I'm a parent judge. And I judge on the construction and quality of arguments backed by solid evidence. I like to see the contestants engage with arguments from the other side and use different modes of persuasion to land their point of view.

Hi all,

A good debate from my point of view involves:

1. Solid research of the topic (back with evidence, examples, and data sources)

2. Clear structure of key debate points (fewer is better than more)

3. Crisp articulation of the key points (slow delivery in the beginning and ending of each round will help).

Enjoy! I am honored to have the opportunity to judge your debate.

Daisy

Just go with your preparation and keep it relevant to your topic and do your best. You'll be judged by each of the judging criteria outlined for each event. I'm given equal weights for each criteria at this time (may do weighting in near future).  

• I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. So I'd appreciate it if you can speak slowly and clearly.

• Keep your own time.

• Deliver organized speeches.

• Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.

• I will take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.

• Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I am a parent judge with two years of judging experience

General Preferences:

Don't speak too fast

Be concise

Time yourself

Emphasize important points with pauses!

PF:

I care about how you speak

Make your contention names clear when reading your case

Make your opponent's contention names clear when you are refuting them, and be specific as to what you are refuting.

Make sure all arguments are responded to

Hello. I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging debate. I competed in what is now called Public Forum Debate and the individual events of Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speech at John F. Kennedy High School in Richmond, California. Our coach was David Dansky and during his 25 year tenure, Kennedy High teams won three state championships.

I have a professional background in law, originally as a litigator and then a transactional lawyer.

I value clarity in presenting one's points in debate rounds and curiosity in listening well to an opponent's points, thinking them through and responding to them.

It's been a while since I competed and thus I appreciate when students take care to spell out things at least once before proceeding to refer to them by debate jargon. My hope is that every student emerges from a round I judged feeling like they gave a great effort and had fun.

It is my first year judging debate, therefore I will need competitors to define any specialized terms used during the round. Please speak clearly for me to hear and understand you. I will pay close attention to the points being made during every speech, so be clear with what you are saying.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

My email (for email chains, or questions): edklin@gmail.com

Background and Experience:

I did policy debate for Leland High School from 1998-2002. I placed at state, went to nationals, earned ToC bids, was in semi-finals of Berkeley, etc. In other words, I competed at a high level in front of both parent judges and circuit judges (slow and fast debate).

For approximately 3+ years after graduating from high school, I came back to Leland to coach policy debate.

However, as you can see, that was MANY years ago. I have been coaching debate at a small private school (The King's Academy) since 2018. I have NOT judged (in practice or in a tournament) any truly circuit/fast debate rounds for over 10 years. [I have judged a few fast rounds at local league tournaments, but these are not the same, of course, as fast rounds on the circuit--I would call this medium speed policy debate].

While I still believe I can handle fast-type arguments (Kritiks, theory, CPs, etc.), two possible problems: 1) I might not be up-to-date on contemporary debate lingo or newer concepts and 2) I might not be able to handle top spreading speeds due to my lack of practice listening to spreading.

Since coming back to debate in 2018, I have judged other debates (LD, PF, etc.), and they generally make sense to me even though I may be less familiar with their cultures. I should be able to handle a medium speed debate in these non-policy debate events.

Profession:

I have been teaching in the sociology department at UC Berkeley since 2014. My subfields are in immigration, globalization, and international development. I also frequently teach classes on sociological research methods (and evaluation of evidence). This is just for your reference so you know what kinds of ideas, concepts, ways of thinking I would most likely be familiar with.

Overall Paradigm:

I do consider myself to be tabula rasa (blank slate). That means that I will try my best to keep my personal opinions out of the evaluation of the debate round and only consider what you say. This means that if you do not say it explicitly (for example, you do not say, the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative case because...) then I cannot evaluate that argument. I will first try to judge the round based strictly on the arguments made in the debate, but if I feel like it is impossible for me to decide who wins based on the arguments in the round, then I will end up intervening and using my own judgment of what arguments were made more persuasively or less persuasively (based at least somewhat on my own personal opinion and feelings about those arguments that are made, or feelings about how good the presented evidence was). I prefer NOT to intervene, but many debates often end up this way because the 2NR/2AR (last two speeches) do not clearly explain how I should vote and/or both teams make the same arguments over and over and neither seem to be winning logically over the other team and so I have to step in and decide what I think is the better argument.

Key Points to Pay Attention To:

- Be clear and explain thoroughly.
- 2NR and 2AR (last two speeches) needs to have clear articulations of how the judge should vote (including impact weighing/comparisons)
- In policy, I am neither "stock issue" or "policy" paradigm, but rather, you explain what you think I should be or do to evaluate the debate round (you tell me what is the best way to evaluate the round and why--convince me to adopt a paradigm if you want me to adopt one, or just convince me why I should vote for you).

Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).

PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

I am a parent judge. This is my second year judging the debate.  Here are the items I try looking for

• Strength of arguments

• Claims, reasons, and supporting evidence

• Refutation of opponent’s arguments

• are they having fun and enjoying the competition? 

I am also learning from both teams debating  as a Judge 

I am a 2nd year parent judge. 

I look for facts and examples.

Please be respectful and don’t talk over one another.

Please speak clearly, instead of fast.

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

- I enjoy arguments built on fact and logic.

- I enjoy original ideas and enthusiastic performance.

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

- Good luck!

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 find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

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 debaters,

I started judging this year 2022. Speaking fast is ok, but please speak and explain clearly. Also please be respectful during the debate. 

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly, avoid jargon, and make sure to signpost.

please speak slowly and clearly. English is my second language.

Please signpost your contentions in the debate.

Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and audio.

• Quality over Quantity - focus on weight of impact, explain it clearly
• Clear evidence with weight of evidence - source, reputation etc. (one highly reputable source better than five random sources)
• Stay away from technicals unless absolutely necessary
• Be respectful, clear, and concise in disagreements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge with some speech and debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.