2023 James Logan Martin Luther King Jr Invitational
2023 — Union City, CA/US
Parli Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I have done Parli since elementary school here are some of my accomplishments:
1-4 at Steven Stewart, 1-4 at Nueva.
On another note, I have broken to Octos three times, got 5th place at Georgetown (APDA circuit), and made it to finals at Claremont.
Judging Style: First and foremost I can only judge what is said in the round. This means that you will not win by implying something, you should try and explicitly say it. Second, I will generally default to the easiest path to the ballot. That just means that you need to make sure all of your impacts are clearly warranted and crystalized. Impacts are what win you the round, not claims. I believe debate is supposed to be an educational exercise at its core. Given this, I do consider the truthfulness of arguments as well as their logical structure. When it comes to evidence, analytical is always best. Anyone can make up a statistic. I don't want to just hear numbers, explain why they matter and present logical reasoning for why the numbers are like that (ie. 50,000 people died, why did they die? hmmm maybe because they lacked access to adequate health care, but why is that the most probable reason for their death? etc.).
In addition, impacts should be clearly weighed. If you don't give me clear reasons to prefer one impact over another, I will have to evaluate based on other factors. Unless told otherwise, I will generally default to probability > magnitude > timeframe > flashpoint > structural, but depending on the topic/scope of topic this might change (ie. a topic about climate change will probably have me prioritizing magnitude impacts above probability). Thus please make sure to properly weigh impacts if you believe they should be prioritized in a certain way.
When evaluating competing claims I will choose the one which is more warranted. If both claims are equally warranted (or unwarranted) I will have to decide using logic.
I will buy theory but my threshold is very high, there should be clear proven abuse (I will usually NOT buy frivolous theory shells unless they are interesting, clever, and/or unique). In addition, theory doesn't have to be structured in order to be effective. While shell format is nice, I will still buy any theory arguments as long as they are logical and address clear abuse.
Feel free to run Ks as long as they genuinely seek to address a valid issue within the debate space (doesn't have to be topic specific if you can find a creative way). If not, I will not vote for them.
"The affirmative would have you blame a clown for acting like a clown rather than critically interrogating why you keep going to the circus."
This paradigm is geared towards Parli specifically. If this round is a different style of debate (i.e. Policy, Public Forum, LD, etc), my same general preferences apply, but a lot of this won't be applicable, and you may have to spell more things out for me in round since I'm not super familiar with the structure or conventions of other formats.
Flow judge, experienced debater
Have reasonably sensical arguments
CPs (and any argument, really) have to actually be offense against the other side
Tell me why I’m voting for you
Adapt less to me and more to your opponents, make sure you’re not exclusionary
Be a good human being
Tabula rasa as long as you follow everything above
Don’t consider myself to be a hack for or against anything in particular, but may not be the *best* K judge
Read my whole paradigm if possible :)
If you have any questions about my paradigm (whether you’re prepping for a round, deciding whether to pref/strike me, or just browsing Tabroom in your spare time) don’t hesitate to email. Don't worry about it being awkward, I'm always down to talk about debate.
Debated HS Parli for 4 years at Nueva (2017-2021). And I debated for 2 years in middle school before that, for whatever that's worth. I broke at TOC (2021) and got pretty far at some other big tournaments, so I hope that means I know what I'm doing.
As of the most recent update to this paradigm, I'm a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying computer science and film. My main other academic interests are economics, math, and philosophy. All this to say, assume a low level of background knowledge on History/IR. If it wasn't in high school history class on a day I was paying attention or on the front page of the New York Times, I probably don't know about it. But I debated for six years and try to read at least *some* news each day, so I have at least a cursory knowledge of current events.
Note also that I basically completely dipped from the debate world after graduating, except for very occasional judging. If there's some weird new argument in the debate meta since May 2021, don't assume I know any of how it works.
I have a lot of preferences in this paradigm (as is kind of the point of a paradigm). Pretty much everything is negotiable. Just give me an in-round reason to prefer your approach. Since everyone has implicit biases, I think one of the best ways to be tabula rasa is to be as clear as possible with my preferences/biases, which is a lot of what I aim to do here.
TECH VS. TRUTH - Between tech and truth, I consider myself a tech judge. However, tech vs. truth is an overly simplistic dichotomy. I’ll vote for something if you win it technically, but it has to be something for which winning it means anything. If it’s blatantly untrue or I don’t understand it, I can’t vote for it. For me, the key difference is objective fact vs. value judgements. I’m tabula rasa in that I buy value judgements or causal arguments (e.g. renewable energy is better for the environment, probability is more important than magnitude, etc) absent an argument from the other side but I won’t buy things that are objectively untrue (e.g. Reagan is president). Hopefully that's a clear brightline, but if you're curious about something, just ask.
FLOWING POIS - I don't flow POIs in that I don't consider them as substantive argumentation in the round, but I do take note of what was said in case it actually becomes relevant. POIs are a verifiable part of the round.
VERIFIABILITY/EVIDENCE-CHECKING - To be honest, I don't really like how a lot of tech debaters conceive of verifiability. "It isn't verifiable" isn't a reason to reject an argument (including disclosure theory); at the point where I'm not allowed to look things up during or after the round, literally nothing you tell me is technically verifiable. In the event that two people are giving me conflicting claims without giving any reasons to prefer one or the other, I have to use my own, potentially biased BS meter to determine who I think is telling the truth. The best way to avoid that happening is to not lie.
PRESUMPTION - I default to presumption flowing to the advocacy of least change. That usually means neg if there's not a counterplan, and aff if there is. I can be convinced that either of these preferences are wrong if you give me a warrant. I won’t hesitate to vote on presumption if there isn’t meaningful offense flowing for either side.
PROBABILITY VS MAGNITUDE - I default to evaluating impacts under probability * magnitude. There's a limit to how much I accept, though: otherwise, I'd always have to vote for the team that says they'll kill me if I don't vote for them (#pascalsmugging). And even if a team has an 100% chance of solving for someone stubbing their toe and the other team has no impacts, I'll probably just vote on presumption. However, in a scenario like that, it's up to the debaters to tell me what those brightlines should be, or else I'll be forced into intervening.
POOs - I protect in the last speech, but call the point of order anyway because there's a chance I missed it.
TAG-TEAMING - Talk to your partner as much or as little as you want, just don’t feed them their speech. I only flow what the active speaker is saying.
SPEAKER POINTS - Yes, speaker points are arbitrary and flawed, but it’s unfair for me to arbitrarily give high or low speaker points to everyone who has the good or bad luck to have me as a judge. I’m not really sure how to resolve this issue; I end up giving speaker points based on standard logic and persuasion but try to consciously think about my biases before I make a decision, for whatever that's worth. My usual scale is from 26-30 unless something egregious. A decently good debater (i.e. someone for which they are likely enough to break that speaks actually matter for them) will pretty much never get below a 27.5, or a 27 if fractional points aren’t allowed. 28 is probably my average. Speaks are independent of the win.
SHADOW EXTENSIONS/CROSS-APPLICATIONS - Shadow extensions are fine, shadow elaborations are not. I’m fine with you leveraging something from the 1AC/1NC in the 1AR/1NR even if it wasn’t brought up in the 2AC/2NC, but not with you dumping five more warrants onto it. In a similar vein, cross-applications are not new arguments in themselves, so I encourage you to cross-apply any time as necessary.
SPIRIT VS. SEMANTICS - I default to spirit over semantics as long as the spirit is clear enough. If you accidentally say “aff” instead of “neg” or forget a period in a text, I’m not going to penalize you for it. That being said, I’ll listen to semantics arguments if there’s actually reasonable doubt about what you meant/multiple possible interpretations. Yes, I'm aware "reasonable doubt" isn't a brightline. If it's good enough for actual courts, it's good enough for a bunch of teenagers imo. But again, if you convincingly argue otherwise, I'll buy it.
TEXTS - Please, please pass texts. This includes DEFINITIONS(!), plans and counterplans, roles of the ballot, K alts, and theory interpretations. I'm willing to give you time before the round starts to prepare texts to give to me as well as your opponents. Texts are binding.
I will call “slow,” “clear,” and “signpost” as needed. I don’t end up doing any of those very often. If your opponents are being too fast or too unclear, feel free to call these as well.
TL;DR: Read arguments that make sense and matter. Tell me why they do so. Interact directly with the arguments the other side gives. Clash is good :)
Tight, technical case debates with plenty of warrants are my favorite debates.
First of all, some pretty standard stuff. Have uniqueness, links, and impacts. Weigh your impacts. Weighing doesn’t just mean saying “we have links, they don’t” (although you can and should say that if it’s true), it means explaining why your impacts are important both in the abstract and as compared to the other impacts in the round.
I won’t categorically deny arguments where the uniqueness flows in the direction of the link. A bad thing can get worse. A good thing can get better. You have to prove to me that it’s better/worse however, and more significant than the current trend in the squo. What’s more, links that flow opposite the uniqueness are probably going to be more significant from linear disads just from a magnitude point of view, so you should still try to have uniqueness flowing in the other direction.
Please tell me your advocacy (plan/counterplan) before you start reading the offense on it (advantages/disads).
Don’t get lazy with your offense vs. defense. This goes both ways: don’t just read a little bit of defense on a point and move on. If your opponents only have defense on your argument, respond to that defense instead of putting all your eggs in the Try or Die basket. Too often, I’ll either see blippy defense treated as terminal defense, and on the flip side I’ll see people telling me to vote on a tiny risk of solvency when there is terminal defense on the point. Engage with the line-by-line and tell me where the important offense lies, and why you get access to it.
I evaluate counterplans as opportunity disadvantages to the aff. In other words, the core offense in a counterplan does not lie in the impacts of the counterplan but in why it means you should reject the aff plan. There are two ways to do so: the aff plan means the counterplan cannot happen (mutual exclusivity) or the aff plan makes the counterplan less effective (net benefits). A disturbingly large number of counterplans in Parli do not meet this threshold.
Too often, a counterplan will say it competes on net benefits because doing the plan + the CP is worse than just doing the CP (i.e. because of the DAs), but the impacts of the plan and the CP will be completely different. You need to tell me that the plan specifically harms the good the CP can cause, not just that it offsets the good by creating a bad. Otherwise, that’s not independent offense on the aff. Telling me just that the CP is better than the plan is not any sort of offense on its own, because to win that you have to win your DAs, at which point you've won anyway.
I also don’t like counterplans that are functionally similar to the aff and/or create weird fiat stuff, since it’s a lot harder to leverage offense that way. For example, delay CPs, consult CPs, plan+ CPs, super narrow PICS (although I'm not sure what "super narrow" really means), actor CPs.
Absent any arguments as to why conditionality is good or bad, I lean toward condo bad, but I'll go with whoever wins the condo debate in round. I'm a lot more willing to accept a single conditional advocacy than multiple different ones. If you have multiple positions (especially if they're contradictory), make sure you've clearly collapsed to one by the last speech, or I don't know what I'm voting for.
Don’t make stuff up.
TL;DR: Run theory to check back against actual abuse, whether it be proven or potential. I’m not a huge stickler for structure.
Theory is cool. Run it if your opponents are being abusive. I’ll vote on potential abuse as well as proven abuse, but I probably have a higher threshold for voting on potential abuse than proven abuse since you have to prove their methodology is categorically bad instead of just proving they were bad in this specific round.
You don’t need to run theory in a strict shell format (of course I have no problem with you doing so), but you should have a clear rule (i.e. interpretation), effects of that rule (i.e. standards), and the impacts of those effects (i.e. impacts/voters). If the violation isn’t immediately obvious, you should explain it as I’m not going to do anything for you. Your interps can either be categorical rules for debate or a rule that should be followed in this specific round.
Theory is made to check back against abuse, not as a “gotcha.” I probably won’t buy a theory shell that says “aff must specify X part of the plan” if the neg didn't at least try to ask the aff to specify in the 1AC.
In a similar vein, even though I love running frivolous theory for fun, I won’t vote for frivolous theory when you’re just using it as a wacky strategy that your opponents are unprepared for. If both sides want to debate wacky stuff, then feel free to do so (I’ll enjoy it a lot) but friv T very quickly becomes exclusionary and we don’t end up learning anything from the debate.
I probably default to Reasonability since in my opinion it makes more sense to evaluate theory through the lens of the round rather than as a single, unyielding standard. Please give me reasons to prefer either Competing Interps or Reasonability though. And define what the specific brightline for Reasonability is in this round, or else "Reasonability" likely means "judge intervention."
TL;DR: Run Ks if you want, just don’t use them to exclude your opponents. The average person should be able to at least understand your core argument. Make sure the K actually relates to the topic at hand. I've read approximately 0 K lit. Aff Ks are a higher bar for me, but again run them if you want.
Here's my deal on Ks. I get the function they serve. I understand why it would be bad for me to categorically reject Ks as a debate argument, so I don't do that. But I'm personally not the biggest K fan, and don't like to run them myself. However, this does not mean that I won’t vote for a K, or that you should stop yourself from running a K if you want to.
My biggest problem with Ks is that many tend to be very inaccessible. All too often I’ve seen a 1NC that’s just 8 minutes of words like “rhizomatic” or “ecofeminism” without an actual explanation of what it all means, followed by an utterly confused 2AC that manages to get out a little bit of link defense before sitting down. As such, the two main “requirements” I have for a K are as follows:
Ensure that the other side actually knows what the hell is going on. Don’t take advantage of less experienced teams or spread them out of the round. If you use words that the average case debater doesn’t know, explain them.
Read a thesis! It doesn’t have to be more than 20 or 30 seconds. I will thank you, your opponents will thank you, and your future self will thank you when you have to give an overview in your rebuttal speech.
If you do the two things above, you should have no problem running a K in front of me. As for the substance of the K:
Read round-specific links. No one wants to hear the generic cap file from your team’s Google Drive you’ve read 10 times before.
Give me a clear alternative. Explain what it means to vote for you and why that’s a good thing. Explain what “deconstructing” or “interrogating” something means in this context. Give me solvency: I need to know your alternative does something. As an aside, I'm not a huge fan of deconstruction as an alt, since I think it's pretty hard to deconstruct anything in 8 minutes.
Respond to your opponents’ responses. I don’t know why this is such a big problem with Ks, but so often the neg will say, for example, fiat is bad, the aff will give reasons fiat is actually good, then the neg will come back and say “they say fiat is good, but it’s not, my partner told you why” and not move the debate forward. There needs to be clash.
I consider myself to have a pretty good knowledge of how Ks function structurally but I have read basically no K literature unless your K author is Brandon Sanderson. Assume I know what Framework, Links, Impacts, and Alt are but not that I have any background in what you’re saying. As long as you read a thesis, and explain what your big kid words mean, you should be OK on this front.
Aff Ks - I have no fundamental problem with kritikal impacts/prefiat implications whether you’re Aff or Neg. That being said, my default view of debate is that the burden of the Aff is to defend the resolution. If you’re running an Aff K that specifically rejects the resolution, I have a pretty high threshold for voting on it. I’m going to need a lot of analysis on why rejecting the res is OK. And remember you can say fiat is bad/run kritikal impacts even while still affirming the resolution. In the event of an Aff K, I'm absolutely receptive to T-USfg and/or disclosure theory, but I hope the neg will also engage with the substance of the K.
K vs. K rounds are arguably more interesting than K vs. case rounds as long as each side clearly explains their thesis and interacts meaningfully with the substance of the other. Totally down to hear them if both sides are comfortable.
Random debate things I like
Don’t bend over backwards to try to force these in. Let the debate be what it is, and I’ll just be happy if one of these ends up coming up.
Well-warranted climate change debates (particularly about the effectiveness of specific forms of green energy/carbon absorption methods). If it’s a climate topic, please don’t just assert that “green energy = no more extinction” and move on.
Econ debates, both about specific policies as well as more abstract/general schools of thought. Econ is really interesting since literally everyone has their own opinion on how the “economy” works and how best to help people economically, and the comparison of warrants is pretty interesting imo.
AI/tech debates in general
Dedev (with good warrants)
Above all, have a fun debate! Again, email me at email@example.com if you have any questions about my paradigm, my debate experience, or anything else about life or our place in it.
Parent Judge, for about 2 years
- Not too familiar with either, but if you run them be very clear
No Spreading, If I can't understand you, I cannot judge you
I judge with a blank slate, explain and develop all points
Be respectful and have fun :)
disclaimers for preffing:
- i competed four years at archbishop mitty high school, policy for two years and parli for two years after, won chssa parli 2021
- i'm cool with the common k's (cap, neolib, security, etc), as a debater i have experience with running antiblackness, orientalism and queer k's. im good with anything, but im probably not familiar with ur niche lit base so just explain it well. if you're a super high level k or theory debater however, consider preffing me low lol
- spread if you want, i'll say slow or clear if i need to
my judging preferences:
1. if u cause harm in the debate space ill drop u immediately
2. tech over truth unless you don't warrant
3. organize uq/l/il/mpx and signpost
4. impact everything out or it doesn't matter; if i'm judging parli, everything should be centered around your weighing mechanism
5. im down for friv theory, unless u make the debate completely inaccessible to your opponents EDIT: if you are going to run theory, please for the love of god, run it well. don’t give me shitty theory shells to evaluate instead of substantive k/case debate. you may not suffer but i do
6. everyone gets a 29, make an atla/aot/jjk/shadow and bone reference and i'll give you a 30. speaks end up being arbitrary and ableist/sexist anyways so just have fun
7. stick around for feedback, i'll always try to disclose. email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you need anything else
I keep time silently but do honor the 30 second grace period. While you shouldn't take advantage of it frequently, just don't feel the need to abruptly stop when the timer goes off in the middle of an impactful closing thought. Don't worry so much as speaking up to the bell as giving a clear, cogent argument or rebuttal. Although I myself am a fast speaker, I'm not as keen on hearing rapidly paced, densely packed verbage ("spreading"), but rather a convincing and eloquent train of thought. Don't interpret my silence badly -- I'm just adhering to judging protocol. I do give detailed feedback in Tabroom. Good luck and enjoy yourselves!
I am a lay judge with a 4 years judging parli, as my daughter does debate. My pronouns are she/her.
I try my best to flow, but please speak slowly and clearly to make the experience easier for me. Do not spread! I will not understand you and I will not flow. Overall, please be respectful and never condescending to the other team and remember that debate is an educational platform.
Please focus on applicable argumentation rather than just theory, as that can ruin the educational aspects of debate. Use theory only when absolutely necessary to protect the debate space. Frivolous theory will not help your case. Explain all theory thuroughly and politely. This extends to arguementation as well; Make sure to thoroughly explain your arguements and their importance. Structured and impactful arguments usually win the debate for me.
Good luck and enjoy the process!
Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26
I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an alright career. Just finished my first year of parli at Berkeley, and won NPTE.
I'm only a year removed from the circuit, and from what I've heard things are rapidly getting more tech. That's fun and exciting, but there could be new norms I'm unfamiliar with? Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing will take you a long way. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. Debate is a lot more serious than it needs to be.
Speed: Send a doc, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 300 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
Evidence: If practiced correctly, I'm cool with paraphrasing (I paraphrased in HS), but don't get it twisted. I'm still down to vote for any evidence based shell or IVI, including paraphrasing. Also add me to the email chain pls.
I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.
2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.
Extensions: I think that extensions as a fundamental idea is really silly, and I don't really understand why PF cares so much about them. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.
Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If no weighing's done (god forbid this happens), I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.
This goes without saying, but everything in final should have been mentioned in summary (but not everything in summary should be in final), I don't like new stuff. No new implications can be made in this speech unless they're directly responsive to the speech before. I won't evaluate new weighing here unless there hasn't been any other weighing in the round.
Progressive debate is good, awesome, cool, fun, and good.
Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. Feel comfortable reading theory on me, I've ran/hit theory a good amount over my career. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. If no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs for accessibility reasons.
K's: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli. There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo. I prefer K's with good (and multiple) topic links and alts outside of "vote neg" (I'm not sure if this is possible with PF rules?) but anything goes.
Tricks: Big fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. Note that my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team, but feel free to run tricks.
Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this.
- I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
- Big fan of TKO's
- Big fan of content warnings
- Big fan of tag-teaming
- Not a big fan of discrimination. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:
- + 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
- + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my music
- + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech (Update: If I hear one more person tell me to say thank u, next to their C2, I will give you L20's and quit any involvement in this activity. I need a GOOD reference)
- + 0.5 for every CX skipped
- + 0.1 for every swear word
- - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
- Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
- Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
- Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
- Instant 30's to both team members if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive
I know this is short, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round
TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms etc. in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. Debate is a lot more serious than it needs to be.
- Love it, definitely the most confident in my decisions here.
- Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Why does your impact matter, go the extra step during prep.
- I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
- Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are.
- I love lots of warranting.
- Go for turns.
- Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.
- I love theory!! Let's go theory!!
- MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won't vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it's a super violent violation.
- I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
- I really don't understand the norm of no RVI's in parli. If a team runs theory on you, GO FOR RVI'S!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
- Because PF has too many theory rounds where someone doesn't know anything about theory, in the case that no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable) and reasonability.
- I'll default to Text > Spirit and Potential Abuse > Actual Abuse in case those debates don't actually occur.
- Note that while I've read and competed against K's a good amount in my career, I'm still relatively new to K's compared to a super tech judge, so there's a chance you won't hear the decision you like.
- Not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it.
- The more links the better, preferably have them not generic, but this isn't necessary.
- K affs are 100% fine, but if you can't tell already, I typically err Framework-T > K affs. I'm not a hack, but keep that in mind.
- Speed is cool, but if I say clear and you don't clear I'll stop flowing.
- Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
- Perms: If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
- Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
- Condo's good, but it's easy to convince me that condo's bad.
- Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
- Big fan of content warnings
- Big fan of tag-teaming
- Not a big fan of discrimination. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
- Collapse. Please.
- Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
- Repeat your texts or say them slowly.
Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:
- + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
- + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech (Update: If I hear one more person tell me to say thank u, next to their C2, I will give you L20's and quit any involvement in this activity. I need a GOOD reference)
- + 0.1 for every swear word
- - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
- Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
- Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
- Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)
As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.
Dawg I have no clue how good of a LD/Policy judge I am. My roots come from "tech" PF debate, and I do parli now, but I have no effing clue what a value criterion is, nor do I have any interest in knowing what it means in the future. I know theory norms are completely different in these events, but I don't know exactly in what ways, so run it at your own risk. Your best bet is to keep things simple, and while nothing you run will get you dropped, I can only evaluate rounds to the best of my ability. Skim my parli paradigm to get a sense of how I judge. If you have any questions please ask them before the round.
I've never competed, judged, or even watched a congress round. LCQ will be my first experience and I don't really know what to put here. Think of me as a tech from other events, I don't really care if you speak pretty or anything. I feel like if you're funny I would probably like you? Bear with me, and if you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.
Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for two years. I am a scientist by training but lead and work with attorneys.
Eloquent, logical, well-supported arguments will impress me. Speaking at a sprint and using techy debate tricks will not.
I appreciate debates that address the entire topic, approached from a global perspective. I prefer evidence-based arguments with solid analysis over emotional appeals or exaggerated hypotheses.
Please make debate accessible to me, other judges and your opponents by speaking clearly and concisely. I am unlikely to vote in favor of kritiks.
I hope you will have fun and approach debate as if you are in a real-life situation where something important is at stake, and you are doing your best to convince others to join you.
I'm a student at UC Berkeley who competed in parliamentary debate in high school. I placed 7th in California my senior year, and made it to quarterfinals at the TOC. Ranked 20th nationally per NPDL rankings.
I'm attaching some general preferences below, but in general I'm looking for teams that are interested in having a genuinely educational, interesting debate round- I don't like things getting caught up too much on technicalities. Remember to have fun, take deep breathes, and no matter what happens know that you're still an amazing debater and you've got this.
- POIs are fine, but calling them excessively to throw off your opponent will lose you speaker points.
- Weigh impacts clearly in rebuttal speeches. I won't weigh your case for you, so even if you have stronger impacts on my flow after constructive speeches, you won't win unless you take the time to tell me why.
- If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread please give it to me, but be warned that I do flow, and will only be judging you off of what I can HEAR.
- The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent.
- Evidence is great, but until you can link it to your case and show me WHY its relevant to your contention, it won't matter. Evidence is there to support your claims. Don't give me an entire speech spouting statistics without showing me their relevance.
- Don't ignore the main points of clash in the debate. In final speeches, I want to hear every main point of clash encountered and why you deserve to win it. Don't focus on one point they conceded and try to win the round off of just that. Focus on the debate at large and how it went.
Good luck to all competitors!
Stop spreading plz :) It more important that I understand your stream of thought, than how fast you can speak. I am a volunteer parent judge with no debate experience.
Please note that I am a lay judge and English is not my first language. Please do not rush and speak clearly so that I can understand you.
I view logic as the most important factor for my decision. Please provide clear reasoning as to why your argument makes sense and is better than that of your opponents.
I also highly value the evidence you support during the round. Please give credible evidence and citing the evidence will help as well when I try to determine if the evidence is credible.
Lastly, please have a professional tone and attitude while speaking.
I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. Tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and don't care about delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. email@example.com.
Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.
CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat. Slow down a little on analytics not in the doc though. Also, while I am fine with tricks and spikes, I think you should put them in the doc for the sake of accessibility.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have.
TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event.
TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. Also, I love good vagueness shells but I am tired of the generic vagueness shell that cites the rules and doesn't say how specific the aff needs to be - if you run vagueness, give me a brightline.
TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways
CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.
SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I mostly follow Lila Lavender's position on speed theory, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove objectively that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory
THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.
I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against an RVI if you win it on the flow. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another.
I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.
Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.
COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.
IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).
KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.
IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I understand why people read these arguments, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity or lived experience, I will be more willing to vote on theory. The only way I know how to evaluate the debate is the flow of what happens in round, and I have trouble evaluating frameworks that ask me to look at something other than the flow.
REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.
PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I do not mind voting for them if you win them.
SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group.
If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.
If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.
I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.
PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:
I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.
Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.
I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech
I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.
I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.
I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.
Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".
I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.
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.
SPEECH: For limited prep events, or any other event featuring student writing, I judge mainly on content, so long as the speaker is clear and has no distracting physical habits. Speaking style does come into play when breaking ties or in very tough rounds.
For more performative speech events, I lean a bit more toward performance/style, but I still consider the cutting of your piece to be an essential part of the competition. Pieces with cuts that are illogical or confusing often will be ranked lower for me. I also consider the narrative shape of a performance; I look for a traditional dramatic arc with a clear situation, an emotional climax, and falling action (if not clear resolution).
I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.
I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.
I am a parent judge. I will flow the rounds and would appreciate clear, concise speech that is at a reasonable pace. If you spread I will not be able to follow you. If I can’t follow you or understand what you are trying to say, I can’t vote for you. I also appreciate courtesy. I expect you to follow the rules, argue well and provide quality versus quantity. Please try to make eye contact with me and not speak directly into your paper.
I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy unless it is inherently relevant to the resolution. Please call me "judge" or "ma'am" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not attempt to call me by my first name.
I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.
Public Forum: I am a speech coach and this should be important to you. Rhetoric > Evidence Dumping, but I will be flowing and taking notes. However, it would be impossible for me to vote for you, even if you win every argument on the "flow," if you are an incoherent speaker, so make sure to speak slow and clearly. I'm cool with paraphrasing; in fact, I encourage it. You should probably treat me like how you would treat a standard flay, or even a lay judge taking decent flows. No cussing please. Content-wise, Trump good arguments are probably not the best to run on me. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework.
Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans.
-Basic Paradigm: speaking skills > policymaker >stock issues
-Highly value: cx, poise, don't interrupt people, eloquent delivery
-Less Experienced with: Theory, conditional neg positions, Kritiks
Parliamentary: I honestly don't care as much about your evidence. The important thing is that your contentions be centered around common knowledge and that they are cleverly argued. Logic > evidence dumping.
LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping.
Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator"
Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.
Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times
Congress: proper parliamentary procedure is encouraged, don't disagree with the PO, I will notice if a particular school/team is prioritizing their own or ignoring recency
I am a lay judge, so please try to do the following things!
- Make sure to speak slowly and explain terms as thoroughly as possible (please avoid debate or even topic-specific jargon unless very clearly defined in the 1st speech.) Remember, if I can't understand you, then that makes the debate harder to judge!
- Make speeches easy to follow: signposting, using road maps, clear speaking, and making flowing simpler are all advisable.
- Be objective with the information you provide, but there is room for creativity in how you present it.
- Be respectful and reasonable. Discrimination/unfairness in a round will not be tolerated. Debate is a safe space for discussion; it must be maintained.
- Avoid theory and K arguments. I have no experience with these kinds of debates, so it will be beneficial to stick to case level. However, if you can simply prove a reasonable abuse in a round, only then is theory acceptable.
- Have fun and learn! Debate is here to teach so many things, and enjoying the round brings you closer to winning it.
I served in the Marine Corp and while being stationed at MCBH (Hawaii) I have been deployed to the Far East and experienced multiple cultures. After getting out of the Military I attended Ohlone College and transferred to UC Berkeley. I found a passion taking a Public Speaking/Debate class and love the spoken language.
There is Ryan Guy who has summarized some great guidelines below that I would like to follow.
I really enjoy good clash in the round. I like it when debaters directly engage with each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.
Organization is very important to me. Please road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around if necessary but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Unique tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.
I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.
Critiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run critical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round. I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and I'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast critic.
I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.
Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you cant do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear ...please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.
I value clear speaking and good speaking style - don't talk too fast, good speaking style is essential.
Make sure you have good content with with both evidence and reasoning. When it comes to these two elements, reasoning is more important. However, make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.
Make sure to impact out your contentions, and signpost clearly throughout your speeches.
Please respect everyone in the round. Be polite to your teammate and your opponents - I will dock speaker points if I observe someone being unnecessarily rude.
If you choose to run a counterplan, make sure that you explain why it's a better solution and link it to your points.
Bio: I am a graduate from and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and I'm currently Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University
TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.
Speed: Speed seems to be fine. Idk about online so depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.
Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.
K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. It forces me to be more critical in my evaluations. I believe that people that resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.
CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal isn’t to get permed right?
Condo: I really don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.
Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy
Hi! I'm Danielle and I'm a current junior at the University of California, Berkeley. I competed in Speech and Debate for four years during high school, with my first year being in PF and the remaining three years being in speech. My main event was OO, but I also competed in Extemp, INFO, and Impromptu. I do not have much experience in Interp, but I do have tons of experienced in prepared platform events.
OO/Info- The most important thing I am looking for is just the natural connection you have with your topic. Yes, all the tactical parts of the performance are super important, but I want you to deliver your speech in a way that is authentic to YOURSELF. I look forward to hearing all your stories!
Extemp- I do tend the base off the three-part answer model, but what I am really looking for is a well crafted argument. I want you to be able to come into the round and teach me about the topic, and convince me in why I should care about it. Evidence is KEY and citing evidence is crucial.
PF- I don't like spreading, but it will not be a make or break to speaks. However, if I can't understand what you are saying, you will get voted down. Both sides need to give clear voters in summary and final focus. I won't flow cross, but if something crucial happens during cross it will be considered. Most importantly, tell me WHY I should vote for you. What makes your case better than your opponents? Again, clear voters are key.
- I am a parent judge. I only judge slow debates and I do flow. I judge using a holistic approach. Please be clear and concise. Also, be respectful and civil toward your opponents.
Hey yall!! I'm lila!!
Email Chain: For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain, email is [ask me before the round starts]. If you have any questions or revolutionary criticisms of my paradigm, I would love for you to email me as well!! ^^ To keep my paradigm as short as possible, I have also omitted my thoughts on how I evaluate specific positions (i.e Ks, theory, ADV/DAs, etc). So if you have any questions about that, feel free to email me or find me before prep/the round/etc!!
Quick Pref Sheet:
1 - K
2/3 - LARP
3/4 - Theory (I am good at evaluating theory and went for it all the time when I was competing, vacuous debate just makes me mad).
4/5 - Phil
10 - Tricks (ill just never vote on this).
Paradigm - Short:
- Tech > truth.
- Go as fast as you want, i'll be able to flow it.
- I judge every debate format in the same way: on the flow and based on (in one way or another) which team or debater wins offense that outweighs their opponents.
- I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, imperialist war good, fascism good, bourgeois (like US) nationalism, normalizing Israel or Zionism, US white fascist policing good, etc.
- Barring the above, read whatever you want and i'll vote on it if you win it!!
Paradigm - Long:
Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I have realized as a result of this, I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when i'm judging - as thats both impossible and opportunism. If you have had me as a judge before, this explicit decision of mine does not change how you understand I evaluate rounds, with one specific exception: I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. Meaning, arguments/positions which defend the bourgeoisie's class dictatorship (monopoly capitalism and thus imperialism), from a right-wing political form. I.e., the politics, ideology, and practice of the right-wing of the bourgeoisie.
Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc. In the context of a debate round, by default this will function through 'drop the argument.' I.e., if you read an advantage or DA that represents the right-wing of the bourgeoisie, I won't evaluate that advantage or DA. If your whole 1AC or 1NC strategy is rightest capitalist-imperialist in nature, I won't evaluate your whole 1AC or 1NC. This only becomes 'drop the debater' if you violently and egregiously defend counterrevolution.
For example, if the arc of your argument is about how Afghanistan can never be self-reliant and is inherently 'full of terrorists' (thus requiring US imperialist rule), you will lose regardless of what happens on the flow. The brightline for what I described above is liberalism. Or in other words, I will still evaluate 'soft left' positions/arguments - those which represent the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. To be clear, this is not because liberalism is any less counterrevolutionary or less of a weapon of monopoly capitalism than rightism is. Nor is this the modern revisionist nonsense which posits that there is a 'peaceful' wing of the bourgeoisie and thus imperialism.
Rather, it's because it's a practical necessity given debate's class basis. In one way or another, given debate's bourgeois class basis and function as imperialist propaganda, the vast majority of 1ACs/1NCs are liberal in some form; this includes the vast majority of Ks. Thus, if I were to extend this paradigm to correctly also cease evaluating liberal arguments/positions, it would mean either it would be impossible for me to evaluate 99% of rounds or there would be a even higher chance of me getting struck out of the pool. Which in the practical sense is not a decision I can make, because as a result of US monopoly capitalist exploitation, I rely in-part on judging to eat and survive bourgeois class warfare otherwise.
So within that context, as much as I can, I will use my power as a judge to propagate the Maoist line and remove as much of the most explicit reactionary arguments/positions as possible. As Aly put it, "some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary." I know that there are going to some individuals who are greatly upset by this paradigm. For the vast majority of you, thats fine, the class antagonism is clear. For the rest of you, whose concerns may be genuine, consider the following.
Every single judge exerts a paradigm that, to differing degrees, will not evaluate particular arguments/positions. Most judges do not explicitly state or justify what that entails, and many judges do explicitly as well - in both positive and negative ways. For example, many judges (correctly) will not vote for openly racist/cissexist/misogynistic/nationally oppressive arguments; it goes without saying, but I won't ever vote for and will drop you for these arguments as well. Or in another way, (incorrectly) debate conservatives refuse to vote for Ks all the time.
The only reason this specific paradigm will seem especially concerning, is because of the bourgeois class nature of debate and thus its' ideological function in service of imperialism. One which is inherently in contradiction to proletarian revolution and human emancipation, and thus antagonistic to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This is demonstrated well by the contradiction that most judges correctly will vote down debaters for being openly racist, yet will vote for positions which endorse the butchering of colonized and nationally oppressed People by US imperialist wars; something ive been guilty of in the past. As always, if you have any questions or good-faith criticisms of anything I mentioned within my paradigm, please don't hesitate to email me - I will always get back to you as soon as I can!! :))
Proletarians of all countries, unite!!
- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/ Note: don't use this as an opportunistic excuse to not defend or have a line on New Afrikan national liberation, as thats gross and chauvinist.
- I am a transgender woman who has a deeper voice, please take that into account. It's exhausting to see judges and debaters who are unable to resolve this contradiction, either attribute my RFD to men on the panel, or treat me like a man as a result of my voice.
- Cap debaters need to stop reading modern revisionism or 'left' opportunism guising itself as 'Marxism,' and truly grasp what Marxism is. This is a good place to start study wise: https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Collected-Works-of-The-Communist-Party-of-Peru-Volume-2-1988-1990.pdf
- It's a real shame that as a result of bourgeois feminism, be that white feminism or cissexist feminism, debaters have abandoned advancing the necessity of women's liberation. The proletarian line on feminism needs to be brought to debate, here is a good place to start study wise: https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/S02-Philosophical-Trends-in-the-Feminist-Movement-9th-Printing.pdf
- For Parli Only - I will NEVER vote for an argument that says "reading Ks is only for rich schools and only rich debaters read Ks." There is a reason why this argument is read 99% of the time by schools and debaters flush with capital, it's because it's a bourgeois lie and distortion of debate history. Particularly one which, among many things, enables and was enabled by white chauvinism in debate. There is a good chance I will drop you for making this argument as well, so either don't read it in front of me or better yet strike me.
- While their are certainly contexts in which trigger warnings are legitimately necessary, i.e in graphic descriptions or displays of counterrevolutionary violence (sexual or otherwise), there are also ways in which trigger warnings are weaponized by bourgeois politics for counterrevolution. I.e., how it's used to obscure or mystify ongoing exploitation and thus oppression, or to protect bourgeois sensibilities. Merely discussing the existence of counterrevolutionary violence DOES NOT require a trigger warning, that is absurd and nothing but liberalism. If this occurs in a round that I am judging you in, I am very receptive to revolutionary criticisms of this liberalism. As Black Like Mao puts it "it is important to steel oneself because real life has no trigger warnings. This is not a call to willfully subject oneself to a constant barrage of horrors, because that is a recipe for depression and all kinds of other nasties, but a reminder that this stuff is happening and if you happen to be in the midst of one of these incidents there is no running away or covering one’s eyes."
- Given events that happened during the 2022 Stephen Stewart finals, I now have a very specific threshold for voting on Speed Bad theory. That threshold being that unless you have disclosed to your opponents that you have an audio-processing disability and/or show me your flows (your lack of ability to flow the arguments being spread), I will not vote on Speed Bad theory. The way this will function on the technical level is that if that threshold is not met, or another threshold which objectively not subjectively proves engagement was not possible (because of speed), I will grant the other team a we-meet on the interp - regardless of what happens on the flow. To be clear, this is not because I don't think that there are legitimate justifications of Speed Bad theory or that teams don't abuse speed in reactionary ways, there are and they do. But rather, it's because this interp has and continues to be used in an actively counterrevolutionary way. I.e., to advance monopoly capitalist and thus imperialist propaganda, and justify blatant male chauvinist harassment. This does not apply to novices.
A grad of James Logan HS, I competed in various platform speaking events, Impromptu, along with LD and Congressional debates.
Expos/Informative, OO, OA, Extemp, Imp, (interps:) OPP, DI, HI, OI, DUO
LD, Parli, Congress
(Less so PuFo and Policy)
I am unfamiliar with theory...weigh impacts.
GGSA IEs, Debate
I do try to flow and pay attention to the strength and scope of your arguments.
If you want to try K, I'd be happy to evaluate but please don't speak too fast - I am not very good at listening to spreading.
I am a lay judge, so I will decide based on my understanding of your arguments. If you use jargon, please explain. Explain your case clearly; your warrants should include what it means and what the impacts are. If I cannot understand you (spreading), I will be not be able give you credit for your arguments. Please be respectful, speak clearly, number your arguments, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!
I prefer and value clear and elaborate speaking with good content instead of rushing and squeezing in information into the time. Don't speak too fast! I value speaking style. Make sure that your content is good and logical instead of packing statistics and spreading in your speech. Have enough evidence to back up your claims but reasoning and logically explaining your case is more important. Impact out and link through all of your contentions to show the value of your side. Remember to weigh and clearly show how you win over the other team on specific points. Signpost throughout your speech and remain organized with your points, refutes, and counterarguments. Do not be abusive and make sure your content is not hateful. Please respect everyone in the debate including your opponents and your teammate. In the end no matter the loss or win, have something to take away from the debate as it is essentially a learning opportunity and have fun!
I appreciate speaking slowly and clearly laying out the points. During rebuttal be sure to signpost (e.g. "On their second contention/C2 about ___"). Good luck.
Debating: St. Vincent de Paul ‘16, UC Berkeley '20
Coaching: South Eugene 16-18, Analy 22-Present
I did policy debate for 6 years. I went to the TOC 3 times. I made silly K args about death, baudrillard, bifo, and queerness. I then coached a policy team. Then I left debate for 4 years. Now I coach a parli team. The end.
I judge like a computer. I give all arguments equal weight regardless of how “objectively” bad they are. I am the best judge you could have for cheap args and the worst judge you could have for guilting me into voting for you. Despite being a K debater, my judging style is significantly better for a tech-heavy team. I also love framework.
Put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR for Berkeley LD:
- I don’t care what arguments you make, whether they are policy/K/weird/bland/bad/abusive. I also don’t care how persuasive you sound. I only care about the arguments made in the round.
- I have no LD experience so I have no opinions on the norms regarding theory args. Treat me like a robot. I can follow any arg you make, but don’t assume I know anything about how LD topicality & theory debates are normally judged. I don’t know what’s normal, so you need to provide an argument for everything.
- I learned what the topic was last night so I won’t know any acronyms or terms of art.
- Any amount of speed is fine, but I will have no shame in failing to flow arguments which were said unclearly. I will usually not be following on the doc so taglines need to be clear. Theory args also need to be significantly slower.
- I don’t care about etiquette. Have fun and debate well.
Paradigm For Parliamentary Debate
I am the head coach of a Parli team, but I have very little Parli experience. I debated at one tournament in high school and have maybe judged one tournament. Therefore, I have very few in-depth opinions. Here's all I can think to say:
- I judge exclusively by the flow. You do not have to be persuasive, you just have to win the line-by-line.
- Your speech time ends when the timer goes off. I do not give any "grace period". You can keep talking all you want, but I stop flowing when the timer beeps.
- Points of Order are nice, but are not necessary for me to disregard new arguments.
- I have no predispositions on theory questions such as counterplans, conditionality, and whether the resolution is a rule or a mere recommendation.
- I will do my best to remain neutral on the question of which type of resolution the round is (fact, policy, value). However, I often find it impossible to judge the round according to the standard proposed by each team. When no team provides a coherent interpretation of the resolution, I may have to override the debaters and judge according to a paradigm which is consistent with the wording of the resolution. For example, I see no way to judge a resolution like "Democrats will win the Midterms" as anything but a fact round and I am not sure any amount of argumentation in round could make me change my mind.
Paradigm For Policy Debate
Update for 2017 Tournaments:
Aside from tinkering with some things that I had written in my philosophy prior, there are some words for each 'type' of team that (following Nate's majestic lead) I think would be good to start with.
'Policy' Teams Read This:
My academic interests and preferred positions to read in high school and college are very misleading when it comes to both how you should debate if you have me in the back of the room and how you should pref me.
I am not looking for you to engage in ivory tower philosophizing just because I like to. I am a cynical millennial who hates when people have opinions and tries too hard to not have emotional investment in arguments that I read or judge. I am probably way better for you when you are going for framework than you would think. I adore exclusion. I will vote neg on presumption due to the aff dropping subpoint E of your predictability block faster than Trump castrated the EPA. If you are aff against the K, I am sitting and waiting for that 2ar on 'Ks are unfair vote aff'.
For reference, my judging record contains more votes for the heg good K against an identity aff than it does on the death K. I would way rather you read a one advantage heg aff and impact turn interventions bad than have to sit through your pathetic "global warming hurts my disenfranchised grandma" policy aff that you think gives you an 'edge' against the K. It doesn't. If your coaches say it does, they are wrong and get a better coach.
Finally, surprise surprise, we postmodern goo-drips like judging policy v policy rounds too. Turns out that a fresh-out-the-oven cp that defaces the absurd cherry-picking that is the aff's solvency mechanism gets me just as excited as it would get anyone else. Just debate well please.
Kritikal Slime Read This:
Now's your chance. I try too hard to avoid being biased in round, so I do not care about how utterly insane the claims you make are. As far as I am concerned, the risk that death is a biological incident and the risk that it is a mere hop between quantum timelines is pretty much equal.
My previous statements about loving when policy teams win on 'Ks are unfair' or on 'heg is more important than your feelings' should only worry you if you are bad at debate. Its not as if I give these terrible arguments a lot of credence, I just am like every other judge on the planet and don't like when scholarship I spend my life acting like I know better than other people is read poorly. I won't whine and drop you if I think you interpreted Baudrillard incorrectly - I clearly have no jurisdiction as to what that cigarette canister was trying to say - but I also will not make up arguments for you just because you scream about the Matrix until you are red in the face.
ok now here's the judge philosophy that is actually a judge philosophy:
How I Evaluate Rounds
I try to stick to a pseudo-objective rubric for evaluating rounds in order to exclude intuition and individual preference. I will try to lay that out for you now because it is something I always wish I knew about whoever is judging me. If you don't agree with some of these presuppositions, give a reason why I should disavow them in round. This is also a running list so it may change throughout the year.
(admittedly, much of this will sound obvious, but it is nice to have a set of rules and a rubric so that we are all on the same page)
- I will begin with framework. If it is a policy vs policy round, I will skip this step. Otherwise, I will determine which styles of advocacy I get to evaluate. Usually this will merely be me determining if the aff gets to weigh the plan and if the neg gets a non-fiated advocacy, but it could also extend to questions such as; are floating piks legitimate?
- I then calcify what I think voting aff and voting neg signifies. Most of the time, voting aff means me determining that the plan/advocacy is a good idea, but this could change with more complicated/kritikal rounds.
- I will then make a list of every impact in the round.
- Next, I will attempt to figure out which impacts each team solves/causes. This is constituted by advantages the aff solves, case turns, internal link turns, straight turns, and all of that good stuff.
- Naturally, I will then weigh the impacts. This will be done by first determining what I am trying to maximize (usually it is subjective pleasure through body count). I will then look at other impact framing arguments such as Bostrom, Scheper-Hughes, and a v2l claim.
- This usually produces a winning team. After I have a preliminary vote, I will go through all of the arguments made by the 'losing' team to see if any of them complicate the initial decision that I have written down.
- I then submit the ballot and give the decision.
Here are a few more notes about how I view arguments:
- If I don't have it flowed, it is not an argument. I type very quickly and get down most every word you say so if I don't have it written down, I will not feel comfortable voting on it.
- I will usually weigh theoretical impacts before substantive ones. They tend to predetermine substance.
- If the affirmative reads a few advantages, and the neg never contests them (possibly because it is a K that attempts to exclude fiat), I will extend the aff for the affirmative even if the internal link scenario is not explained up through the 1ar. This means the 2ar must at least reference the fact that they have an extinction impact in the 2ar with some semblance of how they get there or I will consider the aff not going for their advantages.
- The above statement is true about the core advantages of the aff, not random cards the 1ac reads. If you read Zanotti in your framing contention, you do not get to wait until the 2ar to explain why it matters.
- Until an argument is made to the contrary, I think of voting for an advocacy as me signifying that that thing would be a good thing if done, not that the negative or affirmative has actually performed said advocacy.
- I will kick the CP for you if condo is never mentioned or won by the neg and I decide that the aff is a bad idea. This is something I am going to think about a lot but as of now, I will presume judge kick.
- Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the 1ar says reasonability on one T violation, and the 2nr goes for a different one, the 2ar can cross-apply it legitimately. However, this does assume that there was a reason why their c/i is reasonable in the 1ar.
You can have my flow
I always wished that it wasn't awkward to ask the judge for their flow, so this is me telling you that it is not awkward for you to ask me for mine. I think that reading someone's flow of your speech is incredibly educational and so I will happily send you a copy of my flow.
***DISCLAIMER*** by requesting my flow, you agree to release me of all liability regarding what is written on it. you're reading the train of thought of an exhausted college student who is undoubtedly thinking more about where he can find an energy drink than how to phrase his transcription of your speech; that can be a spooky thing to read
- I like K’s. I read the most untopical aff you could think of. I literally advocate doing nothing. I go for wipeout in front of parent judges and Schopenhauer with real judges. Baudrillard is my best friend. In summary, if you read a K aff or a K on the neg, I will be happy, as long as you don’t majorly suck at it.
- However, this does not mean that I hate policy style arguments. I go for framework religiously, I love a good politics/case debate and I will totally vote for heg is good and the most ethical system. Don’t read a K you do not know in front of me if you want to win the round. I will enjoy it, but I will give you bad speaks and drop you.
- I will vote for anything. To quote Calum Matheson “If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose.”
Long Version with all the Juicy Details
Kritiks – I go for them in every 2nr. It is my favorite thing and I like when people read them. I am well versed in the majority of kritikal literature. I am most comfortable with Bifo, Bifo, Bifo, Bifo, Baudrillard, Baudrillard, Baudrillard, Marxism, Deleuze, Queerness, Bataille, Nietzsche, Security, Ableism, Fem, and probably other ones I can’t remember right now. You can read any kritik in front of me. For the aff in this case, pull them into your playing field. You have an affirmative, try not to forget that. While they are spewing out whatever Baudrillard wrote after May 1968, it turns out that they often forget to say why your aff is a bad idea. I am very convinced by aff contextualizing themselves out of the generic K goo the neg read. Also, and this is true for both sides, do not underestimate the framework debate. If you are on the neg and reading some K and the aff doesn't read strong evidence for why fiat is good, I expect you to go for they do not get to weigh their advantages. If you are on the aff and the neg skimpily answers your bomb Mitchell card from "after Mitchell changed his mind", capitalize that and go for they don't get their alt. I will easily vote for either of these claims.
Framework – It’s an argument (probably my favorite argument). It wins some rounds (it should win more). I answer it every aff round and go for it against pretty much every K aff on the neg. Even though I have spent all of my years in high school learning why framework is wrong, I truly believe that the answers teams read to framework are utterly horrible, not to mention I spent a while over summer learning framework from Wimsatt, so I am in love with fascism now. I will easily vote neg on framework; I know what it means to lose a framework debate. However, I do not think that anything is a jurisdictional voting issue and if you say that I may determine that it is out of my jurisdiction as a judge to vote for you. Also, fairness is not an inherent good. Impact it out or you will lose rounds.
Kritikal Affs – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI
Topicality (Not Framework) – Sure, I don’t have any weird pet peeves here.
Disads – Read them, win on them. I am very pleased with case specific disads that turn the aff on a deeper level than "econ collapse turns warming".
Counterplans – I have no predispositions against any of them. I will vote for the shiftiest illegit counterplan you can think of or a very legit advantage CP. Delay CPs and “The president should sign the bill with a blue pen instead of black pen” CPs are probably abusive but I will vote for it if you win it. There is such a thing as zero percent risk of a net benefit, but only if the affirmative wins that the net benefit is missing a piece - I do believe zero risk is a thing, but it will hardly ever come up in a round
Theory – I LOVE THEORY. I don't think I have any relevant opinions when it comes to theory debates. I try to stay un-opinionated, so I will evaluate ASPEC just as objectively as I would condo. If you are reading a K aff, you should make sure that your theory arguments are consistent with the thesis of your aff. I say clash is bad on the aff, so I do not read condo; you should do the same thing. If you are neg and the aff does that, utilize it to your advantage.
Evidence vs Arguments – I believe that evidence exists for the sole purpose of making an argument. Very often, I could care less about whether or not you read a card on an argument. Now, to be fair, this is likely true because I spend the most of my time in kritikal debates in which statistics, uniqueness and quals and such are not an issue. So yes, if it is a study, or a statistical claim about the squo, or something you need an expert to say, then read evidence. However, what I will not do is call for your evidence (especially in a K round), then read it to see if the author was smart enough to make the argument you didn’t make in round. Debate should not be about how good your coaches are at cutting cards, but how good you are at arguing. Due to this, I may not call for many cards after the round. If I do, I might just be curious or stealing your cites.
Conceded Arguments – I will vote for any cheap shot you want to go for if you can make it impacted out. Severance bad probably isn't a voter if they don't extend the perm, but if they don't say that and you gave a reason it'd be a voter in the block, go for it. However, this does not mean I am an easy sell on conceded claims. I will not feel bad voting against you if your entire 2ar strat was based on a claim that they conceded. If you do not have a warrant for it, I will ignore it, even if the other team fails to answer it. This is especially true with kritikal arguments. If you go for "state engagement is impossible because people are socially dead" but fail to tell me why they are socially dead, you will lose.
Case – Any good neg strategy includes a good amount of time spent on case. This is true no matter what style of round it is. I will be very pleased if you do not let the aff get away with the shifty and illogical claims that they are making at the top of every case overview. It turns out that much of what aff teams say they can solve (especially with K debates), they cannot actually solve. I always love seeing a strong 2nc on a K then a 1nr that rips through case. This will heavily boost your speaker points and help you out of the aff pulling a fast one on you.
Stuff I Have Been Told I am Weird About
I have compiled a list of thoughts I have about debate that seem to be in the minority (this will grow as I start actually judging) -
1. Performative Contradictions are only abusive if the negative asserts two opposing truth claims neither of which did the affirmative explicitly defend. This standard usually means it is more strategic to just cross-apply one of their claims to take out the other then spend your time no-linking the first position. To give an example, I do not think that it is abusive for a team to read a death reps K and then read a disad that has death impacts if your affirmative also had death impacts. I just can't conceive of how that could be abusive. There is no functional distinction between '1nc - Death K, DA, Case' and '1nc - Disease Reps K, DA, Case' in terms of abusing the affirmative. However, reading the cap K and then a DA that says the aff hurts cap and cap is good against an aff that is about emission reduction and doesn't mention capitalism is obviously abusive. The negative has made two competing truth claims, neither of which did the affirmative defend. HOWEVER, this rant is just my thoughts, and can be used by either team in the round but it does not mean that I won't vote for perf con if the neg reads a Death K and an extinction-level DA, I'll still evaluate it like any other round.
2. Framework Doesn't Need an External Impact. If the negative wins that framework solves the aff better than the aff (either by winning a spill-up claim the aff didn't claim or by winning case defense), then I vote neg. Framework is a counterplan, if there is no perm and it solves the aff better, vote neg. HOWEVER, this can only work in very particular situations when the neg is definitively winning strong case defense and there is no push against 'fw solves the aff' and no offense vs framework. Hopefully the aff doesn't let this situation happen.
3. I will vote for a nihilism (K?). I think the logic of 1% risk doesn't make sense if the neg properly deploys the thesis of nihilism. I know no one will go for it and if they do its because they have nothing else to say so the round will be a mess, I just really wanna vote on that. The K was in parenthesis because I'm not sure it counts as a K, more a procedural.
4. No Precedent Setting is a good argument against framework. The claim that voting neg doesn't stop people from reading K affs is probs true and I think can be coupled with some in-round offense to make a pretty clean aff ballot. I used to go for this arg but judges seemed to hate it so I stopped, but if you have me in the back, plez go for it.
Speaker Points – (I inflate/curve points depending upon the difficulty of the tournament)
- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated
- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you
- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award
- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break
- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches
- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors
- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors
- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team
- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6
- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are
- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive
- Death is probably good
Just a few things:
- I appreciate sign-posting and off-time roadmaps
- Please be kind to each other and use POIs selectively
Hi, my name is Rebecca and my pronouns are she/her. I would appreciate the following:
1. Talk slowly and clearly
2. Signpost throughout every speech
3. Off-time roadmaps
4. Avoid jargon (permutations, kritik, and theory)
5. A few good arguments delivered slowly rather than multiple weak arguments that are delivered too quickly
6. Be kind to each other
I look forwarding to learning with you.
Please make sure that your arguments have logical consistency and that your presentation has integrity.
Also, presentation skills play a large part of my evaluation.
Be logical. Be thorough. Be respectful.
Hello my name is Anwesh Mohanty
I am a parent judge, who prefers clarity and enthusiasm over excessive speed and innuendo.
Please make your arguments very clear, concise, and remember I am not as well versed in debate/experienced as many of you are so please make an extra effort to explain everything!
Please add my email Anwesh.email@example.com Best of luck to all competitors! :)
I prefer speakers go not too fast and carefully establish their logical framework, rather than glossing over a list of items. If I cannot understand, the contents do not matter. Once I understand, I vote for both arguments and speaking.
Also I do not have a lot of judging experience, as of Nov 14, 2021.
I expect the members to be respectful to each other regardless of their opinion and disagreement on the given topic. Presenting and backing up your discussion with data driven content is preferable. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Make eye contact and stay on topic
I have judged at many middle school tournaments and high school tournaments including JV and Varsity but explain your contentions.
Do not spread. If you do, I will most likely stop writing on my paper and give you an auto-loss.
I like to evaluate on your method of weighing and your ability to provide reasonable arguments with support. Lots of debaters use net benefits, but if you want to use something different go ahead! Just make sure arguments actually tie to it.
Otherwise, have fun!
This is my first time judging.
I am a flow heavy judge, so organized debate is good debate for me. Clash in arguments is a priority for me, and I would prefer you go in order of the flow, or at least let me know where you are in it. I want to give you your best chances, so don't leave it up to me where to put your arguments.
I do not flow cross, but I will evaluate it if you bring it up in your speeches.
Tech v. Truth
I lean more toward tech. If you don't say it, it doesn't exist for me in round. That being said, if it is a blatant lie, it will not be accepted. If it is completely analytical, I will weigh it less than arguments supported by in-round evidence. If they take the time to give me evidence as to why I should believe it, I expect the same level of consideration when people tell me why I shouldn't.
Again, I do not flow cross. It is up to you to bring it up in your speeches.
I also appreciate assertiveness in cross (you don't have to let your opponents walk all over you), but it is possible to be assertive without being aggressive. Will I make my decision based on cross? No. But I will be sure to include it in my RFD, and I will also take when you say your opponent didn't answer with a grain of salt if you don't let your opponent give an answer at all.
I am very open to K debate. Explain your framework to me and do significant work linking your Kritik to thespecific resolution. The better you are with this, the less likely I am to buy arguments talking about how "the same K's are rehashed no matter the resolution"
K v. Policy/Topical
K Teams: I need significant work done on framework. You know a policy-oriented team is going to have framework. Tell me why I should prefer yours.
Policy/Topical: If you give me framework, make sure you have answers to how the specific K interacts with the framework. I would pay extra attention to the role of the ballot. Interact with the K; don't completely rely on your framework to solve everything for you.
K v. K
I need to know how your K's intersect and interact with each other. I don't just want to hear "but mine is better". I want to hear how each part affects systemic issues addressed by the other side. I will have a hard time with teams that read independent K's, don't do the legwork on clash, and just end up making parallel arguments that I as a judge have to weigh alone.
I always appreciate when debaters frame the round for me. Of course, I will evaluate my decision for the round independently, but I'm much more swayed when you tell me WHY you won. Which arguments are your strongest? Which ones can you admit that you may be behind on, but aren't going to lose you the round because [insert explanation]
HATE SPEECH WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN ROUND, ESPECIALLY IF DIRECTED TOWARD YOUR FELLOW DEBATERS. At best, you can expect a CONSIDERABLE loss in speaker points. At worse, I will be stopping the round and contacting your coach.
I did speech in high school, but debate in college. I was a policy debater for Fresno State for two years, then another year at Fresno City College. I am now a coach for Fresno City College's Debate team and Clovis North's Forensics Team.
Message to debaters:
As long as my paradigm is, what I really want is for you to have a good time and enjoy what you're doing. I'm very specific on here to give you all the best chance and be very clear so you're not stressing out, wondering in round. As much as debate is an amazingly educational and useful activity for your future, it is also something that should be fun and community building.
I have the same standards for interp events as I do for original.
When you speak, I try to look at everything, from the structure of your content to the actual presentation. I am a firm believer that what you choose to include in your speech has as much sway as your actual presentation. This goes for interp events as much as original; while you don't have the same freedom, you are able to choose what you include and where it is cut, and that has a huge bearing on the message you get across.
In terms of content, I'm looking for something that has impact. Whether you are first, last, or in between, I want to remember your speech after the round has finished. I'm looking for a cohesive structure of course, and I'm looking to see if everything you include does something to forward the point or the message. Think of Chekhov's Gun: “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there.”
As for presentation, I want your performance to make me feel as much as the content is asking me to. If you are doing an interp, it's not enough to tell me that someone has died; I want to see it in your movement. In my opinion, every movement should be intentional, whether it's interp, persuasive speaking, or anything in between.
Also, don't be afraid of silence! I'm looking for what you don't say as much as what you say out loud!
But overall, I really want you to have fun and to deliver a speech that you've worked hard on. You deserve to be proud of yourself for all the work you put in throughout the year. Let this be the moment it pays off.
I wish you all the best!
TL;DR: Do whatever you would do with any other lay judge
No theory; no kritiks; please speak slowly; have clear warrants and relevant examples
Tagteaming allowed, but please repeat clearly what your partner says
Parli: I'm a semi-novice judge; I've judged at 4 tournaments. I'm a research manager in my job which means I frequently develop insights with rationales & evidence and I need to prove/disprove hypotheses. I am most interested in your logic and persuasion (vs facts and statistics). I'm not a "technical judge." Please keep your pace no faster than medium so I can fully comprehend your well constructed arguments. Thanks!
Extemp: I've judged one tournament with extemp rounds. I look for clear structure, elements that make your points relatable for "regular people" like me, evidence that links well to your claims and ability to pace well to get your full structure in during the time given.
Speech:I have more experience with Parli and less with Speech but I lean on my background in theater and improv to guide some of my observations. I got a minor in theater in college, I studied improv in Chicago and performed for 11 years. In interpretation events (e.g. POI, DI), I'm looking for cohesive themes that weave together your sources and ideas into a strong POV. I pay attention to thoughtful, appropriate movement that enhances your scenes. I'm looking for distinct characters with clear personalities conveyed through line delivery, vocal and facial expression, varying intensity. I appreciate the hard work it takes to be vulnerable and genuine. In Extemp, I'm looking for a well organized, logical plan showing your clear POV on how you are approaching the topic. I hope to see who you are shine through your analysis and delivery.
I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley.
Add me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tech > truth but arguments need warrants.
I see debate as a strategic game which means I'll evaluate all arguments. This means you should go for arguments you'd be afraid to break in front of other judges and I'll reward you with speaker points.
Debate is a game (the implication of this is up for debate)
Not super convinced with fairness as an impact, prefer clash/skills.
If going for the counter interp, explain what your model looks like. Very convinced by neg push back about what teams would do if they had an unlimited topic.
Think it's more strategic to go for the impact turn.
I probably vote more for the K but believe in T impacts more -- K 2ARs tend to have a better idea of offense and bigger picture view of the debate whereas 2NRs sound generic.
Read the K a lot in high school. Please don't spread jargon at me and explain your theory of power.
Will decide the FW debate one way or another and will decide the rest of the debate from there.
Prefer debates where the link is to the plan and the K goes for turns case and the alt.
I like 2NCs that sound like a history lesson and use those empirics to show how if the plan did get implemented, the harms that might happen.
I err neg on most theory.
I'm willing to kick the counter plan for you if you say that the counter plan is conditional.
Think evidence quality matters a lot. Favorable to precision and predictability rather than debatability.
The topic is huge and have not seen any convincing T interps that limit the scope of affirmatives.
Not super comfortable evaluating techy T rounds, be clearer in the rebuttals about impacts.
Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T.
I like creative arguments. Read arguments you wouldn't normally read in front of a different judge. Tech over truth which means that I'll evaluate from the flow.
Prep ends when you stop typing. Don't count sending the doc as prep
Ethics challenges will be handled with regards to that specific tournament. If you want to stop a round then please follow the rules on how to do so. If you want to debate it out, then feel free but know that then it comes down to who did the better debating instead of who is right.
I won't auto vote against death good, people who read extinction impacts should be prepared to defend them. I draw the line at arguing that specific people should die (i.e. debaters in the room) and I will auto-vote against any argument along that line.
"X evidence is old" is meaningless unless you prove why that matters.
Extra .1 speaks if you make fun of a current cal debater or a former/current HRS debater in your speech
I'm a blank slate that did 4 years speech & debate in high school and 2 years after. I'll allow spread debate if all participants of the debate AND all members of the judges panel agree to it. If you think you can pull an incredible off case kritique you (and yo partner) better develop it and bring it all the way home. Don't just spread the debate out, remember to bring it back in.
I look forward to volunteering as a debate judge for the first time. I enjoy good articulation, and look for well informed, logically sound arguments on either side of a motion. Ability to articulate an opponents point of view is not just a debate skill -- I believe it is a fundamental intellectual skill, and the foundations of a thinking society.
As part of my professional career I delve into statistics -- so I watch out for common gotchas in statistical arguments.
I expect my judging assignments to be wonderful learning opportunities about topics of relevance, and about how you all think about them.
Please be respectful to each other. Good luck to all competitors, have fun, don't take a W or L too seriously.
For debate rounds:
Please do not spread. Don't run a K on neg or aff. I am fine with any other arguments but make them reasonable and explain them well enough so I do not need to have background information on them. Don't mumble and be coherent.
-Parent judge. Both of my children did LD debate so I have over 4 years of experience in judging LD
-I love interesting and unique arguments and philosophy
-Clearly articulated arguments without spreading or rushing through are preferred
-I love literature as I am an author myself
-I don't really understand circuit but if you explain your argument properly I can follow along
-Strong speakers usually win my ballot over others
-Please don't be rude or aggressive to your opponents
-I try my best to flow speeches
-Passion for the topic goes a long way. Do debate because you enjoy it don't seem forced :/
-I'm not strict I will go along with what you say but just please be mature and kind towards your opponents and please don't interrupt especially in cx.
Happy Debating !
I am a lay judge.
In case if you wish to share your evidence cards, add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Constructive: Present the arguments clearly. Be Specific on the claim, warrant and impact. Provide valid evidence to support the argument.
Cross: Clarify the arguments clearly. Be respectful while questioning the opponents.
Rebuttal: Make sure you respond to all of your opponent's points they made in their constructive.
Summary: Respond to the rebuttal with more evidence.
Final Focus: Support your impacts well-defined and weigh the points made by each side.
When the time is over please stop your speech, in case if you are in the middle of a sentence you can complete them.
Be respectful with your prep time and opponent.
I’m a parent judge with some judging experience. I can follow most arguments, but nothing too technical, please.
Archbishop Mitty '19 | Claremont McKenna College '23
Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed for four years for Archbishop Mitty High School, where I was an Assistant Debate Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions.
My current affiliation is with the Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.
I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments last year as a hybrid so definitely still up to speed with debate tech.
In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org—and please cc your coach or parents on any communication to me!
Peninsula Update (last updated 01.21.23):
Most of the Parli and PF paradigms applies here even for LD. I don't flow cross-examination and value argumentative content more highly over presentational speaking style.
Parli Paradigm (last updated 12.18.22):
- *Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly*
- The debate space is yours. Run as slow or fast, lay or tech of a round as you want.
- If on a panel and you punt the lay judge, I won't intervene but I will be very sad.
I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.
I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it probably doesn't matter that much. Just don't throw out unwarranted claims and expect that to automatically be offense for you.
Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.
Collapsing is really important. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.
Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending turns made in the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.
- Probably a lower threshold than most for like phil and tricks 'n stuff.
- Default to net bens.
- If the 1AC doesn't define stuff but the 1NC does, I find myself pretty skeptical of 2ACs that try to backfill the framework layer.
- Down for all kinds of trichotomy arguments, theory interps are cool (i.e. feel free to run policy rounds on value/fact/metaphor topics if you want to justify it to me).
- Read and pass texts.
I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory.
Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. I do have a knack for flowery language and compelling one-liners but as a general rule: substance > style.
The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanation of warrants, collapsing, weighing, etc!
- Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate that speaks reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.
- I've stopped tracking how I award speaker points but I tend to award an average of 28.8 [HL = 30/27].
Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!
- I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.
Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.
When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.
I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.
I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.
I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.
- I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is frivolous as my judging career progresses but at the same time try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.
Points of Information/Order
PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.
Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.
- Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.
Ultimately, I don't want anyone to ever feel uncomfortable after a debate round so feel free to post round with me as much as you want (if time permits, although I won't change my vote after a round) because I am here to educate and help others in the activity that has given me everything :)
PF Paradigm (last updated 9.12.21)
Jack Howe Update:
- Feel free to read your cool, funky cases on this topic in front of me—I highly encourage it.
- Every argument requires a warrant for me to evaluate it—it's not enough to say "extend xyz author/statistic" without an accompanying warrant. Please extend warrants in both summary and final focus.
- Weighing is also SUPER IMPORTANT. Start doing this in summary. This also goes beyond just impacts—do link-level weighing and collapse pls.
- Okay, so apparently people have pedagogical issues with FYOs and SYOs (I am a Third Year Out) not caring about crossfire so while I maintain that I won't flow crossfire, you may generate offense off of concessions or contradictory answers made in CF ONLY if you explain and strategically utilize the indicted claim to generate meaningful clash.
- First Summary doesn't need to extend defense unless they frontline args in second rebuttal. However, it's probably strategic for second rebuttal to answer first rebuttal and start frontlining.
- If it's in final focus, it has to be in the summary.
- Impacts should be terminalized. I prefer numbers to scalar impacts, which should always be contextualized within the evidence.
- Impact framing is also very cool.
- I think theory and kritikal arguments are severely underutilized in PF. Open to any kind of argument on these layers.
- To minimize intervention, I won't call for the card unless you tell me to.
- However, I do reserve the right to intervene on behavior that I find explicitly oppressive and morally reprehensible; if it's implicit or you're just excessively rude/aggressive in general I will simply tank your speaks.
- My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is a 28.8 [H/L = 30/27]
- Speech docs are very appreciated.
- Signpost clearly.
- Ask me what my thoughts are on grand cross right before it should happen.
Novice here. Still learning the ropes. This is my second time judging.
* 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I'm Jack, I'm currently a freshman at Cornell University, and my pronouns are he/him. If you're reading this I assume I am judging you, which is super exciting! This paradigm is not fully complete, but covers most of my philosophy.
I am currently way out of practice and contact with the circuit, but I did parli debate for six years in middle school and high school with Nueva and was generally pretty average, but I was surrounded by exceptional teammates who influenced me tremendously.
I currently only have experience with parli, so if I am judging you in another event you can skim through the rest if you want, but basically I expect to you understand and truly believe in every argument you run and tell me why every argument you run matters. I am not the best with very technical arguments outside of theory, and one of my biggest pet peeves is teams running tech arguments in every round or going into a round knowing exactly what they are going to run.
Ultimately I view debate as a game of argumentation and not strategy. The ballot serves as a mechanism for rewarding the team that best advocates their convictions on a certain topic, and the team that best answers for holes exposed by the opposing team. My ballot does not reward teams with the most advanced strategy per se. More explicitly, to me debate is an activity to compete for the best argumentation and not a strategic competition for who can sound the most advanced.
When it comes to debate you can debate however you'd like, but I hope this paradigm provides insight into how I evaluate rounds.
As a competitor I had a general preference for case debate over tech debate. I completely understand that many people love tech debate and I wholly understand its value. I have found, though, that education, especially policy education, is the main reason why many people do debate, and I would hate for strategy to come first over education. Regardless, case debate is always going to be the most accessible form of debate from a skill perspective as not everyone will be exposed to technical debate. In that sense I default to tech over truth but the definitions of those are malleable depending on the way that your arguments are warranted. With that out of the way, here are my preferences:
As I said, this is my favorite kind of debate, and I appreciate well-warranted advantages/disadvantages, as well as contentions with terminalized impacts. You need to tell me why every argument you make matters, and PLEASE extend your impacts. Please do impact weighing throughout, and make sure to have some kind of framework at the top telling me a mechanism for who wins the debate (it can be net benefits).
I love counterplans as a mechanism for creating better policy alternatives, and feel free to run any counterplan you want. Negs shouldn't be bound to the status quo, and I lend the Aff the power of the Perm. To win on a perm you need to explain the net benefits of it!! Advantage CPs are great. I default to perms being a test of competition but you could convince me otherwise. Tbh running CPs was my favorite part of debate not only because it adds creativity, but it strengthens the policy education in-round. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Cornell if that gives you any insights into my interests re: debate.
Please also make sure that your links and link chains are well thought out and well explained. Telling me that something is unconstitutional thereby causing plummeting hegemony won't cut it.
I love theory as a general concept and am favorable of its use, but I am averse to teams running shells simply as a strategic weapon in the sense that they intentionally detract from the topic-specific education because they want to create time tradeoffs. Frankly if you don't believe in your heart what you are reading or you don't understand an argument someone told you to run, please don't read it in front of me.
Abuse, though, comes first before education, so if a team is legitimately abusive, (and that's up to your interpretation of course unless they are violent or discriminatory) by all means run theory or T. I have a high threshold for a team being abusive—ie. if you want to run Friv T you better have a pretty good reason for why what they are doing is abusive. If you read reasonability plz give me a brightline. I default to drop the debater and competing interpretations (I would really like to not intervene) but I can be convinced otherwise. I would really like to not intervene on your poorly written theory or T, so please explain all parts of it meaningfully. Also if I'm judging you in an online round, put all texts in chat, not just theory or T interps.
I don't trust myself to evaluate Ks correctly, but I don't think that should deter teams from running them if you have me as a judge. Be warned that if you run an Aff K I will likely have little knowledge of how to evaluate it properly so don't be surprised if you disagree with my decision. I think Ks are valuable when criticizing flawed methodology behind aff policymaking, and I think Aff Ks are useful only when criticizing an inherently flawed topic. In any other case—ie. solely using Ks as a strategic tool—I honestly don't vibe with (I'm sorry to those that this upsets). I will not know your lit, but if you run a generic K I probably can keep up even with poor explanations.
I never ran a K in high school thus why I don't trust myself to be the best judge of a K, but I don't want that to deter you from running them in cases where aff policymaking or the resolution is legitimately flawed as I said. If you run a K against a team who asks for clarity and has no idea of how to interact with it and you persist, I will likely drop you. Sorry if you planned to run your special K in a round with me—I don't understand the point of knowing your strategy before the topic unless you have strong convictions that topic writing is messed up. Obviously you can create round-specific links, but that's really not my jam.
You can speak quicker than normal, but definitely don't spread at me. Please slow down if asked by your opponents. Debate is meant to be an accessible learning space and not a place to showboat.
- Tag Teaming is totally fine but I will only flow what the speaker says
- Evidence is extremely important in warranting your arguments. You need warrants to win offense. That said, I don't personally care about credibility of sources as long as you aren't making up statistics.
- I will protect but still call the POO just in case I miss something
- I don't flow POI responses or POI questions, but your POI response may clarify or contradict something you said earlier.
- If you are misogynistic, ableist, racist, homophobic, or anything else that makes the round not a safe space, I will drop you instantly. I am very open-minded and you can read conservative arguments, but please don't be violent or discriminatory. Please also don't be close-minded to non-leftists.
- Please give content warnings for anything with violence, suicide, assault, etc.
- I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible and do my best not to intervene. Please don't make arguments saying why public transit is a terrible idea or why we need more parking because we don't.
- You can always email me after round at email@example.com if you want to talk more or ask questions. I am totally open to being postrounded as well.
- I dislike speaker points and evaluate content basically almost entirely when making my decision. Your speaks will be very low if you are violent or discriminatory. Please don't be condescending to your opponents, and please don't shut down POIs with phrases like "no thank you". POIs are very important, so I would appreciate you taking at least one if asked. If you ask POIs but don't take any I will lower your speaks. Don't be a hypocrite.
- I will not give you lower than a 27 if you speak and make arguments proficiently. If you are very good with your argumention I will give you between a 28 and 29. If you are exemplary I will give you between a 29 and a 30.
- At the end of the day, debate is an activity to learn about argumentation, policy, politics, philosophy, etc. The better debaters will be the ones who truly care about those benefits.
I'm Sarah, I use they/them pronouns, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 3ish years.
Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.
this is still a work in progress
On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.
I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.
If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.
For email chains:
Background: competed with Parliamentary Debate @ Berkeley. I got 5th place at NPTE with 9th top Speaker and Sems at NPDA as 2nd top speaker. I did NFA-LD as a side hobby lol.
Conflicts: Piedmont, Evergreen/Papaya Valley, DebateDrills, and Campolindo
TL/DR: I will keep my decision focused on arguments made on the flow. I can hang with speed go as fast as you want. Also, I'm cool with frivolous theory. Tech>truth.
Quick pref sheet guide based on what I'm most comfortable with judging. However, I'm happy to evaluate anything and if you get me in the back you should stick to what you're comfortable with since you'll know how to explain it better.
K - 1
Theory - 1
Tricks - 1/2
LARP - 3/4 (I just really don’t like most case debate anymore lol)
Phil - 4 (I just haven't judge a whole lot of Phil rounds but they're cool)
- **I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, hegemony, good, imperialist war good, fascism good, and bourgeois (like US) nationalism**
- Almost never voting on speed bad
- In uncarded events I think a warrant + empirical example tends to hold more weight to me than just a warrant that justifies something in the abstract.
- I try not to read cards unless told to and you should make it loud and clear what you're asking me to evaluate when you're doing evidence comparison otherwise I either won't grant it to you or I'll read the evidence maybe but I can't guarantee I'll interpret the ev in your favor. That being said I’ll probably have opinions and thoughts that might affect my RFD if the evidence is cut unethically bad.
- I can hang with speed but go slower and give me pen time if you're going on to analytics that aren't in the doc and try to number your responses if the analytics you're reading are like a page long *I honestly think just having analytics in the doc is the easiest way to fix this problem though in which case you can go top speed and idc still*
- Don’t care about condo but that also means I’m down to vote on condo bad
- Extension threshold is kinda high. I don’t need you to extend every argument piece one by one but I would say the minimum is an overview of the arguments you’re going for, why, and what their technical implication is
- Default to epistemic confidence
- Also, absent any weighing I default to strength of link>magnitude>timeframe
Ks: Back when I competed I read a lot of postmodernism. I read Ableism, Anthro, Bifo, Bataille, Buddhism, Edelman, Set Col and other lit bases rooted in bourgeois non-sense. These days my politics reflect proletarian class struggle under MLM. However, this does not mean I’ll hack for revisionist positions by authors like Zizek, Dean, Prashad, or other related authors that might have someone forward incoherent positions about epistemology with some lip service to MLM or Marx more broadly. However, this does mean that when a team forwards the proletarian line that I probably have a much higher threshold for voting on postmodernism.
- I'm down for ROB first claims to frame out offense but I need implications to why that matters otherwise I default to assuming its a sort of thesis claim for your framing
- Absent any sort of layering or specific indicts to fiat and policy-making I think I currently default to the aff getting to weigh the plan vs the alt
- Spikes to perms need substantive framing. For example, I don't know what no perm in a methods debate means or why everything isn't a methods debate, why the perm or 1AC is not performance, or why links are DAs to the perm
- Frame outs are a valid path to the ballot
- I think links of omission are a bit of an uphill battle for my ballot but I will not just ignore the K if only links of omission are read.
- I default to perms being tests of competition not an advocacy unless told otherwise
- Don't need a link to the topic assuming you have framing on why we ought to focus on something else
- Absent a voting paradigm I default to competing interps. Need a bright line for reasonability otherwise I will hack for competing interps.
- I also default to text of the interp over the spirit of the interp absent any reason to evaluate one over the other.
- Absent framing claims out of the 1AR/2AC I default to T coming before 1AR/2AC theory
- I default to drop the debater until told otherwise
- I have a lower threshold on disclosure theory for evidence debate but can be convinced otherwise but I have a high threshold for it in parli given it would be non-verifiable.
- I view we meets as a link take outs but think that folks can go for a risk of a violation depending on the arguments made
- I probably have a higher threshold for framework. Would prefer a strict collapse to either fairness skews evaluation of the aff or learning about the state being the i/l to aff solvency.
- I default to Theory coming before the K but am pretty receptive to the K coming first/ out weighing.
- Don’t care about “core generics” and such arguments in a vacuum so I need a little more substantive justification for such a claim
- I default to no RVIs unless told otherwise. I understand RVIs as framing claims for theory i.e., if you lose the standards level debate or the we meet you should lose because of reciprocal consequences. That being said I need the warrants for fairness and/or education to justify an RVI not just "oh no they were a time suck" or else I’m not picking up your RVI
- Fiat is durable
- Kicking planks on counter plans is fine
- Default to no judge kick
- Reading your uniqueness in the wrong direction means I’m not voting on your advantage/disadvantage
- I tend to think in the 2AR/2NR you can do weighing against the positions even if it was not done in the 2AC/1NR but I think reasons why it would function as a link take out would not do it for me
- shadow extensions are new arguments
I am a parent of a first year debater and speaker.
I judge on poise, logical arguments, and respectful rebuttals. Usually the debate gets repetitive towards the end. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully constructed argument.
I started judging this year 2022. Speaking fast is ok, but please speak and explain clearly. Also please be respectful during the debate.
Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:
1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.
2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.
3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.
4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.
5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.
6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.
7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.
8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.
9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D
please speak slowly and clearly. English is my second language.
- Quality over Quantity - focus on weight of impact, explain it clearly
- Clear evidence with weight of evidence - source, reputation etc. (one highly reputable source better than five random sources)
- Stay away from technicals unless absolutely necessary
- Be respectful, clear, and concise in disagreements
Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.
In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).
I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.
Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.
I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.
Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.
I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.
Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.
In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.
In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.
Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.
i am parli - if not parli, do parli! parli parli parli /s do whatev is normal ill try to figure stuff out
why does tabroom have a thing to put emojis in but it can't show emojis
TL;DR: anything is fine cheating is bad, I'll judge whatever debate yall want to have
If you have questions about my paradigm, or my opinion on specific arguments, please ask. If you urgently need me in prep ping me on discord. Please don't ask to shake my hand.
Anything here is a default in absence of argumentation, except intervention. If you're reading evidence fabrication as a performance please let everyone know lmao.
nah i am actually beyond unable to can why does everyone hate tropicality ????
- I like debates where people make arguments. Those are pretty cool. I prefer more better arguments to less worse arguments. I adore moving symbols around on paper (though not across different sheets of paper, that one's not fun). this applies to toc: If you are attempting to adapt to me on a lay panel, consider reading impacts that terminalize to QoL or preferably suffering/death/dehumanization, and also tending towards making and extending offensive arguments.
I can handle a decent amount of speed. Tejas at full speed is too fast for me. Clarity is good. Just go as fast as you want until someone slows/clears you. I do not have a particularly negative view towards speed theory so like, idk lol just don't spread people out, although if you are able to/have had time to get better at understanding speed and are choosing not to, my sympathy decreases slightly.
- I might ask for texts in between speeches, which you can write off-time. Feel free to also ask for whatever texts you need. (please don't prep while you or opponents are writing texts)
I do not protect. Call the point of order. I usually rule. The reason I do this is because I want the rebuttal speaker to have access to an off time not new justification.
I think shadow extensions are new. “Extend the aff” is enough for me to not consider something a shadow extension, unless you explicitly chose not to extend a specific argument, i.e. specific still beats general.
I think weighing that involves a sequencing claim/new IL is new.
- I don't actually enjoy voting on "you didn't POO the PMR saying 'lol we win' oopsie" but like, skill issue and I think it's better for it to be a skill issue than an outlet for me to intervene, which is definitely what I would do if I said "i'll kinda protect but err not new." If you call 2 POOs that I rule 100% correct (this doesn't work on a panel) I begin protecting and say so (if I forget, remind me lol - if I don't say so I'm not protecting because I forgot) - I don't think? this creates bad incentives, and like just don't make two new arguments if you want off time POO responses lol.
I flow only the speaker and stop at time. I would appreciate it if someone used an audible timer. Tag teaming is cool if your partner is fine with it.
If, after my RFD, you disagree with my decision (especially if you were on the team I voted up), I'm down to be postrounded on discord at planetninex#7186 or at firstname.lastname@example.org. Also if you need me to explain anything in my ballot or paradigm I can try my best (although it might take me a year to find my flow, I've stopped labelling them)
- A decent amount of yall are better debaters than me, and many more are better at specific parts of debate than me: although you should try to explain things well in round, I'd appreciate being postrounded if I just don't understand something or your evaluation of the round is different. I really dislike bad judging and that's like a very large reason I don't really want to compete anymore, so I'd like to provide the service of being a not bad judge to you.
I will disclose unless explicitly prohibited.
I give speaks based on how much your speech(es) contributed to winning. If I think you should break I will give you at least a 28.5.
Ways I might intervene
Ur being racist or otherwise bad, though I’ll vote you down on the flow first and add that you would have lost otherwise
You fabricate evidence - I will submit my ballot without access to the internet but fact check sus/sussed warrants afterwards and potentially attempt to flip my ballot if 1. your evidence is false and 2. I arbitrarily decide that this fabrication was intentional and/or 3. critical to the adjudication of the round
I like warrants, and will default to preferring warranted arguments when there’s clashing claims.
Default to perms are a test of competition. I do not by default judge kick if judge kicking is what I think it is, which is you going for a cp but I still eval the rest of the round without the cp if you lose the round with the cp. I think this is kinda interesting though? Extremely soft default that is overridden by you asking me to. This means I by default weigh both CP worlds against each other if you go for 2 CPs and win one and lose the other.
If nobody does weighing for me, I default to clarity of impact (very low bar to tie) > probability > magnitude > timeframe. Weighing is good.
- I don't really like voting on blips i.e. I'd rather vote on the standards debate than the presumption trigger on netspec but if you make me I guess I can. I probably have a low threshold on blip responses. If you are making a silly argument that is not blippy I'm extremely down though! I really liked clash on compliment theory, I think there's room for clash on mugging, I think tropicality just isn't true so surely the mg has room for responses. Like basically I personally like voting on substance, so I'm also partial to like the aff disproves the frameout.
- I presume neg, and default to flipping on a neg advocacy. I've forgotten why flipping exists (other than perming plan+ cps, but this is a debate local to the perm if the perm isn't an advocacy, so idk if it needs a whole flipping of presumption to resolve instead of just saying you need a netben to the cp) and this is thus an extremely soft default.
Yay case is good.
I like [reading impacts] and [weighing out of the member speeches]. I like uniqueness controls the direction of the link but I also like linear impacts.
Down for whatever CP, whatever CP theory. Just win the theory shell lol. I wouldn’t read a consult CP in front of me but if you’re chill on theory then sure why not.
- I don't really believe in trichot. Feel free to: read me a plan in value rounds where a plan might exist/read me a value in a policy round/read me a K in fact rounds/read me a plan in did more harm than good rounds/read me two condo plans (uhh u might need to win theory for that one)/read theory in any direction.
I’ve heard a decent but not massive amount of stuff, assume I don’t know your lit because I don't know your lit xd. I am extremely unversed in pomo.
- I am perfectly fine/happy if you read cap on a lay team, but please go slow/take questions, it's not going to significantly hurt your win odds. I view negs as getting an equal right to a K as a CP in most cases.
I default to the aff gets a perm in KvK but am (very) sympathetic to arguments otherwise.
I like warranted and specific links, particularly on the neg. I will be very sympathetic to the perm double bind absent these.
I don’t hate FW/T, I have never voted for FW/T but I have thought I won practice rounds on FW/T and lost practice rounds to FW/T. Like I actually think this shell is strong, but I think collapsing to FW/T into a 4 min prepout is often a bad idea.
- I consider many other judges (some of which don't explicitly dislike K affs) to be FW/T hacks. I do not privilege the FW/T skews eval claim over other things like fairness uniqueness, fairness offense, or competing skews eval claims.
I want turns the aff extrapolations on the impacts, and I need a substantive response to CI: interp + our K solves the standards. I generally err towards at least some amount of crossapplication being allowed: this means engagement with the aff is generally a good idea and you will struggle to win my ballot if you lose no crossapps and also lose framing and topic harms claims.
I don’t care what you read I've read and enjoyed MG tropicality and benevolent T-must not affirm. If tropicality is the right collapse, please collapse to it, I will be upset if you don't because I want bad theory responses to lose. I think people (veery) generally overcollapse to case over theory and to theory over the K.
- I'm a fan of specific interps, and multiple interps, and multiple counterinterps.
MG theory might be busted, IDK what I can do about it, I’ll hold a fairly high threshold to golden turns on MG theory I guess? Probably not really lol.
I default to competing interps, potential abuse under competing interps and proven abuse under reasonability, education > fairness, no RVI, and drop the arg. I don't actually know what reasonability is, I need a definition - if it is unquestionably won then ig I'll just decide what is reasonable xd. Until told otherwise I will evaluate competing interps as world of the interp vs world of the counterinterp, i.e. in a clash between infinite regress and that's how competing interps works, I need infinite regress to interact with how competing interps works/justifies the world of the counterinterp: feel free to suggest modifications without calling your new scheme reasonability though.
Absent a definition I default to RVIs mean that offense local to the shell is bidirectional global offense. I'm down for an RVI text but I do not require one.
- I hack against FPIC. Read disclosure instead. While I do think disclosure is potentially technically verifiable, I think allowing events that occurred out of round to influence the round is very shaky territory and thus I'm not sure if I would ever vote for disclosure lol (although I've read disclosure before and tbh I believe the interp). Read FW/T instead perhaps.
- I also won't vote for any shell that polices clothing/appearance.
- I think a we can't meet is terminal defense.
Sure. I like CPs vs K affs/LOC ivis idk lol.
- I don't actually know what phil is. Run at your own risk omegalul.
- I don't know how to deal with new PMR offense. I'll tend towards the PMR on like small issues but large quantities of offense might demand my intervention, we'll see I guess: I might be truth if you read a full PMR ivi.
- I don't think an incorrect POO response voids your right to the correct POO response. I just treat POOs as a flag for the judge and the accusation/response as a way of pointing out things I might have missed. I'm not sure if an incorrect POO justification should void your right to the correct POO justification though - my instinct is that it should, because then your opponent didn't get a chance to respond to the correct POO justification. This might be wrong though, because u still have the time to respond even if you didn't get the correct prompt? I will default to it does void.
- I have no idea how to deal with this, but although I find it hilarious I think it is mildly abusive to bait the MO into making new arguments with POIs and will attempt to rule on POOs accordingly.
- I'm not going to lie, I don't understand how a multiculturalism perm spike doesn't bite the perm double bind, so you might need to explain that one to me.
- I almost never will vote on substantively contested defense except as a probability/magnitude/whatever weighing indict, i.e. if you go for defense you should be cleanly winning it. But go for cleanly won defense. It's cool.
- I think fun is kinda an IL to access lmao go for it actually though? unless? IL to education too?
- I might have a slight (large) bias towards the aff. I would highly recommend flipping aff in front of me. As a competitor, I think the aff is kinda busted. I also find my neg ballots are often very close and my aff ballots are often not very close. Flip aff. Go ahead and point at my judging record for your fairness uniqueness lol.
- I've come around to some skew leans neg arguments like the neg gets to flood oneshot kills contextualized to the aff (which has really good synergy with having the block), which is kinda convincing to me. If you're neg that might be a good strategy lol idk.
- Competing skews eval claims are my pet peeve. Skews eval is too strong yes it's a good argument yes it was strategic for everyone to make skews eval claims but complain about them idk I'll be happy if you complain about skews eval claims but absent that if I end the debate with two skews eval claims that both apply to each other then I will very possibly give up and evaluate everything on the same layer.
This is no longer true, because people are now terminalizing their impacts. Yay. I'm leaving it here though: the vast majority of my ballots can be grouped into: you read impacts so you win, you read impacts that terminalize to death dehum suffering or qol so you win, you read impacts with specific numbers attatched to them so you win, you said your impacts matter more without a warrant so you win, you read metaweighing as to why your impacts are more important so you win, you win the uniqueness and it controls the direction of this link so you win.
I use uniqueness controls the direction of the link a lot, it means that if something is already happening the status quo, it doesn't matter if the aff makes it more happening (i.e. the aff has been link turned), the only possible direction the link could go is against the thing happening. This doesn't apply to arguments that carry linear links, i.e. it's pretty hard for starvation to be terminally occurring, or everyone to be dying a war death, for instance. It also doesn't apply as cleanly to cases where things could feasibly be worse, like poverty or voting rights or racism, though the uniqueness does still have an implication on the comparative magnitude of a solvent aff vs a link turned aff. UQ controls the L applies most clearly to IR scenarios like China invading Taiwan: if China is invading Taiwan in the uniqueness, it doesn't matter if the aff makes China more likely to invade Taiwan, and if this is the only impact this constitutes a try or die for the aff. Or if climate change is causing extinction in the status quo, although we could make extinction earlier, that doesn't really carry the same impact, so it often will be a try or die for the aff because the uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I'm extremely partial to try or die framing taking out terminal defense on a risk of a link because of epistemic modesty. I also kinda think epistemic modesty gives you try or die against frameouts absent opposing offense.
Things I am annoyed about
I believe the PMR has the right to read new offense in the PMR predicated on block rhetoric, though I might be a little? truthy in my evaluation of it. Saying racial slurs is bad and I will not be ruling in a POO whether rhetoric was "reasonably egregious" or not.
- I also generally believe that the PMR is a speech that exists and is worth listening to and will consider arguments that the PMR made when reaching my decision.
- I believe the role of the ballot matters when evaluating offense. If you are going for offense that is framed out by a conceded role of the ballot, that might be a bad idea.
- When i choose to line by line the lor or pmr, the totality of my response will not be "this is pedantic and vacuous," especially if the other team is going for text of the interp > spirit of the interp on another sheet
- I believe that topicality and spec are not the same argument, and any speech using two words at some points in the speech does not equate to those two words being interchangeable.
- I believe that genocide is bad. It seems to outweigh things. Conceding that you cause genocide is bad.
- I will not intentionally not vote for something that you went for because you didn't spend enough time going for it, unless that made your collapse technically bad. i.e. if you can cleanly go for an rvi in the first 30 seconds of the pmr, feel free to move on when you're done.