Introduction:

Hello! My name is Preston (he/him).

In high school, I competed in parli for 4 years at MVLA Speech and Debate (s/o Nevin and everyone else).

I graduated not too long ago, so I haven't judged a whole lot yet.

I mostly debated both technical and lay case, but ran some theory in more technical rounds.

I only ever competed in parli, so other events are new to me. Treat me as a flay judge in other events.

If you have any questions after reading this paradigm, ask me before the round.

Parli Paradigm:

In general, I'll do my very best to evaluate any arguments given, but my bread and butter exists somewhere in the technical case debate realm.

Things I generally like to see include nuanced arguments out of the leader speeches, interactive/thorough refutations throughout the round, and solid collapses at the end that tell me why certain arguments matter and how you win them. Tech > truth. I will evaluate theory but have a high standard for friv T. I will also try my best to evaluate Ks, but I’m not the best judge for those kinds of arguments. I don’t know a whole bunch of K lit, and unless it is explained well, I won’t vote for it. Don’t be mean when running technical arguments, especially if you think there’s a chance that your opponents are unfamiliar with them (we all start somewhere).

How I evaluate a round:

Layering:

Tell me what I’m evaluating first (case, T, K) in a round and why. This needs to happen first before I can look at anything else.

Weighing Mechanism:

Tell me how I should evaluate that layer and why. It is crucial that this is well articulated (I don’t like having to intervene).

Impact Weighing:

Tell me what impact(s) matter the most and why. This is also crucial so do it well.

Strength of Link:

Tell me how the arguments in the round do/don’t get to the impacts. Make sure you get access to the impacts that matter.

Decisions + Speaks:

I don’t like reducing rounds to a W or L in tabroom, so I will try my best to deliver a good RFD (whether verbal or written). A lot of rounds I’ve seen can go either way, so don’t be too discouraged if you don’t pick up my ballot (you can probably find other judges who would have voted for you, split ballots exist!).

I give good speaks, with the exception of hateful behavior towards opponents or others in a round.

Miscellaneous:

You have a time limit. Feel free to finish a sentence that you started, but don’t make new arguments past time.

Don’t speak super duper fast. I’ll slow you down if I need to.

Tag teaming is fine, just make it clear. I will only flow the speaker’s arguments. Be nice to your partner.

I will (try) to protect the flow. Do call POOs though.

I don’t flow POIs.

Make random analogies. It’s fun.

Mentioning a random 2010s basketball player may or may not have a beneficial impact on your speaks.

I love debate and you probably do too (it is a rough relationship sometimes though). Let’s make this as fun and enjoyable for everyone as possible.

Hey! I'm a High Schooler with ~6years debate/speech experience.

Love to see arguments that are clearly explained - even if it's intuitive to you, I enjoy seeing people go step by step. For my decisions, I like to weigh on the arguments made, impacts can be understood intuitively by me but I'd prefer to hear people explain the direct and indirect implications of any given resolution.

I don't enjoy people yelling POIs out loud, preferably raise your hand, and only say something if they don't respond for a while.

TRY YOUR BEST AND BE RESPECTFUL. I WILL NOT HESITATE TO VOTE YOU DOWN FOR DISRESPECT OR BIGOTRY

Hi everyone! I’m Keira (she/her) and I debated on the high school circuit from 2019-2023. I love debate and all kinds of arguments (as long as they aren’t problematic), so feel free to run pretty much anything in front of me. If you ever have any questions feel free to reach out, I would love to discuss anything with you!

TL;DR - Make it as easy for me to vote for you as possible. Weighing is generally how you do that. I will evaluate basically anything that is read as long as it's not a blip and isn’t problematic. Generics are okay, I like creative arguments (but good well-warranted args outweigh regardless of whether they’re generic or not). Turns are wonderful so read lots!

Background on me - I’m a tech > truth judge but take that with a solid grain of salt because I probably have a higher bar for what counts as an ‘argument’ vs blips than other judges (I will vote on any argument as long as it's warranted). Sierra Maciorowski was the biggest influence on my personal debate paradigm. I was very much a NorCal debater who loved both tech and lay debate (so really read whatever you’re comfortable with in front of me) and I did dabble in east coast debate (and now APDA!) for a minute.

Round evaluation - the way I'll evaluate rounds is probably: layering --> weighing --> strength of link. If your rebuttal looks like this I will be very happy :)

Case - I love good case debates. Tech case debates were truly my cup of tea as a debater. Read strong uniqueness that clearly lines up with your links please! But if you’re going to have strong warranted claims anywhere please have them in the links because otherwise I cannot tell if your plan does anything. As for impact weighing: my default is magnitude > probability > timeframe but feel free to change my mind in round.

There are three parts to an argument - a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Please don’t read blips because I can’t vote on something that has no explanation or reason why it matters.

I'm not really a case framework person. I definitely won't penalize you for reading it but I also am not going to vote you up for it. The case framework debate usually doesn't end up being that important for me. I also don't like definitions debates (unless they're really abusive).

I will protect but call POOs because my memory isn’t great and my flows can get a bit messy. Jargon is all good, I will follow. PLEASE signpost so that I can stay organized and know what you're talking about.

Tech - Speed is all good with me but ONLY if your opponents are okay with it too. Do not use speed or tech to exclude others please. If you’re reading something really techy or critical I would really appreciate it if you would take lots of POIs.

Theory - I like theory. My defaults are competing interps > reasonability, drop the debater > drop the argument, and no RVIs but those are all easily changed by whatever happens in round (I LOVE reasonability with a good brightline). I’m down to vote on friv but I also have a much lower threshold for responses to friv.

Ks - Fun! I read many of these. I was particularly fond of K affs (doesn’t mean I won’t drop you to TUSFG but I'm also not a TUSFG hack). I can understand the gist of most arguments and I read a variety of lit bases but still assume I'm unfamiliar with most lit and explain it all. Take questions please because if your opponents can't understand your arguments they can't engage.

Some thoughts - I think K affs get perms but will 100% accept reasons why they don't. I don't like language PIKs (I just don't think I've ever seen one deployed well but feel free to disprove this). Links of omission aren't real links. I very much respect defending topical affs against K negs (its hard tho so good luck). Tricks are mean. I'll also vote on tricks. But not if they're blipped out.

Phil - I have never run phil or hit phil. If you want to try running it, please explain it well or I'm probably just going to end up disregarding it. Also make sure your opponent can engage with these arguments as well. And please don't read violent phil authors.

Speaks - I will usually give between 27-29.5 speaks, probably higher speaks for the winning team because I think speaker points should be a reflection of how well you convinced me your arguments are true or important.If you are offensive in any way or I find your arguments problematic, your speaks will drop. Just be kind please and have fun, that's what debate is all about :)

Don't be violent. Don't read problematic arguments. I will have no problem dropping you and tanking your speaks if you do. Debate is a space for us all to develop and grow together. If at any time you feel that you or anyone else is being excluded, please speak up and I will do my best to change that.

You’re all going to do amazing and I’m so excited to watch your round! If you have any questions feel free to ask at the beginning of the round or reach out by email.

Hi! I'm Cassia. I'm a current HS senior and a parli debater on the norcal circuit for Silicon Valley International and MVLA. In the past I've debated for Nueva, Aragon, and Juniper. I've been involved in debate for over 4 years now. My background is primarily in west coast parli, but I also competed in PF at the novice level back in the day. I've coached novices for over a year in parli, and also some other events for a hot second. My pronouns are she/her. If you want my email for questions, ask me in-round or in-person.

Don't shake my hand, Don't bother going out of your way to make eye contact or stare at me during your speech. Please don't, actually. I'm also noise sensitive, especially with regards to loud noises/shouting, so being sensitive to that would be cool. Whispering and tag teaming and all of that is fine, just not the "I'm bigger than you raaa"-speak. I will wear earplugs or earbuds depending on what I have on hand if I find it necessary based on either ambient noise or your volume. I'll also call "quiet" similarly to how certain debaters call "loud". If people are excessively loud, it will make it harder for me to focus, and while I have never had to leave a room because I was overstimulated, if that happens, count on it making it a lot harder for me to evaluate the round.

If I have nothing for your event, sorry (insert shrug emoji. they don't seem to work on here, so). Just get the relevant stuff from the parli things and assume that I literally don't care about who wrote your card unless they're a nazi, only whether it makes sense. On the topic of nazis, don't be one of those regardless of your event, please.

VARSITY PARLI

• I'm tech>truth. What this means is that I will vote on any argument, even if I know it to be false, so long as I have determined that it is not violent. What this does not mean is that I will vote for non-implicated blips.
  
  

• I default to layering pre-fiat impacts > post-fiat impacts, meaning that theory voters and K impacts share a layer unless you tell me otherwise.
  
  

• Extend it to your final speech if you want to weigh it.
  
  

• I don't protect the flow. Call the POO or it’ll be evaluated.
  
  

• That said, shadow extensions are new args to me. Call the POO on them.
  
  

• Tag teaming is fine. Heed the volume warning above, though.
  
  

• I flow POI answers, but not questions. POI questions are not arguments.
  
  

• Presumption is meh. I default to neg, but the round will need to be bad for it to matter.
  
  

• Accessibility is important, and should be protected. I will do so with my ballot (and very likely bringing it up to your coaches) in the case of in-round violence.
  
  

• That said, speed is cool as long as you don’t spread your opponents out. I can keep up with faster parli speeds, but not like circuit LD-level spreading. I’ll call slow or clear. You should too.
  
  

• 29 for winners, 28 for losers, 25 if you’re violent (see below for some specific things)
  
  

• 30 speaks for meme positions (summon lawyers, etc.) and extend them through.
  
  

• I’ll probably be timing you and I stop flowing after time.
  
  

• Don’t steal prep.
  
  

If you think that the res is violent, I'm super fine judging a round with a different res. I've done this before and it upsets tab a lot less than the double bye thing, it seems. If y'all want a double bye, I will advocate for you to the tournament (tab will hate me probably but I'm not down to force debaters into bad situations. i've been there.). I'm also fine flipping a coin. I've been in situations where I've been told by tab that it's totally cool to have to defend people who want me dead, and I don't want to put you in those situations. Just let me know and I'll see what I can do.

TLDR for the rest: Cool Original K > Boring Backfile K > Tech Case > Theory > Tricks >>> Lay Case.

Things that are violent (not an exhaustive list):

• Skep
  
  

• Impact turning any -ism.
  
  

• Making claims that devalue people (“we need to get the homeless ppl off of the streets cuz they reduce property values”)
  
  

• Making reductive weighing claims that flat out lie about the magnitude of oppression (“Amerika isn’t a racist country”)
  
  

• Appropriative things like daoism or inshallah theory (I'm happy voting on "XYZ is appropriative" as well, so be sure to point it out, because I won't intervene unless I'm like 99% certain that an arg is appropriative.)
  
  

• Misgendering/deadnaming people (including me, thank you very much)
  
  

K

Pleeeaaase run your wacky Ks in front of me. I've ran some fun Ks as a competitor, and I want to keep kritikal debate in parli alive. Performances and aff Ks are cool. The lit bases I'm most well-versed in, though don't be dissuaded from running other Ks, are feminism (incl. matfem), queer theory, transfeminism, disability theory, mad studies, marxism, mlm, anthro, anticarcerality, some antiblackness theory, some anarchisms, and baudrillard/semiocap.

There are a few things that I don't want people to run in front of me: anything appropriative (daoism, etc), cishet white feminism, etc.

Access is cool. I tend to believe that Ks do much more good than harm, but don't spread your opponents out. Take POIs. All of that.

Theory

Theory is cool.

Defaults:

• Competing interps > reasonability. If you don't tell me what reasonability means, I will still default to CI.
  
  

• Drop the argument unless the violation is inseparable from the performance of the violating team, in which case I'll drop the debater.
  
  

• No RVIs
  
  

• Nothing is a voter unless you warrant it being a voter
  
  

I have a very high threshold for T-FW or USFG. Ethan Park (hi ethan!!) tells me that it isn't clear what this means, so I'll clarify. If you run these things in front of me, expect me to be automatically somewhat suspicious of claims like truth testing skews eval or no crossapps that basically aim to frame out the K. I won't just vote against these claims if they're warranted, but don't undercover them if you want me to actually vote on them. There you go, Ethan.

Case

• Trichot isn't real.
  
  

• Run whatever you want.
  
  

• I don’t default to a framework
  
  

• Do metaweighing; I don’t automatically buy magnitude>whatever else
  
  

• TERMINALIZE
  
  

• That said, if you say we do magnitude and it comes first and they say nothing I probably vote for you
  
  

• perms are tests of competition, not advocacies.
  
  

• Dedev will make me happy, since I don't see it very often. Also, cool frameworks are cool. Even structural harm framing is good enough to make me not as bored.
  
  

• Also, memes. Shaur’s summon a million lawyers CP comes to mind. That sorta CP will get you 30 speaks
  
  

If you want like some basic things that I like in case, read the novice section that I wrote

Tricks

• I’ll vote on tricks
  
  

• Not skep. I’ll drop 25 for skep.
  
  

NOVICE PARLI(this is gonna sound mean but it's mainly because i coach novices and i see the same mistakes a lot. i don't hate you, i promise.)

Have impacts. Have terminalized impacts. Weigh your impacts. The economy is not an impact. Constitutionality is not an impact. Legality is not an impact. Free speech is not an impact. None of these things matter to me unless you tell me why they should. They might be your internal link into a livelihood or death impact (that poverty statistic of taking years off of the lifespan comes to mind). The team that terminalizes in my novice rounds wins most of the time. If you're the only team that terminalizes or weighs, I probably don't even need to look at the flow to vote for you. Absent weighing under a framework, I get forced to intervene. Hoorah! If there's an extinction level impact that gets articulated as such, I'll probably vote on that. If there isn't something of disproportionately high magnitude, I might just vote on who wins the most impacts or strength of link. I don't like doing this. Please don't make me.

Signpost. This goes especially for responses. Tell me what it is that you're responding to and what sheet we're on every time you switch.

Run the perm. That's all, enough said. There is literally no reason not to.

Be rhetorically ethical. I find that novices tend to make problematic claims without thinking. Some things that I might intervene to vote you down for might include (and these are all things that I've seen in either speech or debate) claiming that more homeless people on the street is bad because it drives down property values or that Muslims in India are "butchering" Hindus. All of these things and more will get you a drop 25 at the end of your speech unless you immediately correct them. I also reserve the right to stop the debate if someone in the room has been made to feel uncomfortable/unsafe by in-round rhetoric.

I hate speaker points and I hate them more now than I used to. 28 if you lose, 29 if you win, 30 if you tell me why I should give 30.

Collapse. Just do it™.

SPEECH

I despise judging speech and I'm paradigmatically opposed to how speech is evaluated. If I'm your speech judge, I'll 100% end up ignoring things like eye contact and tone and pacing because I cannot differentiate between what is supposedly "effective" by neurotypical standards and what isn't, so just say fun and insightful things. I give max speaks unless someone makes a problematic claim.

Julie, please don't make me judge speech at Keefer this year I'm begging you.

Hello! I'm Shreya (she/her), a 4th year varsity parliamentary debater in high school! If you're reading this right before the round (breathe! you’re going to do great!), here's what you should know:

• Weigh, weigh, weigh! I really dislike judge intervention and avoid it as much as possible but I can only do that if I have arguments weighed for me. No matter how good your argument is, if it’s not weighed against the other team’s arguments, I can’t evaluate it in the context of the round which will make me sad :(

• Signpost please! I can handle speed for the most part, but I need to know where you are on the flow. The more technical/complicated the argument, the more I need signposting. Passing texts can help with that if you choose to do so.

• Be nice! This one’s simple, just be respectful to others. You are opponents right now, but you are fellow debaters and human beings first and foremost. Disrespect will make you lose speaks at best and result in you being dropped at worst. I trust y’all to be kind though, just do your best and have fun :)

Feel free to ask me any questions about any of the stuff on here before the round. Good luck!

Note for events besides parli: I don't have experience in them, so please limit the jargon-y terms! Sometimes a debate-specific phrase is needed; in the case that a word has a specific meaning in your debate event that someone wouldn't immediately understand from context, please explain it. I will do my best to keep up and flow of course, but this will make it a lot easier for me.

be nice and don't do theory/k's

Hello debaters!

Background: hi i didn't expect to judge at IW - my paradigm low-key has not been updated since my sophomore year when I first started judging but most of it still applies! I'm a senior at Washington as of right now so you can probs expect me to be a super-fair judge.

If you're reading this right now, you're probably stalking your judge 10 minutes before the round. Take a deep breath, calm down, and think rationally - that's how the best debaters win rounds. I'm a varsity debater myself (as my partner Divya Mohanty says in her paradigm, it’s literally our whole lives ), and I personally love a detailed paradigm when I’M freaking out 10 minutes before the round, so I'll try to make this as interesting and useful as possible.

Paradigm Order:

1. Parli
2. Lincoln-Douglas

PARLI

tl;dr: organization, weigh everything (terminalize impx!!!), relevant but not abusive POIs, speaks for fun (anime references <3), have fun!

General: when it comes to speeches themselves. I would prefer if your speech is as organized as possible. Make sure to signpost (label everything you're going to say) throughout so that I can flow everything you say properly. That being said, I'm pretty good with speed considering I debate almost every weekend myself. Don't slur over your words and jump from place to place (try to make sense LOL) BUT also make sure that your opponents can understand everything you say. Speaking fast just so that they can't write down a single thing is cruel and abusive, and I WILL mark you down for it.

Weighing: What that means that you need to tell me why YOUR impacts and points are more valuable than your opponents. I understand that it can be hard to weigh and impact everything out in a round, but links and showing why your impacts are better than your opponents are really key to winning a judge's ballot (and they WILL be key to winning my ballot).

POIs: I think POIs should be used if they NEED to be. Do not just call a POI to mess up your opponent's speech and waste their time. That's definitely strategic but it's cruel. For the third speech, if you think your opponents are bringing up a new point and you want to call a Point of Order, then CALL IT. I would prefer not intervening with the round and waste time making my own decision on whether something was brought up earlier or not, but if it comes down to it, I will do so. Just don't be unhappy with my decision.

Speaker Points: Those usually aren't too important, but I do understand that it's nice to see a judge's evaluation of your speaking style and communication. Just do your best and you'll get good speaks.

Feedback: I’ll give you verbal rfds after the round as long as the tournament allows it, along with disclosing. I’ll write the same feedback in your ballots (for the most part - i get lazy so I’ll use conjugations LOL) i'll also be willing to stay after the round to answer any questions, give more extensive feedback on your speaking specifically, along with give y'all any tips (on flowing, teamwork, etc.) if you’d like.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

• I'm a parli debater, but I judged LD at CFL Novice Debate so I kind of have some idea about it.
• I may need some understanding of how things work, but I'm kind of used to it by now
• Cross-apply my parli preferences here for the most part

Those are all the things I think I would like to see in a paradigm, so I think I'll conclude now. If you have ANY questions at all about my preferences, then feel free to ask me right before the round.

Good luck debating, and most of all, try to have fun and not cry after a bad round :)

Nevin Pai // November 2023

Hey, I'm Nevin. Here's a little bit about me:

1. I am a senior at Los Altos High competing with MVLA
2. I have only competed and judged parli; most other formats are unfamiliar to me
3. I'm in my 4th year of debate
4. For e-mail chains use [redacted]
5. I strongly advise you not to take AP phys but take AP CS
6. Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes fan
7. I only believe in going 5-0 or 0-5; no in-between
8. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have
9. Imma try to keep a poker face but I doubt y'all can read me regardless
10. I am a 2nd dan black belt in tae kwon do and enjoy computer science
11. I wrote this on my phone - be nice about spelling and grammar !!
12. he/him

My preferences - lets keep it short and sweet shall we?

1. Sign post. If you don't know where you are on the flow, I don't either
2. Don't be problematic.
3. Don't lie/fabricate evidence n stuff - debate is about education and fairness, not winning at all costs
4. Weighing is cool. I like it. You should too. I don't have any preferences as to how you weigh
5. Theory arguments are cool. That doesn't mean you can win on them without strong warranting. I'm not big on Ks atm so probably don't read them?
6. I'm tech>truth. Please understand what you are reading and the arguments you are formulating. Reading a bunch of statistics with no links or terminalized impacts means nothing to me
7. Make my job easy. Signpost, collapse n all those good things
8. I do not protect flow. Point of Order!
9. Formal language doesn't impress me but good arguments do. You can be informal or whatever as long as what your saying is of substance.
10. Tag teaming is cool. POIs should be verbally requested. Stay within time. POOs are important sometimes so use them, speed is fine but be clear. Cool and unusual arguments will be rewarded with speaker points if well executed.
11. I'll disclose if I'm allowed. Everyone gets 28 speaks by default. An amazing argument can earn you a couple points. Problematic arguments can lose you many points
12. Lets have fun and be nice - debate is a game and you shall treat it as such
13. Follow the tenets of tae kwon do: courtesy, integrity, self-control, indomitable spirit and perseverance

Hello! I am Logan (any pronouns), a recent graduate of Nueva with like 3ish years of varsity parli experience.

TL;DR: Let's have fun and learn!!! I am chill with and can handle any argument you want to read unless its like pretty disrespectful or rude. I could miss some warrants if this is circuit level speed but go fast and I will ask if I need.Please signpost and be clean on the flow. Make the debate as easy for me to evaluate as possible.

Specifics if you're worried about adaptation (don't be):

General

Tech > Truth because I am lazy—I will buy any argument or warrant that you read unless your opponents contest it (but like don't make up evidence because thats dishonest and it upsets me). PLEASE PLEASE signpost (tell me what arguments you are responding to or talking about) the best you can. It makes it the debate clean and allows us to have to most productive and educational debate. For plans and alts please drop the text in the chat if you can.

Case

Please signpost. I will be very happy to hear a clean case round (especially in novice its pretty epic). Please terminalize impacts (explain to me why economic growth is good and quantify how specifically good its gonna be for people). I would like if you structured your advantages/DAs in uniqueness, link, impact format but any way you want that explains what the plan does and why that is good or bad is okay.

If that is too confusing, the essence is that you should explain in a step-by-step process, with evidence, what happens when the plan passes and why that is good or bad.

CPs

Read your CP (counter plan) and I will evaluate it. I think that delay, consult, etc. are fine I guess but can tend to reduce education (read theory if u want). If it's novice and you can avoid abusive CPs try to as best as u can.

Also please remember, a counter plan is not an advocacy for the negative, rather it is generally an opportunity cost to doing the plan. What this means is that by doing the plan, you are missing out on the opportunity to do the counter plan. Thus, the counter plan is a reason not to do the plan.

T/Theory

I'm down for any type of theoretical/topicality debate.

I default to competing interps bc idk what is reasonable unless you tell me why that is reasonable which is basically your counterinterp i think. Basically just read a counterinterp.

Kritiks

I would love to hear a clean, signposted K debate on the aff or neg.

I am comfortable with cap, have a tiny bit of understanding of neocol and am mostly unfamiliar with anything else. If you read these arguments make sure you understand them well otherwise there is no chance I will be able to :) . Please don't make me listen to a K debate that proves you don't understand what you are reading (not fun trust me i have done this).

It's good to provide specific links that prove why the aff or the res links into your K. This means doing more work than reading the generic links on the backfile you are probably reading off of lol.

Phil

I have no experience here so explain the best you can.

Tricks

Again, no experience so explain.

POI/POO

(Point of Information/ Point of Order) I don't flow POI answers. Over zoom it is usually helpful to give POI/Os verbally because people often can't see you. If you have another way discuss this before the round. Call the POO if you don't have the point flowed. I will protect but I might miss something if you don't call. After 2 POOs u can assume I will be alert so don't worry, i got u. Usually these arguments won't make a difference anyway.

Speaks

I see no fair way evaluate the way you spoke in the round in terms of like floweriness or whatever but I will do my best to distribute between a 29-30 for the winning team and a 28-29 for the losing. I will make this decision based on your organization (please signpost) in the round.

Final Notes

Things I will be sad to see:

1. Any form of intentional disrespect. Its not that serious so be kind!!! 2. Use of uwu.

Email me for questions, life advice, or congratulations: logan_ramanathan@brown.edu

For complaints text Syon Patel: 650-703-5113 (thats not his actual number chill)

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.

I'm a parent judge.

Hi! I'm Maya (she/her) and I competed in parli with the MVLA S&D team (and am now attending Swarthmore College!). I'm so excited to judge you and I hope you have fun at this tournament! Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (weird vocab, further preferences, etc.) before the round.

TL;DR Be nice, I will drop you if you're blatantly offensive. Debate is for learning, not skewing your opponents out of the round however you can. Engaging with your opponents arguments, doing comparative analysis, and signposting make me happy, messy debates make me sad. I will buy whatever you read if it's conceded and extended, but I will like you more if you keep the debate educational. If you read a K or tricksy argument be prepared to explain it well. I'm proud of you for joining debate and making sure you learn and have at least a little fun is my top priority!

A Few General Things:

BE NICE. As much as I'm sure we all love winning, the point of debate is education. If you're rude, I won't like you (I will drop your speaker points) and if you bully the other team or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you (this hopefully/most likely won't apply to you!).

I am comfortable with moderately fast speed(~300 wpm) and will ask you to slow or clear as necessary. I'm open to 30 speaks theory and will allocate points based on how strategic your speech was rather than how good of a speaker you are (speaker points used in the latter manner have a history of being exclusionary and problematic).

Please time yourselves (and your opponents if you'd like). Ask if you'd like me to time but I won't really be paying attention to my phone so you should still time yourself anyways. Please try to not go more than 30 seconds over your allotted speaking time, and feel free to call out your opponents if they do by holding up your timer or something similar. I won't flow any new arguments after the grace period is up (and even grace is sketchy, it should just be used to wrap up your speech not blip in a few more responses).

I have only competed in parliamentary debate so please feel free to ask me more specific questions about my preferences for any event. I know the basic rules of each event, have watched demo rounds, and will just vote however you tell me to in round - I love layering, impact framing, weighing, etc. It just makes it so much easier for me to evaluate the flow.

I will buy just about anything you say as long as it's not offensive. You can tell me about aliens or conspiracy theories, but please back them up with at least some logical analysis and be ready to respond to opponent refutations. Please don't make up warrants, if I catch you I will either drop you or lower your speaks depending on how significant the warrant was to your case (I have definitely misinterpreted warrants before and understand the difference between misinterpreting & straight up lying so don't stress, just be honest!).

I'm familiar with the structure of typical ULI debate arguments (and internal links) and can flow pretty well so I will just vote however you tell me to. Comparative weighing makes me smile, if I don't hear any framing or weighing arguments I will cry and have to figure out which sheet is the most important on my own, which probably won't help your case.

Case Debate

- please please please signpost. Tell me when you're on Uniqueness, Links, Impacts, when you're moving onto a new sheet, etc. When doing responses either number them or do some sort of "they say", if you're going down the flow/laid out a clear off-time road map then embedded clash (not explicitly signposting) is okay.

- again, please be nice during cross. Being aggressive is fine, I get you want perceptual dominance, but if you continually interrupt your opponent and don't let them ask any questions then I will dock your speaks. I will not be flowing cross or tag teaming, if you want me to flow a point say it in your speech.

- same as speech times, please time your running prep and say when you are starting time (so if opponents want to time you they can do so as well). If you go more than 30 seconds overtime I will dock speaks (though if you want me to see your opponents going overtime hold up your timer otherwise I won't know).

- weighing or just generally making comparative arguments between you and your opponents makes it so much easier to evaluate without intervening (using personal biases) and I will like you a lot more if you do it. If I don't know what's a voter or what's my top priority then evaluating gets messy and you get to deal with a sad judge (there's not really an impact to the round but do you really want to make your judge sad?)

- I have more case prefs in the Parli notes below, feel free to check them out and see what applies.

* apparently theory is a thing in PF. Check out the parli notes to see more specifics, basically I will vote on whatever you read (though I might be slightly biased against shells like spec & no neg fiat). Theory at this level should be read sparingly, especially when events like novice PF are so focused on having well-prepped case-level arguments.

PF & LD

I think there's a pretty good chance that I'll be judging more than parli for upcoming tournaments, so if you're curious:

• As a parli debater, I don't usually view warrants as a top priority but I know it's different for other events. I won't be great about flowing specific warrants – I will try – but if you want me to look to a specific piece of evidence please highlight it and emphasize the key parts for me, don't just blip them in and extend in your final speech (I may miss it on my flow and think it's a new point). I probably won't call cards unless prompted, so be prepared to call out your opponents if you think their stats are sketchy. If I do find out you've made up warrants you will be docked speaks and this will definitely affect the strength of your case.
• If you read a value, tell me why I should evaluate the round under that criterion and then tell me why you win under it – I can't vote for a team just because they have an uncontested value criterion if their case doesn't apply.
• Please time your own/your opponent's cross, prep & speech times, you can hold up your stopwatch to the camera or send a message to chat if your opponent is going way over time, if they're past the grace period I will stop them. I may keep a timer, but I'm not super consistent about that.

Parli General Notes

[this is tech stuff]: I default to K > Theory > Case, but you can definitely convince me otherwise. feel free to ask me specifics but I mean if you're going to go for layering then you should really just tell me how to layer and I will buy whatever you say unless your opponents contest it.

• please layer the IVIs for me, and I'm not a huge fan of friv IVIs :). do they come before theory, and why? etc.

I will try to be as unbiased as possible, but I'm also aware that I am a human with unconscious biases and will do my best to check that. Unless something is blatantly offensive I will buy any conceded arguments but please do not say an argument has been conceded when it hasn't.

If your opponents ask 2 or more POIs, please take at least 1 unless there's flex time. If you don't I definitely won't buy must ask questions counterinterps and I will probably drop you by like 0.5 speaks.

I will do my best to protect the flow but I recommend that you call the POO just to make sure I catch it. I buy golden turns and am not a fan of shadow extensions (I probably won't strike it from the flow, but I will give it less weight).

I'm familiar with debate jargon, but your opponents might not be. Again, just be nice.

Case

I love a nice clean case debate :) Signposting makes me really happy and makes it easier for me to flow. Have clear and organized uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts, that's all I ask. I think I tend to vote for the team that has the clearest & strongest link story and arguments for why their impacts outweigh. I will do my best not to intervene, I buy anything if it goes uncontested, but if your link is sketchy then my internal biases may take over.

I've said this earlier on but I love weighing. Just tell me what to do, it makes it so much easier to vote. If the other team does any weighing or framing, contest that. Because then I have 2 weighing claims and it's all a big mess again and now I'm sad. On that issue, do engage with your opponents. Your case comes first, but that doesn't mean you can have no refutations. Then, especially without those weighing claims, the flow gets really messy, I'm sad, and I will likely have to intervene (use my biases on which argument comes first) and make a decision you might not like.

IMO case debate is pretty straightforward so just debate how you usually do and I'll give you feedback where I can. Try to keep a good balance of offense and defense when making responses.

Counterplans: I love these, I view them as an opportunity cost to the aff. Read whatever you want, agent, delay, process, PIC, whatever, but be ready to face theory if you do. Please have solvency, I have a high threshold for what it means to be mutually exclusive so you'll definitely need a DA if you want to compete via net benefits (I don't buy counterplans along the lines of "don't do the aff, instead do this completely unrelated thing that could be done in the same world as the aff plan" unless the aff totally drops it/doesn't perm it). I buy the perm as a test of competition, but again, explain to me why there are more net benefits to the perm than just the CP. I don't have an opinion on condo, so I could be convinced either way if a condo shell is read.

Theory

I prefer interp -> violation -> standards -> voters. You do you but it'll make it easier for me to flow and evaluate if it's read this way. I default to competing interps over reasonability, but you can easily change my mind – also, I won't do anything with the shell unless you tell me drop debater/argument and whether or not it's a priori/whatever order you want the debate to be evaluated on.

Please be nice to novices who have not learned theory yet! I get that it's another way for you to win, but again, debate is supposed to be educational and I will like you more if you try to create a positive, encouraging community for everyone. This doesn't mean you can't read theory, but just be patient with your opponents and be ready to explain if they ask any POIs.

I would prefer that you keep the debate educational, especially at the novice level – ie avoid frivolous T if possible. If your opponents are cool with it, though, I think funny T is funny.

Similar to impacts, do weighing where you can. What voter am I prioritizing? How do you win on that voter? Which standard is most important?

Ks

I buy anything. Again, BE NICE. Ks are confusing to your opponents and to me. Explain clearly for everyone's sake and be patient (though I will be understanding if you're rushing to finish reading your K). I've read lit for setcol and queer theory + debated some cap and funky K affs, so I will probably be able to understand your K but I'm probably not going to know the context for any of your warrants – if you're going for one, explain it to me please.

Against Ks, I'm very open to hearing theory arguments and layering arguments, but I probably have a softer spot for debaters that engage with the layer of the K and come up with innovative responses rather than generic arguments.

Other

I don't know any tricks or phil arguments, but as always, I'm happy to evaluate them as long as they are explained well.

Mistakes happen! I've definitely read some sketchy arguments that I myself didn't particularly appreciate, and will not look down on you for reading a sketchy argument. Your opponents are probably going to have good refutations so just look at this as another learning experience and opportunity to improve. Especially if you're a novice, it's the prime time to make mistakes, have terrible prep and 2 minute speeches, make epic fails (all of which I've done), as long as you take what you've learned and use it to improve :)

If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading my paradigm. Know that I am so proud of you for having the confidence to go up, compete, and speak in front of practical strangers for however long your event lasts. Debating and competing in speech is scary, I've been there and still am there most of the time. While I will be judging you in terms of who wins, know I will not be judging you as a person based on how good of a debater you are. I can't wait to see you grow and become the scariest competitors on the circuit!