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."

- Anonymous

Pronouns: he/him

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.

TL;DR

• 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 :)

• spenceraball89@gmail.com.

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.

Background

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 junior 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.

General stuff

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/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.

Case

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 what my dreams are made of.

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, and you might as well bring whatever totally unrelated CP you want. 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 have a light 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.

Theory

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 and what maintains a fair, substantial debate 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" might as well mean "judge intervention."

Kritiks

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 relates to the topic at hand in some form. 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.

Side note: I have a "Defense of K Debate from a K Hater" that I'd probably publish if I was still more active in the debate community.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

Also, I am a huge fan of kritical case rounds, where teams still run advantages/disadvantages but have phil-heavy framework and/or pre-fiat implications to go along with the typical post-fiat impacts. When done well, it might actually be my favorite kind of debate.

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 (although the quality of AI discourse is rapidly deteriorating lately...)

• Dedev (with good warrants)

Above all, have a fun debate! Again, email me at spenceraball89@gmail.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

K's/ Theory

• 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

Signpost Please

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. went to nats in congress three years in a row, was a semifinalist sophomore year and quarterfinalist senior year.

- 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 nishita.belur02@gmail.com 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

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. In my second year doing parli at Berkeley and won NPTE last year. I coached LD at James Logan last year and currently coach parli at Campolindo.

Public Forum

TL;DR:

I'm two years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. 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.

Front-Half:

• Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 275 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
• Evidence: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
• Cross: 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.
• Rebuttal: 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.

Back-Half:

• Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. 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 nobody weighs then I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
• Final Focus: 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.

Progressive Debate:

• Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. 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. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
• Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo. Love good links.
• Tricks: Big fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.

Other:

• 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/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.

Speaker Points:

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 mixtape
• + 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
• + 0.1 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, CC good, wipeout, 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 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

Parliamentary

TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round.

Case:

• Love it, I'm a case debater primarily.
• 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. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read.
• 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.

Theory:

• Good with theory, probably the most comfortable with my decisions here.
• 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.
• I'll default to CI's and DTD if no paradigm issues are read.
• I find myself leaning towards text > spirit and potential abuse > actual abuse but can be convinced for either side

Kritiks:

• While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also 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.
• When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
• Non generic links >>> but this isn't necessary.
• I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. T-FW/case/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's what I have the most experience in)

Other:

• Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then 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 you can 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/problematic rhetoric. 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.

Speaker Points:

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
• + 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.

LD/Policy

TL;DR: I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing are important. I'm most comfortable with LARP and theory, but overall I'm chill with most things that go in round and I will vote on virtually anything.

Quick Prefs:

1 - LARP

1 - Theory

3 - Tricks

3 - K v. Case/T-FW

4 - K v. K

5 (Strike) - Phil

General:

• Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in as many speeches as possible, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 275 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
• 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
• 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.
• If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
• Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
• Big fan of content warnings
• Big fan of tag-teaming
• Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
• Collapse. Please.
• Condo's good, but it's easy to convince me that condo's bad.

LARP:

• Love it, definitely the most confident in my decisions here.
• Most of my debate experience is through util! Obviously this doesn't mean that I'll drop you if you run something outside of it, but don't assume that I'll know whatever FW you run, even if it's common in LD.
• 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.

Theory:

• Definitely prefer theory over most other prefiat arguments.
• 1AR theory is fine, but I'll listen to warrants otherwise/arguments on how to evaluate it. I probably won't vote for theory after the 1AR unless it's a super violent violation.
• I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other side shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
• From my understanding, going for RVI's isn't super common in LD/policy. If someone runs theory on you, go for RVI's!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
• I'll default to CI's and DTD if no paradigm issues are read.
• I find myself leaning towards text > spirit and potential abuse > actual abuse but can be convinced for either side

Kritiks:

• While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also 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.
• When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
• The more links the better, preferably have them not generic, but this isn't necessary.
• I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. T-FW/case/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's what I have the most experience in)

Other:

• Most of my tricks experience is in PF, so maybe LD/policy is different, but tricks are generally good. While you can totally run them on me, my threshold for responses are low if you're hitting a less experienced team.
• I have so little exposure to phil, please don't run it on me. It doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, but when I do evaluate it I can't guarantee a correct ballot.

Speaker Points:

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
• + 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

As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for three years. I am a scientist by training but mentor 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. 

General Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck to all competitors!

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

Mel DeBlasio (she/her) Yale '23.5

General Info

I'm a New England girlie who judges West Coast tournaments every once in a while. Parli experience only.

Be kind, be chill, and above all be respectful!! Any act of aggression (table banging), intimidation (yelling), disruption (whispering during speeches), or abusive argumentation will result in the lowest possible speaker points awarded. Please tell me your pronouns prior to round start.

Include trigger and content warnings. Let me know if you have preferences or accommodations that you're uncomfortable sharing with your opponents directly, and I will make an anonymous announcement prior to round start.

If your opponents have strong prefs due to different debate backgrounds/experience, you must try your best to accommodate them. There is nothing satisfying or educationally valuable about gatekeeping your opponents out of a round.

Debate Preferences

I hand-write all of my flow and have the attention span of a four year old on methamphetamine. I can keep up with fast rounds easily but if you spread, I will stop listening and the only RFD you'll get is how many ceiling tiles there are in the room. Spreading is unnecessary and an accessibility concern, and in my mind spreading = bad debater.

Please please please do not rely on tech jargon in the round to describe your arguments. If you cannot explain your case to a random person on the street, it is meaningless. The only "perm" I care about is the one Elle Woods used to win her third-act court case in the 2001 cinematic masterpiece "Legally Blonde", and if you start using half words, acronyms, and other nonsensical ten dollar words I will stop the round to perform the Cincinatti Stroke Scale on you. Techy terminology does not replace actual warranting.

Please no tag-teaming or verbal team communication during speech times, save it for flex time!

ELI5 and pretend that I have never read a book in my life.

I will listen to whatever type of round you want to have, however keep in mind that I don't have a tech background. All arguments will be evaluated the same, regardless of the technical or stylistic context: is it well-warranted? Is it unique? Are the impacts clearly linked? Did you weigh your impacts? And at the end of the day, you have to tell me in the PMR/LOR why your arguments win you the round. Lowest pref is theory because I find it uninteresting.

Please give me your creative, crazy, and radical cases. Please try to present unique and entertaining arguments, and feel free to joke around a bit and have a good time. My Breaking Baby brain loves it, and if you're having fun in the round then I'm having fun in the round. But leave your edgy bigoted "death and suffering are good, actually" cases for your Discord meme channel. And don't try to go OTT on details and style in sacrifice of argument quality... you still have to run a good debate round to win!

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.

My judging style is based on facts, composure, attitude and how you are able to think on your feet. I enjoy seeing a fair debate with amicable factual exchange of banter and strong counter arguments.

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. I love good weighing/layering - 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 I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.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.

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 (though I do vote on it lol), 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. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

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 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. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

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. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

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. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

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 love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. 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 am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, 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 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'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. 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. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

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 - 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. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. 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.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

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. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's 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.

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 alt 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 am happy to vote 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.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

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 it may impact your speaks. 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, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

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

POLICY ONLY:

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

NFA-LD ONLY:

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".

IPDA ONLY:

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. 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 second year parent judge. If judging Debate 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.

If judging Speech please articulate and speak clearly. Have fun and engage your audience!

I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy so try not to use arguments that uphold the economy over, say, human lives. Please call me "judge" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not call me by my first name.

I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.

World Schools: I follow the rubric.

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. Don't expect the sheer existence of your cards to win the round for you. You need to explain and analyze how the card bolsters your side of the argument. 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. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework. Once again, I do not care about the economy. If you are blatantly rude to your opponent (verbally insult them, roll your eyes at them, interrupt them during cross unnecessarily, etc.) you will lose my vote.You (the competitors) may reserve the right to share or not share the doc chain with me. I will not penalize you if your opponents choose to share the doc chain with me and you don't, or visa versa.The only Theory shell I know enough about to follow is Topicality. Try not to run any other types of Theory on me. If I'm your judge for the first few prelims, spend some time going over the basics and definitions of the resolution. After that though, try to stick to what makes your case unique.

Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans. I have not and never will vote for disclosure theory. Disclosure is uneducational. If you are a good debater, you won't need the crutch of knowing your opponents' strategies before the round.

-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. The only theory shell I will consider is Topicality. Other theory shells are not educational and defeat the purpose of parliamentary debate.

LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping. Win me over on framework and you're golden:)

Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator," blocking should be clean.

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 and signpost frequently

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

Hello,

I would like you to speak clearly, a little more slowly, and not too fast. Please show a respectful attitude to opponents when you do POI.

Thank you.

I have been a parent judge for 3+ years and have mainly judged LD. Important notes for debaters:

1. Speak clearly and at normal pace
2. Tag your contentions
3. Be respectful

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.

About me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

A grad of James Logan HS, I competed in various platform speaking events, Impromptu, along with LD and Congressional debates.

Events judged:

Expos/Informative, OO, OA, Extemp, Imp, (interps:) OPP, DI, HI, OI, DUO

LD, Parli, Congress, Pu Fo

(Policy the least)

I am unfamiliar with theory...weigh impacts.

Judge History:

GGSA IEs, Debate, MLK, Palm Classic, Stanford

I am a parent/lay judge. I do flow your arguments by taking extensive notes. My judgment is based on the strength and scope of your uniqueness, links, and impacts. Having sign posts as you make your speech is very helpful to me. I have little knowledge about theory and kritik and would appreciate that you debate the actual case.

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.

My paradigm was too long. Here is a good one that should make preffing easier.

“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.” - Calum Matheson

Email for chain: adam.martin707@gmail.com

First: Qualifications

• Competing: St Vincent ‘16, UC Berkeley ‘20

• 3x TOC, 14 bids, coach’s poll, tournament wins, speaker trophies, etc

• Coaching: South Eugene 16-18, Analy 22-23, Sonoma Academy 2023-Present

Second: Argument Preferences

• I try very hard to be a judging robot. I will vote for any argument with a warrant. ASPEC, Process CPs, Death K, Set Col, Time-Cube - they are all as good as the warrant you give.

• I read a kritik on the aff and went for framework on the neg. I truly don’t have any emotional attachment to a particular argument.

• While I don’t have argument preferences, there are things I know more or less about.

• Debate things I know a lot about: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bifo, Set Col, Queerness, Afropess, Framework debates, really any K

• Life things I know about: Philosophy, politics, tech, mushrooms!

• Debate things I don’t know a lot about: Most topics, competition theory norms, process CPs, general policy tricks. By don’t know “a lot” I just mean I’m not an expert - I still have a pretty solid understanding of all of this, but I generally prefer you explain more on competition shells rather than just reading 30 definitions and expecting me to know the norms of how to interpret them

• My lack of argument preferences applies to theory, meaning I’m more likely to vote for straight up “condo bad” than most judges. Just as I’m willing to listen to any arg, I’m equally willing to hear that an arg is unfair.

Third: Notes on How I Judge

• I flow what you say, not what I read in your doc. For the most part, I do not open speech docs during the round. I will not read your doc to understand something that didn’t make sense in your speech. This means you need to slow down on theory arguments and counterplan texts. I am a techy judge so if I don’t understand the CP because you went too fast, you don’t have a CP.

• Arguments need warrants. I will very quickly vote on 0 risk if you don't say "because" in your arguments and instead just extend author names. I am very strict about this so don't be surprised when my RFD says "you had no reason for this claim".

• Do not try and bring up anything that happened outside of the round. I cannot verify any claim about something external to the round. The only exception is disclosure. I will check the wiki to see if you disclosed if that is relevant to the round.

• Normal means is a thing and you should know how that works. If you write a vague plan text, you don’t get to define what it means. I assume that congress will pass the most likely interpretation of what your plan text says. You do not get to read a generic “federal jobs guarantee” plan text then say it just means bunny daycare jobs on Mars.

• New arguments in rebuttals are becoming the norm. I now hold the line for you in the 2nr and 2ar, but it is up to the 2nr to point out how certain 1ar args were completely new and explain why that means I should reject them. Flagging “no new 1ar args” in the block can help get ahead of this.

• 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.

• I may be standing for some or all of your speech. Yeah I know it’s weird, but sitting sucks. I promise I am paying better attention than the half-asleep judge sitting comfortably in their chair.

• 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 con if the neg reads a Death K and an extinction-level DA, I'll still evaluate it like any other round.

• Always send cards in docs, not in the body of the email. Otherwise it's hard for me to steal them.

• You can ask for a marked copy outside of cx, but any question about which arguments were read is cx.

Speaker Points – (I inflate/curve points depending upon the difficulty of the tournament)

To me, speaker points are where I get to reward quality debating. Quality debating means the following: understanding of your argument, clear speaking, smart choices, and kindness. My speaks may surprise you. A team who is less technical but clearly communicates their argument may get a 29.5, while a highly technical team who shadow-extends arguments without warrants may get a 28.5. I heavily punish being mean - there is no reason for it.

- 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

Just a few things:

1. I appreciate sign-posting and off-time roadmaps
2. 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.

I am a "parent judge" so please don't go crazy on the spreading. Don't run K negs on aff. Have your arguments be reasonable and explain them well enough to where I don't need to have background information to understand what you're saying. Speak clearly and avoid mumbling, give your competitor a chance to speak, and be respectful.

Good Luck

Be logical. Be thorough. Be respectful.

Have fun!

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.mohanty09@gmail.com Best of luck to all competitors! :)

I am a parent judge. I started judging in 2021.

Do not spread or run theory. 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.

Be respectful and courteous to your opponent.

I prefer to give a written comment instead verbal comment at the end of the debate.

I am a lay judge and I have judged a couple tournaments in the past.

-the more confident you sound, the more convincing you will be

-Please speak in a pace I can understand, you can go fast but make sure you make sense

-I will be flowing, so it would be good to be clear with your words

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

Parent Judge.

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!

I am a parent judge but I did Policy debate all four years of high school and in college.

I will flow but expect you will signpost appropriately.

I'm not a fan of Ks but I will hear you out if you argue them.

I'm fine with spreading but make sure you are being understood.

Strong rebuttals carry a lot of weight with me and I will vote on a clear summarization of contentions, links and impacts.

This is my first time judging.

Judging Preferences

DEBATE

Flow

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.

Cross

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.

K Debate:

I am very open to K debate. Explain your framework to me and do significant work linking your Kritik to the specific 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.

Other

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.

Experience

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 was one of the coaches for Fresno City College's Forensics team, and I currently co-coach 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.

SPEECH

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

Please signpost

Tagteaming allowed, but please repeat clearly what your partner says

Parli: I'm a semi-experienced judge; I've judged at approx 7 tournaments. I'm a research manager in my job which means I frequently develop insights with rationales & evidence. I am most interested in your logic and persuasion. 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. 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 and go only for policy args.

Put me on the email chain:

rileyreichel@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

please name the chain something reasonable.

Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. Below are predispositions but every single one can be overcome by debating well. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.

I read all the evidence mentioned in the final rebuttals. I put a lot of weight in evidence quality and you should be very loud about telling me if your evidence is good, I'll reward it with high speaks.

FW v K aff: Fairness is an impact but I usually prefer skills/clash. I do think that this activity has some effect on debaters and judges but to what extent is up to debate. I have a pretty good understanding of most critical theory but have gone for more security/cap rather than identity args in the past. I like to think I am 50-50 in these debates and can be convinced of almost anything pretty easily.

K v K: Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T. I think these debates tend to devolve into perm vs link which seems hard to win for both sides. I like affs that stick to their theory and go for impact turns rather than just becoming whatever the neg read. While your author probably does agree that capitalism/the LIO/hegemony/whatever is bad, it is unlikely that they fully agree with what the negative has said. Debate those intricacies and prove that your model of debate creates nuanced and in depth clash. The more you run towards no link/perm, the more I buy FW arguments about clash and skills.

Theory: I have been confused by judges who arbitrarily choose not to vote on theory even when fully conceded. Cheap theory violations are easily answered and I am rarely convinced by one liner theory violations in the 2AC becoming 2-3 minutes of the 1AR. That being said, if the negative drops it, go for it. I won't choose not to vote on it just because it's theory, it was short in the 2AC, or because what the negative did was "reasonable".

Random stuff:

• Won't vote on stuff that happened outside the round.
• I will drop you and give 0s for anything blatantly offensive done in round and am willing to end debates early if I think something unsafe is happening.
• I only flow stuff that is said during the speech time and won't vote for arguments that literally break the format
• I think reading extinction arguments and not being able to defend against the impact turn is cowardice
• I have become increasingly annoyed with people acting like jerks in round. It's a communicative activity and everyone is spending their time here willingly, try to keep that in mind.
• I think you can reinsert rehighlighting if it's just saying the other team miscut the evidence. If you're trying to make a new arg, you should prolly read it.

Some people and paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, T Weddington, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Cat Jacob

extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Head-Royce or Cal debaters

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 parent judge so I value truth > tech.

Some specifics:

Constructive: Present the arguments clearly. Be specific on the warranting and impacts so it's easier for me to flow.

Overall, make it crystal clear on why I should be voting for your side and please provide rhetoric. It makes it so much easier to believe what you are saying.

When the time is over please stop your speech. My grace period for speeches is 10s but please don't abuse it.

Be respectful with your prep time and opponent.

Good Luck!

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

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 jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: 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.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• 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 doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. 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 the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• 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. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• 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, by the same token, 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.

Kritiks

• 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.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

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.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Novice here. Still learning the ropes. This is my second time judging.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

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

Specifics for Parli:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I flow POI answers.

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

Speaker points:

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

Theory:

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

Counter Plans:

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

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

DAs:

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

Kritiques:

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

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

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

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

Alternatives:

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

Impacts:

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

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

Framework:

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

Links:

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

Case:

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

Specifics for Public Forum:

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

Evidence:

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

Refutation consistency:

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

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

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

Theory:

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

Kritiques:

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

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

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

Speed:

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

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

Specifics for Lay Policy:

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

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

Hi! I'm Jack, I'm currently a sophomore 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:

Case Debate

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.

Theory

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.

Kritiks

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.

Speed

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.

Other Things:

- 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.
• You can always email me after round at jaturner193@gmail.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 and who stick to their core values.

I'm Sarah, 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 4ish years.

Prefs-

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).

On theory-
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.

General/case stuff-
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.

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC theory comes before 1AR/2AC theory
• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Meeting the interp is terminal defense
• Theory comes before substance
• Fairness and education are voters
• No RVIs

K Debate: Sure! I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist nonsense that amounts to inclusive oppression or do nothing. Cap debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.

• Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• Stock issues are not my favorite path to the ballot
• I don't judge kick counter plans unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it
• Either flash analytics or slow down/clear because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• I evaluate most tricks like theory interps

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
• K's bad theory gets you 25 speaks.

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Not voting on cap good
• Not voting on heg good
• Not voting on racism good
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• Give me pen time

I am a parent of a second 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.

Hi debaters,

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

Hello, I'm Christina Zhang. I don't have much prior debate experience, so I would count as a Lay Judge. Knowing that please arrange your prep accordingly.

General:

Just call me Judge. Please do not call me by my name.

Please signpost. If you do no signposting it will be exceedingly confusing. If the I don't know what you're saying then I can't weigh your arguments.

Arguments:

1. Tech & Truth: A standard Advantage/Disadvantage round is probably the simplest, and while I do acknowledge tech over truth, I still do tend to occasionally favor truth over tech, so even if one side drops an argument, that doesn't mean I will automatically weigh it against them if the assertion is not properly explained enough.

Ie. You bring up nuclear war, but never properly explain it well enough and don't address simple things like Mutually Assured Destruction, even if the opponent completely drops, I might not weigh in your favor and just strike it from the round.

Basically if it doesn't make enough logical sense, then I won't consider it.

1. Impacts. If I don't hear a properly quantified impact it might not have nearly as much weighing power.

Just saying: "Grows the economy", "Increases QoL" or "Saves lives" are not proper impacts. "Grows the economy by 153 billion USD over the next 2 years", or "Decreases cardiac deaths by 10%", or "Increases GDP per capita by 5%", or "Prevents 4000 deaths" are properly quantified impacts, so will be weighed to their fullest extent.

Theory:

I don't know any theory, so please don't run any theory. I'm not very experienced, so keep everything simple. Just because you win on theory on the flow doesn't mean that I'll take theory into heavy consideration or even at all

Kritiques:

Just don't run them. If you run a K, there's a good chance I might not understand it so even if you crush the opponent on the flow, you'll still probably lose. Debate is about accessibility and understanding, so if the layperson can't understand what's happening, you'll likely not get you point across.

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.

3rd year flay parent judge

both sides need to eat more fruit they look malnourished

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

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work