I'm a student so I'm basically fine with anything. GL

Hi all! I’m a parent judge who has judged a few tournaments before.

Preferences:

Please don’t spread, be clear and weigh/impact.

No theory and k’s please as I am a parent judge.

Be courteous and kind to your opponents (maintain civility).

Thanks!

Hi Everyone!

I'm David, I'm a former Parli debater and I'll be your judge today. If you have any questions about my paradigm just ask me before the round starts:

Things I like:

->Warrants, warrants, warrants. I will not vote on arguments that you made if I don't believe them. I am not "tabula rasa".

->Debaters having fun! Debate is supposed to be a game. Please don't ruin the fun for anyone else.

->Accessibility. Debate is (in)famously exclusive. My favorite debates are ones generally free of a lot of jargon, highly technical debate, and where teams make an active effort to be clearly understood by the other. My recommendation is try not to talk to fast, take a few POI's, and generally avoid Kritiks and frivolous theory arguments (I can evaluate these arguments I just don't like to, usually)!

Things that make me sad :( :

-> When ppl make their entire case in their 30 second grace. Guys please, don't do this.

->Arguments with no impacts. Please, please, please tell me why I should care about your arguments more than your opponents.

->Asking if "everyone is ok with an off-time road map" and then not waiting for me to say "no" and starting to present your roadmap that I didn't ask for.

->When debaters say nasty things. We often debate sensitive topics but in my experience there hasn't been a single valid time a debater has said something severely problematic and it was justified in the round, if you think something you're about to say could be in any way possibly seen as yucky, don't say it.

->When debaters are condescending. Don't call your opponents' arguments dumb and don't smirk while your opponent speaks (I'm watching you). This tends to specifically be a problem from boy only teams being rude to their female opponents, but it's a common problem in debate. Everyone is here to learn, just don't assume your better than others because when you lose to the people you thought you were better than, the only person smirking will be me >:)

Things you can read if you have time (but totally don't have to):

->I'm generally towards the left end of the political spectrum (shocker). That being said, I won't believe your "socialism/communism is utopia" argument unless you give me as good as a warranting as Marx himself.

->I love answering questions about the debate or my decision so please ask if you feel like it!

->I love to yap. I usually deliver my RFD verbally but I can write it down for you if you really want me to. I think rounds are recorded though so please don't make me write anything.

->I'm a math major at UCSD! If you think you might wanna go, feel free to ask me questions about it.

->My email is: davidgol3p@gmail.com feel free to email me with any questions you might have!

Debate how you’d like. I’m down to evaluate most positions, including any theory/kritik positions. Feel free to reject the resolution. Tech > truth. I protect the flow but call the POO. Good luck have fun :D

high-level stuff:

hi, my name is Sam (he/they) and I have been involved in debate for ~8 years. During my time competing, I debated in parliamentary debate for Nueva, mainly in the NorCal circuit. I am open to all types/stylistic forms of debate, so if you are not a NorCal team please don’t feel the need to change your entire debate style for one round. That being said, please do impact analysis (explain to me which impacts matter the most/matter over other impacts) and weigh (tell me which arguments are the most important). Doing both of these things is the easier path to winning my ballot. I have exactly zero tolerance for any bigotry, and I will intervene against any argument that is racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. By extension, do not misgender your opponents—I will tank your speaks if you don’t correct your mistakes immediately. Content warnings are good for making debate a safe space for everyone, so please use them and respect them.

1. I will try my best to protect the flow. Regardless, always call the POO. Sometimes I miss things, so the best way to guarantee that I won’t miss an important argument is to call the POO. I will try to rule on the POO before you resume your speech to the best of my ability. I can promise anything, but I know this is especially helpful for debaters

2. Please provide texts of advocacies (plans, CPs, alternatives, ROTBs, etc...) when you read them. I default to texts are binding. If we are online, please pass them in the online video chat. If we are in person, please write them down on a sheet of paper and pass that paper around to both your opponents and me.

3. I give speaks based on strategic decisions and argumentative execution. I don’t care how you present your arguments, feel free to sit, stand, or do whatever makes you most comfortable. My range for speaks is 27-29.5. If you get above that you did fantastically and I think you should win the tournament. If you got below that you probably did something bad independent of the arguments you made in the round.

4. I welcome questions about the round/my decision. If you want to ask me questions about the round, please do not hesitate to do so. If we are at an in-person tournament, you are welcome to come find me as well.
   
   

case:

1. If you don’t read a framework, I’m going to default to net benefits. Likewise, if you don’t read a plan, I am just going to assume you are defending the entirety of the resolution as your advocacy. I would strongly recommend that you both read a plantext and a framework, even if it is just net benefits. I will be unhappy if you don’t read a plantext :(

2. Please try to terminalize impacts as much as possible; I need you to give me a specific and quantifiable explanation so I can weigh the round and thus decide the ballot. If you are reading an impact chain to me, please implicate and terminalize all of your impacts. This is also probably a pretty good way to pick up my ballot. You do not need to terminalize impacts like death or suffering to me; I assume they are terminalize in themselves.

3. I’m fine with conditional & dispositional counterplans. Just be prepared to defend them if your opponents read condo theory. If you want to read a non-mutually exclusive counterplan, please read competition for the CP and/or be prepared to beat the perm. In the same vein, I’m very down for any strange counterplans so long as you can justify it. If you don’t ask your opponents what the status of their counterplan is when they read it, I assume it is nebulous until they bring it up or you ask.
   
   

theory:

I’m a big fan of theory, but please make sure to include a specific text and violation if you want to run theory. If you’re going fast, slow on the interp at the very least. If we’re in-person, a written copy of your interpretation would be lovely as well.

1. I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think competing interps is a better model to evaluate theory, however, I will happily listen to reasonability if there is a brightline.

2. I assume all theory is to drop the argument unless told otherwise. I’ll happily vote for drop the debater, but just make sure to explicitly go for that.

3. Feel free to run Framework T/T-USfg/Ks bad theory. I don’t have a default for theory/kritik layering in round, so please read layering. The outcome of most rounds can be changed drastically by one side reading 30 seconds of layering, so please do it. At the very least, it helps me make my decision easier.

4. I’m perfectly fine with RVIs, in fact, I think running RVIs in response to theory is a very good strategy and often underutilized. If you’re going to run an RVI, give me a one-sentence overview of what the RVI is, why I should grant the RVI to you, and other important information you feel is necessary.

5. I’m fine with friv theory. Please be nice to your opponents though—don’t read friv t against another team if you know they don't know how to respond to it. I’m very sympathetic to RVIs on friv shells. I'm more than happy to throw my tech>truth views out the window in favor of accessibility in debate.

kritiks & critical positions:

I love kritik debates and will happily vote for them. KvK debates are my favorite kind of rounds to judge. This may be a hot take, but I also feel like they are the fairest option for neg teams trying to contest the aff K—still feel free to read framework T though.

1. Assume that I don’t understand your lit base and start from square one and go from there. I have experience and knowledge in critical literature but don’t assume anything.

1. For non-topical aff Ks, if you are rejecting the resolution, please give topic-specific reasons as to why you are rejecting the resolution. If you’re reading a topical aff k, I’m hyped to hear it. That doesn’t apply to you.

1. I think disclosure is good but quite unverifiable and invites judge intervention as a result. I am skeptical of voting for disclosure theory, but will probably boost your speaks regardless a bit if someone mentions you disclosed the aff K.

1. I’m not a huge fan of offensive RoBs, but feel free to read them if you want. Please justify and explain the reject alt if you’re reading a reject alt.

assorted tech stuff:

Feel free to read IVIs. I think IVIs can be quite strategic, and I will happily listen to them. I don’t have much experience with other ld/cx arguments that aren’t common in parli, so i'm happy to listen to phil/tricks but no promises I’ll follow along perfectly.

good luck have fun :D

I like to hear structured arguments with explicit reasoning. The plausibility of your reasoning matters. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am new to judging. Please keep track of your timings. I would like you to talk slowly so that I can follow.

please be respectful!

Hi, I am a parent judge.In case you are presenting technical arguments, please explain a little bit to help me understand. Thank you and best of luck!

Hi! My name is Lily (she/her) and I am a freshman at UC Berkeley. I tend to be pretty nice, but I have a very expressive face and may be staring at you during your speech like you have just said the most insidious thing. I am likely not thinking anything negative, that is just my thinking face.

Please abstain from spreading and using jargon unnecessarily. I am a feeble minded gal and won’t understand nor do I find it particularly charming.

If you are going to run a Kritic or other theory take a step back and think: “Is this going to leech academic value from the debate?” If your answer is yes, reconsider.

Be respectful to your opponents. It is supposed to be fun. If you are especially rude to your opponents, I will shamelessly talk smack about you to my team. Also, it won’t make me want to vote for you.

Most importantly, warrant out your impacts.

<3

I am a parent Judge. This is my second year judging Parliamentary Debate.

Please speak normally and not too fast so that it is easy for everyone to clearly follow all your arguments.

I judge based on overall presentation and arguments giving more weight to flow and arguments. I will be taking notes during the debate and will be using that to evaluate the debate and allot speaker points.

I am OK judging counter plans that are laid out clearly.

Please stick to the topic with logical arguments and do not run theory.

Hello.

My paradigms are simple:

I don't like theory, but it won't affect how I judge.

I like good speaking style.

Be respectful and have fun.

If you mention how hunter-gatherers are benefited or dinosaurs in general I will give more speaks.

- Nathan :

Hey! I'm Syon (he/him), am a junior at The Nueva School, and have been doing varsity debate for 3 years. I am a "flow" judge, which means that I will be flowing and evaluating the flow when making my final verdict.

TL;DR: Have some fun, make me laugh, and be respectful towards your opponents. For sensitive topics,try to read content warnings before the round begins. Be clear and signpost, especially in novice. Refute the best version of your opponent's argument. I will be reasonable.

General:

Tech > Truth, I will buy arguments unless they are contested. Signpost and try to be as neat as possible (if you slip up a little bit I don't mind). I am pretty good with speed, but I will tell you to clear/slow if necessary. Also, please slow/clear if your opponents ask you to. Also, I give 10 seconds of grace time/time to finish your sentence, but after that, I will stop flowing what you are saying.

Case:

Love case; clear arguments with signposting and terminalized impacts are amazing. Don't forget to do impact calculus and make sure to fully explain your link chains.

CPs:

I am down for any CP as long as it is not blatantly abusive. If you are in doubt about if it is abusive, run the theory. Make sure to have unique benefits to the CP and reasons it is mutually exclusive from the aff. Just have good evidence and be clear about why the CP is better. On the aff, do the perm.

T/Theory

Anything works. I frown at friv theory but will still vote on it. If it is clear your opponent doesn't understand what you are reading please explain it clearly for not just your opponents' sake, but mine as well. If you are getting theory run against you, make sure to layer (should I evaluate case or theory 1st). Don't use theory as a way to purposefully take advantage of a less experienced team, that is lame.

Ks

Please explain lit clearly, I'm not the best K debater tbh so if you are shaky with Ks just run something else. However, if you are excited about a K I am all ears. I run cap, neocol, and am familiar with the lit of matfem, undercommons and that's about it. Also, please explain how the other team links into your K. If you are in novice and on aff, try to give disclosure (tell your opponents you will not be defending the resolution).

POI/POO

I don't flow POIs/responses. Use POIs for clarification, not for argumentative advancement. Save that for your speech, as it is beneficial to you as well. I protect, which means I will not evaluate new arguments in the last 2 speeches, but if in doubt, call the POO (after 2 POOs, I will listen closely & I gotchu).

Accessibility

Things I will prob drop you for:

Purposeful misgendering, use of slurs, use of tech purposefully to exclude people, any anything else that is problematic or excludes people from debate.

Speaker Points:

Baseline: 28

+0.3 for every NFL team/player reference (+0.2 if it is the New York Giants or a NYG Player)

+0.3 for saying "and" an even number of times during your speech

+0.3 for every music reference (except for country ew) (+0.2 for Adele reference)

+0.3 for not going more than 2 seconds overtime

+1.5 for making me laugh (genuinely)

+0.3 for Pokemon reference

+0.3 for naming all 4 cardinal directions

+0.3 for using the phrase "as my parter _____ stated," (the blank is a word like eloquently or beautifully)

+0.6 for naming a rap album that came out in 2022/23

+0.3 for praising Delaware

+0.3 for stating your Mother's maiden name

Keep in mind I can't give over 30 (I will round up)

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

TL;DR:If you weigh, signpost, terminalize and don’t run problematic args then I’ll be happy! Give solvency: it is not enough to give a speech telling me about the harmful impacts of something, I can't vote for you if you don't tell me how the plan impacts the issue.

Hey y’all, I’m Rohan (he/him) and I did varsity Parli for 5 years with nueva. These days, I'm doing APDA at the University of Chicago. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you. Everything in this paradigm is just preferences for people who know what they are. Everything I say here is secondary to my desire to make the space educational/enjoyable, so keep that in mind.

Random musings:

Be nice to your opponents! Laughing at someone’s speech is really harmful and has made me feel not great after rounds, I’ll tank speaks for it. Don’t be problematic or violent, I’ll drop you. Give content warnings generally, if you're unsure then just give one anyway.

Presentation really doesn't matter to me: rhetorical flair is cool but it isn't going to help or hurt you on my ballot. I don't care what you are wearing or if you have your camera on or anything like that, please don't run theory on that sort of stuff.

Weighing must be more than a claim, you need a warrant and an implication attached to it. I feel like it's super common for debaters to say "our contention outweighs on magnitude, therefore we win the round," which is not an argument. You need to tell me how your argument outweighs on magnitude (it impacts more people, more people die, etc etc etc) and give me a reason to prefer that voter for me to consider it when filling out my ballot.

I WILL DISCLOSE, it is vital to gaining educational feedback and eh why would you worry about results for no reason. Written feedback is annoying to type out so I might not do that and you should record. If you are confused then interrupt me, it’s easier than waiting till the end.

I’m tech over truth, meaning that if you make an argument, I will put it on the flow - the sky is orange (hahaha get it bay area smoke vibes) if y’all tell me it is.

An impact is not an impact unless I can clearly see the link to death, dehumanization, or suffering. This means that I will always vote for a terminalized impact over a nonterminalized one absent any other framing on the flow. The economy going up or down is not a terminalized impact - why do I care that the DOW Jones loses 200 points cuz of the plan.

A warrant can take forms–I don’t have any defaults on whether to prefer analytics/empirics etc but I’m not gonna flow something which you assert to me, back it up with something. You don’t need a citation on every point, but if you tell me that the economy is gonna go up, you have to tell me how that happens.

I autoextend all plantexts, advocacies, ROB texts, and procedural interpretations. You have to extend everything else, but I don't think it makes sense to drop someone for omitting the words "extend the alternative." This is important because it means I won't kick your text for you, you have to explicitly tell me to do that.

As a competitor, I always spread faster than I think I am spreading, or can understand and flow. I always suggest that you should start at whatever speed you want, and then I’ll slow you down from there. I genuinely wish that speed theory had a better brightline to discourage debaters from intentionally spreading out novices. Just please be chill and understanding of different tolerance levels so I don’t have to intervene :)

Case:

Anything goes really: obviously if you are going to read your generic small businesses DA then I’ll consider it but I tend to find that very specific case debates with solid weighing create fascinating rounds to watch.

I default to: magnitude>probability>timeframe>anything else.

Structural violence framing is my favorite impact to read because I think it has the most real world value, so definitely go for it.

CPs:

CPs should always have warrants for mutual exclusivity. I ran some wacky CPs during my competitive career (ocean iron fertilization and Virginia should annex DC oops) so have fun with it.

I listen to the first two sentences of a counterplan. I’m not listening to your 4 paragraph CP (or plan, unless the res forces you to). I’ll listen to delay/consult/50 states/other weird CPs but you are really gonna be hurting the scowl lines on my forehead at that point

I have read and answered condo; I don’t really lean one way or the other. Pretty much goes the same way for all the CP theory stuff: I’ll evaluate everything so just be prepared to justify what you do.

Kritiks:

Ask me or ur coach before round

Theory/T:

I go for theory sometimes, and I’m definitely familiar with it so pop off. Interps must be read twice and slowly with texts in chat.

I don't have anything against friv theory. Honestly, I found the brightline between "legitimate" shells and those that are "frivolous" to be rlly arbitrary. It is the responsibility of the team reading friv theory to make sure the round will be accessibile, but that is true for any argument in debate.

Defaults:

CI > Reasonability: reasonability will be dropped without an explicit brightline
Theory is drop the debater
Theory is apriori
RVIs are good
Accessibility > education > fairness > anything else
Text of the interp > spirit of the interp

hi, im riyana (she/her) i've been debating since sophomore yr, and i'm a freshman at brown! my email is riyana_srihari@brown.edu—feel free to ask me any questions there :)

ill make this more robust asap....but the tldr is that these are just preferences and i want to hear you debate the way you like to debate!!

general:

first of all, PLEASE ask me questions before the round starts about anything in this paradigm!

i'll give you 10 seconds of grace but will stop flowing what you're saying after that.

please give content warnings!

texts are binding.

also…before you read an argument PLEASE think about how it will help you win!!! i can’t keep doing link work for you guys LOL

case:

i love case debate!! terminalized impacts are great, and impact calculus + weighing is necessary for me as a judge, so PLEASE tell me why i should vote for you. i rly like unique link chains when they're explained well! CPs are valid, CP theory is valid, and perms are a test of competition. make sure to read net benefits to the counterplan (independent reasons to vote for the counterplan), and make sure that it's mutually exclusive! lmk if you have any questions about case debate; i'm happy to elaborate.

theory:

theory is cool! please have a clear interp and text. please also run theory in good faith—frivolous theory is fun when it's well-constructed, and not just being run to win against inexperienced debaters. i prob won't vote on double-win theory (i ran it once it was so stupid #biggestregret), and definitely won't vote on theory that polices the physical presentation of people in the round, but i'll vote on everything else. i default to competing interps, and need a brightline if you want me to vote on reasonability. i’ll also default to drop the debater, but PLEASE PLEASE layer and read a-priori!!! you can't run theory without layering!!!

kritiks:

my fav type of debate to judge at the moment!! i'm most familiar with materialism and proletarian/material feminism, i'll vote for rejecting the res or framework theory (and neg Ks), and i'll vote on performance Ks (but never ran them, so i don't have a ton of familiarity with them). please ask me before/after the round or email me at riyana.srihari@gmail.com if you have any questions about kritiks, and i'll answer them to the best of my ability + send you any resources i have!!

case:

i love case debate!! i do not love ppl lying or fabricating evidence, so please do not do that. terminalized impacts are great, and impact calculus + weighing is necessary for me as a judge, so PLEASE tell me why i should vote for you.

POOs/POIs:

obviously, don't be mean about asking a ton of POIs + interrupting your opponents — i generally think 2-3 POIs is the max in one speech. say questions, not statements in POIs!! please!!! i won't evaluate new args, but call POOs if you're feeling like an argument is new.

accessibility:

don't misgender your opponent. again, a safe debate space is my highest priority, so i'll drop you for any rhetorical violence. be kind!

speaker points:

my baseline for speaker points is 28.5, i’ll give you high speaks for good argumentation and generally believe that speaker points have a lot of room for blatant bias, so i’ll do my best to give speaks based on content and not presentation.

feel free to ask me questions!!!! :)

Senior @ Nueva.

I'm down to hear anything, that being said maybe don't read super tech-y stuff in novice, especially if everyone in the round is not super down (I guess like if plan or something is super abusive you can try to run something). I am tech > truth, happy to answer any specific questions you might have before/after the round. I do like theory thoooo.

Everyone gets 30s, I am happy to give you verbal feedback on speaking/strategy but I think the points don't actually matter in JV.

- 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!

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

I'm a lay judge. Please no k's and no theory. English is my second language so don't speak too fast.

I am a non native English speaker, so I would not prefer very fast speech as it is difficult for me to fully understand the content.

I will make my judgement based on your organization and how clearly you present, how you use the argument, and do cross-examination, and how you present your evidences, not based on the sounds-right or sounds-wrong on the debate topic itself.

So please be well prepared, and well organized, and be calm and clearly present your points.

Good luck.

hi! i'm isabella (she/her), and i'm a varsity parli debater at nueva

tldr it's not that deep but if u want it to be that deep then read below

DON'TS:

1. debate should be a safe space!!! zero tolerance for anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. this will have you immediately dropped, speaks tanked, and probably berated in my rfd
2. read graphic/triggering content without a content warning
3. that's everything you explicitly can't do. prefs are at the end of the day just prefs!! have fun go crazy

DO:

1. LORs and PMRs: walk me through how i should be voting in the round ("first, you should be looking toward x because xyz layering claim, but even if you don't buy that, you should be voting for us on y because..."). this limits intervention, keeps me from doing extra work (WHERE IS THE MEDITATE EMOJI), and is overall just a really strong argumentative strategy
2. give off-time road maps
3. signpost! i really do want to flow and fairly evaluate your argument, but i can't do that if i don't know where you are on the flow.
4. slow/clear as requested

CASE:

i am a case <3er. usually. allegedly tech > truth... when presented with clash on uniqueness/link debates, i'll probably default to the team with warrants. as such, warrant your internal link scenarios!! terminalize and weigh impacts because otherwise I don't know what to do with it and will sit sadly.

i'm probably even more tech > truth for econ stuff because what is the truth for econ??? i have no clue so please explain to me clearly and with analysis

CP:

articulate your CP's mutual exclusivity and solvency. for the aff, read the perm as a test of competition and explain why it is not mutually exclusive. i will vote on a well-articulated perm against a non-mutually exclusive cp with GLEE. pics or borderline abusive CPs are fine but be ready for theory.

THEORY:

i have a pretty low theory threshold. friv is fine, just give me actual standards and voters (i've read/written some dumb things myself, ex: "1ac must verbally remind everyone to check their posture"). bidirectional shells are funny. if both sides are reading theory, giving me some meta-weighing or layering so i know which sheet to put first.

absent any other claims, I'll default to apriori, competing interps (what is reasonability?? idk unless u give me a brightline. this is silly goofy debate i feel like "reasonable" goes out the window), drop the argument if the violation is on an argument, drop the debater if the violation was a lack of action/just not tied to a specific argument, and no rvis.

i also default to T>K.

K:

assume i have not read your lit! assume i don't know what's going on! EXTEND FW TRICKS/ONE-SHOT KILLS THROUGH EVERY SPEECH! it makes it easier for me to evaluate and for your opponents to have actual clash! give specific links!

aff ks are fine (tell me why u reject the res), neg ks are fine (aff: perm the alt or i cry), fwt is fine.

not confident in my kvk evaluating skills.......so err on the side of more reasons to prefer and weighing and layering.

i'm prob most empathetic toward fem/gender lit and accessibility, but do whatever.

will elaborate more on this eventually...maybe......

POI/POO:

try to take 2 pois. pois should be genuine questions, NOT assertions of your own opinions. i cannot express how much i hate those kinds of pois. i don't flow responses to pois. please don't bait the mo into new arguments with a poi and then bring it up in the pmr, i will protect it on the flow.

i try my best to protect the flow but do call poos on crucial new arguments just in case. poos are NOT crossex. don't waste time

also I'll probably give you higher speaks if you call a poo as "poo" instead of "p.o.o." because i am 12.

SPEAKING:

i used to give extra speaks based on fun little things u did in round but that got too tiring to track. so instead i'm just gonna give winning teams a 29 and losing teams a 28 because yay unless u are bad in which nayyyyyy and u will receive lower :)

MISC:

• bonus points if you're demeaning in a creative way
• "this is abusive" is not an argument
• small affs are cool
• bonus points for a cool fit
• bonus points if u sneak in funny lyrics

I am a parent judge.

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

Hi! I'm Anping (he/him), a senior at the Nueva School. I have been debating (Parli) for about one year.

IMPACTS ????

theory yum

ks ?

speaks are not real 29 ish by default but

+0.5 if you make me laugh

+0.3 for walking into the room with gusto

+0.1 for staying hydrated

Finally, we're all here to learn and have fun, so if you do anything to prevent that then expect to be punished in speaks/ballot if not both