a chance to get a perfect score. 

*no speaking out of turn(I know it gets messy in Point of Orders)

*joking and trolling should never ever be directed at opponents. any ad hominems,derogatory language, or dismissive/inappropriate behavior will be an instant loss/I will report you. lighthearted banter and trolling can only be directed at ARGUMENTATION. 

*swearing is fine as long as it is not offensive and adds emphasis to something. 

*Please thank the opponents, judge(s), audience, and teammate in your speech or off-time roadmap. Please say gg wp after the round(good game, good round, nice work, or well played) just some affirmation.  

1. Notable Biases

*I am biased towards contrarian and interesting positions. 

*I am biased against appeals to authority and ethos

*I am biased towards order over chaos

*I am biased towards funny, memorable, and intuitive arguments

*unconditional: I am biased towards good faith debating

*my Political Compass (I know its not super accurate, still might be interesting for you to know)

*ENFP-T (I know its psuedo-science)

1. Parli Specific

*Give good and clear framework always. 

*If neg does not understand or agree with definitions, they should ask clarifying questions and I will accept good faith redefining mid round. 

*gov should make it their goal to make a reasonable and fair framework. Please do not ever attempt to skew the round in bad faith. 

*Logic over evidence(all evidence must also be either obvious general knowledge, easily proven through valid LOGIC, or agreed upon by both sides. I will also accept at face value if I personally have heard the evidence, but if there is nothing else to back it up and the opposing team confronts it then I will drop the card)

*No new arguments/abusive analysis in the last speeches 

* Even if I understand complex jargon and theory I will not flow it if there is no laymans explanation given. This is to prevent gatekeeping.

*you must accept at least one POI in your speech, preferably more*

*POI’s should preferably be short quips. If they are unnecessarily long or argumentative, It will impact the round(Exception: definitions and framework questions)*

*No tag teaming/partner POI’s 

*kritiks are winnable only if they are educational/relevant and not manufactured. 

*please JUSTIFY the framing of the round. Not every round needs to be only Net benefits/utilitarianism. If no framing, weighing mechanism, or criterion is given, I will default to deontological framing.

• 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 pay a good deal of attention to logical argument and delivery. Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection does not add to the credibility. Professional conduct and empathy are always appreciated!

I am a former high school parliamentary debater who is currently in college. I will vote for any argument as long as you give me a good enough reason to do so. Just make sure you understand the arguments you read because if you don't I won't be as convinced. You can speak as fast as you'd like. Be respectful to your opponents (that should go without a saying). Default to K > T > case unless you tell me otherwise. Weigh impacts and layers of the round.

- pronouns: she/her

- background:

hii i'm anika! i'm currently a sophomore at san jose state majoring in business management. i did debate (parli only) all four years at washington high school and broke at a few tournaments such as Stanford and TOC:) i'm currently an assistant coach at MVLA!

please talk to me before the round if we have time/ are waiting for something/ someone. i do not want to sit there awkwardly. u can ask me about college or debate or life or tv shows idk just go for it

some random things about my judging methods:

- content/ trigger warnings please. also please feel free to announce pronouns in the beginning of your speech/ the round if you are comfortable doing so!

- talk as fast as u need to but make sure you're breathing. i'll yell slow/ clear if need be and if the other team yells it more than 3 times & you don't stop, i'm receptive to theory arguments relating to speed.

- weighing is so so important to me. a good rebuttal is important and i really need there to be a clear analysis of how i need to vote or i will have to think a lot and i don't want to!!

- DO NOT be rude, bigoted, etc. if you are, i will stop the round, kill speaks, drop you, and/ or put in a formal complaint.

- case debate:

even with all the time i spent in debate, i've always preferred case debate over everything. just make sure to be organized and structured, make sure to sign post, have clear link stories, and terminalize your impacts!! try and have good evidence and warranting too if possible. the more interesting the argument the better, it'd just be more fun to listen to but generics are cool too if you really want/ need them for your strat.

- theory:

when used right, theory is great. i liked theory in high school so i'll be responsive to theory arguments. fair warning: i am not a fan of friv T personally but if you run it and win on it, i'll vote for it. HOWEVER, i reserve the right to drop your speaks if you run friv t and the opposing team makes the argument that you were unfair/ creating an inaccessible round. basically, even if i have to vote for you on the argument, i still reserve the right to drop speaks.

rvis are cool.

have good interps pls, i struggled to come up with good interps for a while so i like seeing people do what i could not:D

PLEASE make sure that you weigh/ layer the theory against wtv else is in the round. don't make me have to think it all through and compare it for myself bc that means judge intervention and that's bad.

- kritiks:

honestly, i've never run a K. i've watched rounds with Ks in them and have gone against a few but idk how confident you can feel in my K knowledge. with that being said, if you really want/ need to run a K, go for it. make sure it's clear, organized (if u don't sign post i WILL get lost i promise), and make sure your links are really strong and clear. if you're running something that gets really deep in philosophy, you need to do a very good job of explaining it and the connection to the round. PLEASE DO NOT USE Ks AS A TACTIC TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE OR GROUPS IN ROUNDS. basically don't be immoral.

overall, i know this isn't super in depth so if you have specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round begins!

good luck!

About me: I'm a second-year at UC Berkeley studying Environmental Sciences and Legal Studies. I competed in parliamentary debate for four years in high school, captaining my junior and senior years. A few awards my partner and I earned include championing Stanford's national invitational and breaking at the Tournament of Champions. I have also coached for Berkeley High School's debate team and I'm currently competing 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’m a parent judge with some judging experience. I can follow most arguments, but nothing too technical, please.

- My own opinion on the topic will not affect how I judge.

- I enjoy arguments built on fact and logic.

- I enjoy original ideas and enthusiastic performance.

- Feel free to confront, but with grace and respect. 

- Good luck!

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.

Few things that influence my judging :

1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.

2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.

3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and do not run theory shells or kritiks.

My name is Connor (he/him) and I have four years of high school parli debate experience. During that time I considered myself to be a "flay" debater, meaning that while I did use theory and other technical arguments I almost always structured my debates around case. As a judge, I will evaluate any arguments that you can prove are important.

Case

• I love good case debate with warranted uniqueness, a strong link chain, clearly terminalized impacts, and organized clash on the line-by-line

• Organization will boost your speaks

• I generally like when people collapse on a few impacts in their voters

• I assume probability>magnitude>time frame>reversibility if not told otherwise

• Please do impact calculus

Counterplans

• Please have a specific counterplan text. It would also be ideal if you could give a hardcopy to me and the other team if it's a particularly complex one

• Try to be mutually exclusive, run perms as a test of competition

• Run theory against CPs you think are abusive

Theory

• Love theory with a clear interp, standards, and voter issues

• I probably have a higher threshold for friv theory than most, but will still vote on it

• My default is competing interpretations, if you argue for reasonability give me a brightline

Ks

• Assume I know nothing about your lit base, Ks were never my area of expertise

• Please try not to run something super generic, tell me how the aff or the res applies to your argument

• Signpost as clearly as possible

Speed

• Ok with some speed, but probably can’t keep up with spreading

• I would encourage you to call “slow” or “clear” on the other team if needed

Misc

• I flow answers to POIs

• Call POOs if the new argument is borderline

• Answer a POI or two in your constructive speeches

• Tag teaming is fine, just make sure the speaker ultimately says everything

Feel free to approach me before the round with any questions or concerns and I'll be happy to answer.

What I look for: I am a traditional debater but I can follow theories and K's. The event will determine what I will value more in the debate round. For example, LD I focus on the moral clash and impacts and less on solvency. For PF I care more about the actual policies and implementation. I like when debaters weigh the two worlds in the round so that I can see clearly which side has more impact. I want a coherent and cohesive framework that aligns with the value and value criterion. Once you read a piece of evidence don't just move on. Please elaborate what the piece of evidence means and how it relates to your argument. You have thoroughly researched the topic while your judge likely has not, so it can be easy to assume they can see correlation when in fact they cannot.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire but if you reference a subject brought up in crossfire I will take that into consideration and add that to my flow. For example, if your opponent concedes a point in crossfire I won't write that down but if in your rebuttal you mention that they did, and you explain how, then I will write it in.

Speed: I am good with fast-paced speaking but if you plan to spread please share your case with both me and your opponent. I do believe debate is meant to be a dialogue between two people so I value clarity and understanding rather than just overwhelming people with words. Please be respectful of one another.

Judging Experience: I have done speech and debate ever since Elementary School and since I entered high school I have judged many tournaments. I am most familiar with judging LD debate and occasionally PF.

Note for LD: Please do not run morality as a value. Morality is a set of values. So you are essentially saying you value value. Furthermore, whose morality are we to follow? My morality? Yours? Hitler's? Please choose anything but this.

Extra Note for LD: My job as a judge is not to vote for the better debater but to vote for the case that best upholds the framework. The better debater tends to have the better case but not always. Your opponent could drop your whole case, but if your arguments are incompatible with the framework, you lose. Please keep this in mind.

add me to the email chain - djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fourth year parent judge and a former competitor in Lincoln Douglas and Policy.

For Parliamentary Debate - I have judged Parli and will choose a winner based on which team best supports their side on the opinion.  I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. I am tech over truth. There’s never a bad side of the motion. Argue what you’re comfortable with and make it an interesting round. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. You should tell me which issues are the most important and why you win those issues. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions!  Any impacts are welcome.  The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one.  Ties are awarded to the Opposition.  Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question.  Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

1. I prefer no spreading. If you must spread, you should hope I can keep up. Use taglines, signposts, road maps - anything that helps me follow. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity.

2. Please be respectful to your opponent during cross. I don't appreciate interrupting your opponent - at the same time please be mindful of taking too much time to respond.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case) In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page.

Good luck and have fun!

TL,DR:

I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate.

Background

I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school.

Case

* I will default to net benefits

* Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully

* Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter

Theory

* Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents

* Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory

Kritiks

* I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one

* If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are

Speaker Points

* I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks)

* If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer

Hey y'all.

You're probably reading this about 10 minutes before prep starts. If that's you, let me offer you some advice. Take a deep breath, relax, and make sure that you come up with a cohesive argument. You're gonna do great, trust me.

My name's Nathan (he/him). I've done a lot of high school debate: 4 years LD, 1.5 years PF, 2 years Parli. I'm currently in my first year of college at UC Berkeley. I compete with Berkeley's Debate Society. I'd prefer you to consider me a lay judge though; don't use jargon without explaining it.

Although I can generally keep up with speed, err on the side of caution (I have never seen a spreader who clearly and logically articulated their points). I will try to put aside any outside knowledge that I've got about topics, but if you say something that I know is objectively wrong (e.g. China is part of NATO), I probably won't buy your point. You can make controversial claims, just mechanize it well and even if I disagree, I will weigh it. I personally don't like theory; please use it only if you think it's absolutely necessary. Most t's/k's generally aren't warranted.

Make sure that your case is well structured. Signpost your contentions and when you go on/off case. Highlight your impacts, your mechanisms by which you achieve those impacts, and why your impacts matter in and outside of the round. If you provide statistics, expert opinion, or examples to warrant your claims, make sure you explain the logic behind why those pieces of evidence make sense and connect to your case. Evidence itself doesn't suddenly prove your points; your logic proves your points. Weighing is a really important part of the round to me. Compare your impacts with your opponent's, and explain to me why your impacts are more important.

Above all, don't be rude. I really don't like voting for disrespectful teams. Assume that your opposing team is doing their best, and assume that I am buying their points. At the end of the day, it's your job to convince me that voting for you would be good for the future of parliamentary debate; be respectful, be kind, be human.

Good luck! I hope you make this debate enjoyable for everyone involved!

tl;dr: Be cool to your opponents. Structure your cases and refutations well. Make sure to explain your logic clearly and weigh your impacts. case debate > theory.

For AFF and NEG, in providing/citing evidence that supports your position, please explain your position clearly and the benefits/advantages of your position. Provide evidence that supports your position and provide examples from world events that supports your evidence. It's not sufficient to cite Y is better than X without providing evidence/examples where Y has been studied/deployed and proven to be better (i.e, Published papers/Studies, and specifics wherein Y is being used/deployed effectively, etc...).

Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.

In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).

I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.

Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.

I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.

Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.

I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.

Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.

In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.

In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.

Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side, you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.

I did 3 years of PF and 2 years of BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio 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.

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

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. If you still choose to include either, ensure that you can explain it clearly and that it is unquestionably relevant to the round.

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 will drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

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

I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.

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 elizzhou@berkeley.com