As a judge, I value clear and organized argumentation that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic. I prefer debaters who are well-researched and able to support their arguments with evidence and examples according to their given framework. In Parliamentary, I appreciate teams who focus on clash and weigh the competing arguments and their impacts. In Lincoln-Douglas, I expect debaters to engage with the philosophical implications of the topic and provide a clear value framework that is consistently applied throughout the round. I expect all participants to adhere to the principles of fair play and respectful discourse. It should be a given that rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior will not be tolerated and will result in low scores or disqualification.

I’m a volunteer parent judge. I ask that you please keep your delivery slow and clear, in other words, no spreading. You will know that you are speaking too quickly if I put my pen down. I can’t take notes or judge what I don’t understand. I do not disclose.   My preferences: State your contentions clearly; Debaters keep their own time; I appreciate clear analysis; Quick off-time road maps are fine (emphasis on quick); A polite and respectful space is vital. 

I am a parent judge but I have judged in the past

- I can deal with a little bit of speed but if you do decide to speak quickly make sure you enunciate and your words are understandable.

- Do not use too much jargon as I likely will not understand much of it. If you do decide to use Speech and Debate terms that I probably won't understand, make sure to explain what it means so I can make a fair decision

- Be kind and respectful during cross-examination but I am okay with argument as long as you do it professionally.

- Have fun and learn stuff

Speech: I am a college professor have 3 year debate and speech judging experiences. All types of presentations are welcome. I make decision base on individual presentation confidence, stage body postures, eye contacts and logical thinking flows.

I judged parli at Jack Howe, and I judged both parli and pf at La Costa. I look for arguments that are well thought out and not far reaching, though I will vote for "new" or "unusual" arguments if you can thoroughly explain your logic. I am not familiar with kritik structure and literature or theory, but if you frame it as more of a regular argument and explain its importance I might vote for it (depends on the rest of the debate material). Don't hinge the entire round on a theory argument. Please do definitions and be clear about why a counter-definition is important if you provide one.

Logic > Evidence (usually)

Be polite during your rounds, respect your opponents, and I will immediately vote against anything that is racist, homophobic, or sexist.

I do not flow I listen and take small notes and I vote off of who carried the round better.

My RFDs will not be to lengthy but they will give a little feedback of the round in my perspective 

Also you can spread as long as I can understand you just enough to make a decision 

Marchelle Doss

Competencies / Paradigm:

The quick version of my paradigm: Argue using whatever method / style you do best, but also be respectful of your competitors and what they are comfortable with.

I have experience participating in college parli debate, some college policy debate, and a few other competitive forensic activities. I have experience judging most forms of competitive debate, and if I am unfamiliar with the structure or new to judging the format, I will let you know at the top of the round.

Delievery:

I am comfortable flowing speed, but PLEASE use clear signposts. Persuasive tone and candor is important and might sway me in a close round, but is certainly not a decision-maker in and of itself. TBH I probably wouldn't knock you for swearing if it happens, unless it is a personal attack on your competitors.

Evidence: My predisposition is to value critical engagement with evidence, and I expect competitors to be clear about what their sources say as opposed to their extrapolations on a given warrant. I tend to reward teams that actively engage with their opponents evidence, including source information and qualifications.

Theory + topicality:

I am a little rusty on flowing theory / topicality, so please make an effort to be clear. I prefer in-round impacts as opposed to theoretical impacts, but will vote on the best argument regardless. Similarly, while I understand the strategic value of throw-away t-shells and will flow them the same as I flow anything else, I do have a relatively low threshold for abuse with these.

Critical Arguments: I am comfortable flowing K's just be clear about signposting. I'm a bit rusty on the literature, please try to be specific, insightful, and overall clear about K's when you run them. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is important to me, for both “policy” and “K” centered arguments.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).

When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.

I am a lay parent judge. If you spread or speak quickly and I cannot follow your arguments, I won't be able to flow or vote off of it so please articulate your words and don't speak super-fast. If you run theory arguments I will flow to the best of my ability, but please have a clearly structured shell and don't run frivolous theory. Clear links and impacts are important; explain to me why your arguments matter.

Be respectful and don't spread

What I prefer:

-TYPE OUT PLANS IN CHAT (counterplans and alts too)

CLEAR STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION IS A MUST! Give me any type of roadmap and FOLLOW it so I can flow.

-All of your impacts should have relatable explanation; ensure that your impacts are relatable to your judge and audience.

-Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

-Clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view and judge the round).

-Plans and counterplans are great, but if you're using mandates, I prefer ones that have been done before (in the news, or have at least been proposed) instead of some random plan that you think is good.

-Round Etiquette: I will call you out and stop your speech if you go beyond 10 seconds past your allotted time and speaking over your time will of course lower your points. Be mindful of rudeness towards other debaters as well as to your judge.

-Style: I like clear speaking, good reasoning, and good logic. I especially love when debaters show more animation in their voices, but nothing too over the top is necessary.

What I don't like:

-FILLER WORDS/pausing your speech to make a side comment (verbally checking the time, clearly reading communication from your partner non-discreetly, the list truly goes on) will absolutely detract me away from flowing your speech

-Pacing- I am fine with however fast you wish to speak, I will be able to flow. However, if your opponent asks you to slow down, then listen and slow down- be accessible.

-Dropped arguments

-New arguments in rebuttals- even if your opponent does not call you out, I do not like them and will notice.

Lay Judge:
Kind of Sketchy on Jargon so make sure you explain what you're saying. 

Also don't spread.

I don't like theory and i'm probably ok substance Kritiks but don't run reps/rhetoric Ks on me. 

Thanks. 

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

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

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

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

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

DETAILED VERSION

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

1. 2nd Rebuttal & Summary extension

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

2. Offense defense

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

3. Bad Debate Practices

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

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

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

Several caveats to this general rule:

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

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

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

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

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

B. Don't Paraphrase

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

C. Read Tags

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

4. Narrow the round

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Theory

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

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

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

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Critical Arguments

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

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

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

8. Crossfire

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

9. Speaker points

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

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

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

11. Speed

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

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

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

Overview:

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

Topicality:

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

Theory:

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

CPs:

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

Disads:

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

Criticisms:

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

Random:

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

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

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

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

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

I'll go speech by speech.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Im Thomas Morissette and I just graduated with my masters in economics from USC. I don't expect the debaters to be completely well versed in economic theory, but I appreciate an understanding of economics where it is applicable in rounds.

In general, I try to remain completely unbiased and only render decisions based on the strength of the arguments made by each side. I only ask that debaters treat each other with respect, even if you are in the middle of an intense round.

I tend to give a bit of extra time at the end of speechs to finish a thought, but try not to overdo it.

Any other questions I am happy to answer the day of the debate.

Biography:

I did too much ofPF, Congress, and Extemp. Currently a law school student and PF varsity coach for MVLA.

Judging Philosophy: Tech > truth

I'm down for anything as long as it's warranted and linked properly. Please do impact analysis/weighing to make my life easier. The more messy a round is, the more likely my flow becomes the wild west. Strike me if you don't want to do terminal link work.

Growing List of Pet Peeves:

• Even tho I'm tech over truth, if you break evidence ethics, either drop the card or it's an auto-drop from me. I don't really care about paraphrasing but will evaluate paraphrasing theory.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be.
• I'm good with speed and if I can't keep up, I'll say "clear".
• Add me to the email chain. I'll disclose my email in round.
• I make faces, I'm sorry.
• In varsity: I don't time because it slows my flow, but please flag overtime. In JV/Novice: I will time and give hand signals if needed!
• I like a spicy debate with clash so please try your best to create clash.
• I half (don't really) listen to crossfire so if it's important, bring it up in speech.
• Please be kind to your opponents.
• Don't try to extend everything in summary and final focus, collapsing is your friend. If you go for everything and all your extensions and links are surface level, I WILL NOT give you access to your impacts/args.
• Please have a basic level of round etiquette. If you do not know what this is, please ask me or I will heavily dock speaks.
• Good theory and Ks are aight. Bad/poorly done theory/Ks are an auto drop. TW stuff is my least favorite to evaluate (this means don't run it).
• To get access to your impacts -> you need to provide me the terminal link and it's not enough to be a surface-level link/card read.
• Using debate language inaccurately is cringe/a speaks dock.
• I usually disclose right away and if I don't, that means the round was messy and I have to clean up the flow (that's a bad sign).

For Parli:

I like logical debates. If two evidence contradict each other, Ill either consider it a wash or ill follow the one that makes more logical sense as it is explained. I might be able to follow speed, but I dont suggest going too fast infront of me or you might outpace me and if you are an experienced spreader then you prlly will. 

For LD:

I'm new to LD but debate is debate. Please don't be circuity as SCU

I have done Parli debate. I am open to many arguments as long as they make sense. I can handle speed, but don’t use speed to spread out the opponent. I may be experienced, but go into the round thinking I am lay and treat me like a lay judge. I like PMR and LOR especially if the round is close. If you are going too fast, I or other competitors will say “slow” or “clear”. What happens a lot is that people will refute arguments without telling me what it does to the case (I.e “now that I have shown that X is wrong in their links, they are de-linked in their first advantage and lose access to their impacts Y). As a judge, I need to know which impacts should be valued over what. If you have an Econ impact and a Lives impact, you need to tell me which impact has the highest importance (like telling me your Lives impact is the most important impact in the round which is followed by your Econ impact. If you have an Econ impact and your opponents have a lives impact, you need to tell me why your impact outweighs theirs. Because most Highschool tournaments are lay, I do not want Kritik, frivolous theory, tricks, and RVI to be run to prevent lay teams from being skewed and because you shouldn't be running them. To lay teams, if something is extra topical, you should say it in a shell:

a. Interp (what is the rule/definition)

b. Violation (what did you opponents violate)

c. Standards (basically tell me why I should prefer your interp and what problems arise because of it.)

d. Voters (education and fairness)

I’m not too nit-picky but I highly prefer if any theory or topicality arguments are said in this format since it is was people use normally. If you say a Topicality argument without explicitly using this format, but having all the main points there, I will flow it since this is a lay tournament. Lastly, use common sense and common courtesy. I expect all competitors to thank each other (and me) for having a round and to wish each other luck in the tournament. Also, I like all types of jokes and humor so please try to make the round a little bit more entertaining lol. Your speaker points will benefit.

PS:

Chi pashto ji izdadey, bala mata wowaya. Zmuzsh khalag dera nasta. Bala ta be round wogatey.

https://youtu.be/B0DNwnR1Pck

Competed in Parliamentary debate in high school. Main thing is to respect the other team. Otherwise I am happy to consider most arguments, they just need to be persuasive.

Centennial UPDATE: Try to set up that email chain/speech drop/etc ahead of time pls. Flight 2 also feel free to enter and set up the doc share asap pls.

Last updated - 12/12/24

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX), Isidore Newman (LA)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please at least read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) +0.1

- including funny/relevant/topical memes in the doc +0.1 if it's funny

- playing good music during cx - up to +0.3 depending on song choice

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

Cal Invitational tldr - I don't usually judge speech, but love getting the chance to! Since I have debate ingrained in my brain I have an appreciation for good, clear storytelling &communication, and giving good reasoning for any arguments you may make. But just have fun and do your thing!!

World Schools:

• winning team will be the team who had better argumentation / framing. Don't use this as an excuse to do things that would not be in the norms of world schools tho, like excessive speed / more theoretical stuff / anything exclusionary to teams that aren't prepared for it. Also since no low point wins, a killer reply speech can't save 3 bad constructives. If it's close enough though, the team who I think won on paper will win on tabroom. Surprising myself with who the winner is by just adding up the points speech by speech made me too sad.
• High style points = good sign posting, clear extensions, creative arguments, confident responses to POIs. I don't care as much that a speech is perfectly polished so much as that it is creative and effective and doesn't waste time. To honor the vibes of WSD, if you're confident / funny, your score will be higher. If you're rude / make excessive POIs / read word for word off a paper, your score will be lower. That being said, your performative ability will most likely not be what determines the round for me.
• High content points = I like the stuff you put on the paper. A good mix of defensive and offensive responses (not just cross applications of your own case). Having flushed out substantives (rather than blips that come out in later speeches). Creative arguments that aren't all US-centric. Stats aren't as important in world schools as clear logic, so make sure everything has a claim & reasoning & impact of some sort.
• Strategy points = Good extensions, good framing, good time management, and consistency across each speech on your team.
• IMO, POIs are more for you than for me. Get clarification on their case / get the other side to say something you can use against them / catch them in a double bind to use later. I'm probably not going to flow anything new from a POI unless you bring it up in a speech later and tell me why it matters. Making them probably won't impact your score much unless they're really good or really bad.

Parli as of Feb '24: Will listen to almost anything, preference for case since I'm much better at judging it (imo), and my ability to comprehend speed is not great these days and I for whatever reason am incapable of flowing on a computer so if you go too fast for me to be able to actually pen to paper write it down I may miss stuff. Wouldn't object to being classified more as flay than flow at this point, but a unique / interesting round is better than a boring / recycled round - take that however you want. And full disclosure idek what a trick is unless it's that grains of sand stuff - that I definitely do not like pls I will have flashbacks to the worst rounds I ever debated lol

- debated in high school parliamentary debate for four years (2015-2019) for Campolindo and Mountain View / Los Altos (won a few things, went to TOC x3, but also it's been a long time and the circuit has def changed)

- coached PF for a few years and a lil bit of parli

For the record, I will in fact listen to and vote on anything you read so long as it's done well, below are my preferences but of course they are not hard and fast rules; you do you - it's your round not mine.

- I haven’t competed in years and mostly coached slower events such as PF, so spreading super fast is probably not in your best interest, and in a limited prep event like parli with 8 min for a constructive if you're saying the right things you probably don't need to go egregiously fast anyway.

- I prefer the structure of case debate solely because I'm better at judging it - if you feel like going for critical impacts that is fine but I would much rather hear a well warranted critical advantage or disadvantage than an over rehearsed and framework heavy kritik

- If you do decide to read a K I won't hate you but here's my disclaimer: I did not read Ks except like 4 times ever. I studied philosophy in college so I'm relatively familiar w most stock K theory & I read some satirical stuff / Baudrillard. But also I hate misinterpretations / butchering of philosophy to better suit your case so if you read a K it better be good. And regardless of my knowledge if you read a K still assume I do not understand, and be as clear as possible. While I'll do my best to place it in the context of the round reading a K in general means there is a marginally higher chance I will make what more k-oriented judges would consider the wrong decision. So bear that in mind.

- if reading more complex or identity related kritiks be especially sure you actually understand what you are talking about and the implications behind it. I'll probably hold you to a higher standard of explanation on these

- I don't like frivolous theory so if you're reading it at least make it ridiculous and fun lol. Theory is important when an action a team has taken has changed the course of the round. Theory is less important when the shell itself is what changes the round. But I guess at a certain point it becomes satire and then it loops back to maybe being important again?

- Justify your impact framing. Magnitude is probably overrated. What would make the world actually better is if people thought about probable and structural impacts of their actions. I'll definitely vote on magnitude if given reason to though.

For PF

- I don't really flow cross cause I'm not abt that many columns on my flow but I promise I'll listen :) Bring up any important cross developments in a speech as well and I'll definitely flow it then

- Sticky defense (unless you give me a reason otherwise) so long as you mention it in FF, so you can ignore through summary if conceded

- If you plan on going fast to the point where you go beyond the average person's flowing capabilities, you should email me & your opponents your evidence. But also I'm fine with more speed in PF because a 4 minute constructive just seems so short to the Parli side of me

- not a fan of paraphrasing & if you do make sure citations are clear

- if you are reading norm-setting theoretical arguments or critical identity args look to my parli notes

My background: I did Parliamentary debate for 2 years in the bay area.

My philosophy: Anything goes, as long as you give opponents a fair chance to respond. By anything goes, I mean I'll accept wonky arguments and such. Parliamentary debate, in my opinion, is such a powerful debate because of how the topic changes every round and that creates variety, new perspectives, and a level of breadth unmatched by other debates. I'm a fan of taking advantage of this and having fun. If you want to split California into 23 states or decide that Oregon needs a state cheese, I'd love to hear why.

My preferences: I'd rather not hear Ks, theory, and such but I will listen to it and vote accordingly (I just think it constitutes a boring and less academic debate but it definitely has its value and I will listen to it). Whatever you say, make sure it is laid out clearly. Treat me like a lay judge or a JV member of your team in terms of speed. If you go too fast, I'll ask you to go slower but fast speech should be ok. The slower and more concise your speech, the more I'd appreciate it.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Kritiques:

I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.

I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.

Alternatives:

Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.

Impacts:

I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.

Framework:

I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.

Evidence:

Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.

Theory:

I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.

Kritiques:

There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.

Speed:

Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

BING BONG ! EXTINCTION OUTWEIGHS !

parliamentary debate at berkeley debater o7 i'm most familiar with case, cap, and buddhism. i think knowing things and putting in the work to know things should translate into wins, and I don't care about how you speak or present yourself in the round so long as I can flow it and it's not unkind. i don't know what people perceive my biases to be (if you perceive me to be a particularly good or bad judge for anything, please let me know! it would be educational for me), but i'd like to think myself chill for anything other than complaining about "tech". maybe i'm also bad for ks that heavily rely on going for frameouts, though Tejas claims I am actually really good for this. All I can say is that I evaluate under the won rotb.

here's all the most actionable and like not literally every judge thinks this stuff:

• It is my mission to eradicate prep stealing. I will bastion ult your speaks!!! don't do it!!!! also death to grace periods.

• I get incredibly, incredibly irked by performative or argumentative POIs. So mad. Very angry. POIs should be used to clarify or secure your opponent's stance on something, not detract from that stance.

• I evaluate the round by going down the LOR and PMR. I do not paradigmatically think the LOR has to extend everything the MO says, but it would be very good if your LOR had all your voters.

• I by default very weakly protect. I think point of orders are actually really cool and yall should call them and argue about newness. Like obviously don't call POOs that you think are wrong, but call all of them that you think are right. I'll try my best to rule.

• I am chill with friv, but at this point I feel like it's become a tool of laziness. I'd much prefer to judge K debate or good case debate, but I do recognize that friv is fun, so I'm reserving the right to cap speaks for any non-T theory collapse to 28, with no effect on my evaluation.
• Don't forget to read a counterinterp.

• After doing another semester of NPDA, I think that the collective understanding in NPDA that MG theory breaks the game is good. I'm sympathetic to arguments like evaluate MG theory in the block.

here are the stuff that every judge thinks but that i think are important and not enough debaters do:

• You should read terminalized impacts. Death, dehum, suffering, quality of life, genocide, cultural genocide, ontological violence, racism, are all things that I'd consider "good enough," but specificity will enable you to weigh. Things that are not "good enough" include democracy, the economy, the telos of an institution, justice, legality—unless you read a framework that justifies those. You should weigh. You should metaweigh, meaning tell me what metric of weighing I should be using, independent to whether you outweigh on that metric. If one team tells me "we outweigh on mag" and the other tells me "we outweigh on tf" I will consult my paradigm to see which of those I value more, absent metaweighing between magnitude and tf.

• COLLAPSE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COLLAPSE. If you have two viable substantive outs in the block, make sure you are completely done with winning everything you could possibly want on one before you go for the other. Figure out how to kick DAs you're not going for, explicitly extend the counterinterp or wm, etc.

my long paradigm mostly exists so I can gesture at it when the round doesn't answer important questions for me. I don't think you actually need to read it, unless you are planning on leaving things up to me in the end, in which case you probably should figure out what i will do. Apart from like perming interps I think I can hang with anything.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

feel free to ask me anything before the round.

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work