Hi, I’m Elisha Bell. I'm a high school parli debater who has been in the circuit for 5 years.

Be kind and respectful to your opponents but don’t hesitate to call them out on unfair arguments or promotion hate speech of any kind (racism, sexism, classism, etc.). Even if the opposing team doesn't call you out on hate speech don't think you got away with it, I will and I won't take it lightly in both the distribution of speaker points and my decision on the round.

I don’t mind heckling as long as it is warranted and doesn't take away from the round. I will take points off if I deem it aggressive heckling, but don't let that scare you away from engaging at all. I'll let you know in the round when you're getting close to crossing that line, before taking points off.

You can speak at whatever speed is most comfortable for you. I don't mind spreading as long as your opponents and I are still able to hear your points.

As for things I look for in a speech:

Please signpost throughout your speech as well as provide a roadmap when you start.

Make sure to engage with the other teams arguments. Don't just expand on your points without responding to refutations first, especially in later speeches (You're point doesn't still stand just because you said it does). There needs to be reasoning behind not just your responses to their points but also why yours flow through

WEIGH. Weighing is what in the end can make or break a round for you. Why do your points matter? What effect does this have on the world? Why is what you're saying have a more positive effect than your opponents? Why do your impacts matter more than your opponents? Your points don't matter if you don't have any impact to back them up.

If you have any other questions about my preference on something in round just ask me before and I'll be more that happy to answer or a question about my feedback just let me know and I can give you my email

Most importantly; have fun, humor is always welcome and enjoyed. Don't take things too seriously it's only middle school debate, I promise it is not as serious as you think. Have a great round debaters and good luck!

and if u get Athena Li tell her I'm the better judge :)

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

2x toc qualifier, 2024 toc quarterfinalist, 10x career bids

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Top-level:

read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years

tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention

judge instruction in the rebuttals is crucial and slow down if its something important

well researched and specific neg strats > generics

quality of cards > quantity of cards

Topicality:

good for t debates. a lot of my 1nr's were extending t

specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's

not great for competition debates. if in a process cp round, each team needs to thoroughly explain and impact out their standards

judgekick is fine but the 2nr needs to say it and justify it

Disadvantages:

good for most da's just make sure you mitigate some of the case

do explicit turns case analysis

Kritiks:

good for k's and i'm familiar with most literature

throughout high school we went for: afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

i'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

specific links to the aff >>> generic links

explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

i'm fine if you go for fwk + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

fwk is usually the most important part of these debates so either the aff gets the plan and all their impacts or they dont

K-Affs:

good for k-affs that are unique to the topic

explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

if you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt da's or case turns i'll err neg

k-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

i dont think you need to win spill-up claims or that debate shapes subjectivity but that your praxis should be endorsed

tell me why the ballot is good

Framework vs K-Affs:

good for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

i prefer a counter interp but am fine for the impact turn

the counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments

affs need specific answers to tva and ssd

its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

neg case debating is key because most aff fwk da's are embedded in the case

K v K:

k affs probably get perms but I can be convinced otherwise

these debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

condo is good up until 5 or 6 then its probably abusive

what even is dispo?

I have a low threshold for answering cheap theory arguments

Random stuff:

racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. = auto L and lowest speaks

wont vote for racism or genocide good but the death k is a valid argument

will reward kindness and humor during rounds

you can probably insert rehighlightings if the card has already been read but the other team can contest it

tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

funny references to head-royce debaters = +.1 speaker points

Hi Middle School Debaters!

Just a bit about me, I did parliamentary-style middle school debate for 2 years, and I've done policy debate for Head Royce all four years of high school. I can't wait to watch your round!

My foremost priority as a judge is to ensure that everyone feels safe in this space. I love creative arguments, clash, and smart heckling, but none of that can come at the expense of a debater's comfort. Basically as long as you're kind and respectful everything will go great. Otherwise, speaker points may be deducted :/

Impact calculus is usually the most important part of the debate for me. Obviously all the buzz words (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.) are cool, but just give me a clear analysis of why the impacts of your assertions outweigh theirs.

Otherwise, make sure heckling is purposeful, don't ramble in POIs, do clear evidence comparison, and extend clear warrants in the rebuttals. And of course, be funny and have fun :)

-Dylan

best of luck! feel free to ask me to clarify anything in this paradigm.

[about me]:

Fallon '19, Dublin High '23

Experience: 1 yr middle school, 3 yrs high school PF and parli (Dublin CK) - TOC qual x2, nats x3, states, co-coaching DHS PF team

Email:kcheng05@stanford.edu

____________________________________________________________________________________

[what makes me a happy judge]:

args: I'll buy any argument as long as each claim you make is well warranted and thoroughly explained. Don't jump from claim straight to impact, tell me why and how you got there.

weighing: WEIGH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, and make sure it's COMPARATIVE! Tell me why your argument is better than your opponent's, not just why yours is good. Consider factors like time, size, probability, effectiveness, etc.

refuting: If you don't refute something or explain why another refutation applies to it, I'd consider it conceded unless they don't bring it up again either. If your opponent drops your argument, point it out in your next speech.

speed: I can handle speed/spreading, but DON'T go fast if a) you become unclear from stuttering/lagging, or b) it's unfair for your opponents (which is true for most middle school rounds)

POIs/heckles: It's really impressive when you can strongly respond to POIs on the spot. Making and responding to POIs are good for your speaker scores. Just don't spam them abusively; same w/ heckles.

speaks: Please be respectful/accommodating to everyone in the round! If you're not, your scores will reflect that. In scoring, I reward warranting, organization, narrative, WEIGHING, collapsing, and lighthearted jokes -- make the round interesting and fun to judge!

more: I appreciate collapsing and signposting. Collapsing = focusing on 1 arg by the end of the round; signposting = making it clear when you move to a different part of your speech ("turn the 2nd impact on their 1st contention", etc).

____________________________________________________________________________________

[after the round stuff]:

disclosing/rfd: Whenever allowed to, I'll always disclose who won, speaker scores, and why. I'll answer any questions, just avoid postrounding (trying to change my decision).

[for questions/feedback/anything debate]:

email - kcheng05@stanford.edu

ig - @katiiecheng

discord - katiec#2874

Francis Jayaratne

Head-Royce School '23 | Claremont Mckenna College '27

MS Parli debate (2017-2019, 2 years)

Policy debate (2019-2023, 4 years) Topics: Arm sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water Resources, NATO emerging tech

TOC (2023)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo3OM2_E7FU

Emails (add both):

mtglord123@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

For Policy Debate:

• Have fun with debate
• Please format email chain subject lines as "Tournament Round Aff Entry vs Neg Entry"
• My flowing wasn't the best when I debated, but I still had some success so make of that what you will
• I read a Policy Aff for 1.5 years and a K Aff for 2.5, wrote a policy Aff
• In my last year I went a ton for death good and other whacky arguments --> love it, if you read these types of args I'll be with you 100%
• Disclosure is good+important
• I'll assume nobody in the round is trying to be actively malicious, and I think apologies remedy most in round conflict
• Don't call me judge, feel free to say my name
• Make me laugh --> I'm often expressive so feel free to take that into account
• CPs and Ks absolutely need to beat the perm or win FW
• T is great if you can prove real abuse, especially if they're shifty in round. Affs are too shifty nowadays and defend too little with their plan texts
• DAs with good links are cool
• Silly/contrived/generic/most process CPs aren't that cool
• Don't use CX as prep
• If a plan text is vague/the Aff is being shifty I'm 100% willing to vote neg on vagueness/parametrics type args
• I 100% will vote for a substantiated and harmful instance of evidence manipulation/ethics violation. Even if not done purposefully policy debate needs good evidence standards, however I'll also weigh reasonability, don't make frivolous ethics violations.
• For the K:

- Love them, especially with post fiat links and explanations like circumvention etc.

- Winning FW makes the K debate super easy, I think if it comes down to it I won't do a middle of the road approach

- When I debated I read racial cap, Deleuze, Tech Ks, and Security Ks

• In the K Aff debate:

- You need to prove that your education o/w some level of clash+fairness loss

- Fairness is kinda an impact but my mom told me life ain't fair so...

- Beat SSD/TVA

- I'm very unsympathetic towards K affs that say the topic as a whole is bad/should be ignored, each year's new topic brings a new valuable topic to learn about imo

- I'm absolutely willing to vote for the Neg off FW, you just need to win it

For Middle School Debate:

- I'm a high school debater, so as long as I can actually hear you, I probably can follow you

- I am flowing, probably on my computer otherwise on paper

- Don't spread in MS debate or misuse high school debate terms

- Make me laugh, it'll help your speaks and make your pathos better

- While I miss heckles, over zoom no heckling

- Debate is all about making connections --> Connections between contradicting points, your own assertions, pieces of evidence etc. In many ways it's a web

- I love good POIs and will keep track of them. They can and should be a key part of clash and interacting with the opponents and clash. However, don't abusively overuse POIs. While I'll appreciate the effort behind a bad POI, it doesn't automatically help your side

- Be confident, doesn't matter if you're an introvert or extrovert, everyone can at a minimum look confident and that really goes a long way

- I'm probably a mixture of tech and truth (meaning I evaluate debates both off of my flow/exactly what was said, and also with some level of common sense)

- Not a fan of Plans/counterplans, instead frame them as potential alternatives that the Pro/Con/Aff/Neg precludes

- In the rebuttal speeches I really want to see good impact calculus/comparison. More often than not the other team has some impact, what you need to do is tell me why yours comes first

- Weighing mechanisms are cool but misused. If it's too broad I don't care about it. If it's not explained why it comes first, it probably doesn't come first. If it's not tied back to your own points/assertions, then your overall story is less convincing. Honestly saying your weighing mechanism is utilitarianism (doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people), is probably the best W/M in MS debate imo

- I really like good refutations and answers. A weird way I viewed debate was as a knife throwing competition. Each knife is an assertion, and each thrower is the speaker. Instead of throwing a bunch of knives at the target and hoping some stick, it's better to have a few highly accurate throws. Even better is "catching" your opponent's knife and throwing it back at them. In my eyes that's a really good refutation that either turns their own point against them or that stops it from ever hitting the target

- Compare compare compare. Comparing points wins you debates --> More than that, Answer Questions. Most debates come down to your side answering a question, and their side answering that question with the complete opposite answer. Tell me why your answer is right while theirs is wrong. If that doesn't happen, I'm left having to just use common sense.

- Some impacts need to be explained more while others don't until the last speech. Saying the economy will collapse doesn't need to be impacted out to people losing their jobs and becoming poor until the last speech. On the other hand, climate change probably requires less of an explanation since talking about polar bears isn't really crucial.

- If the debate comes down to a piece of evidence I will probably look at it

- Don't read a definition unless it'll help your side

- Wrap up what you're saying when time goes off, I highly recommend you time yourself when giving your speech

Hey I'm Athena, I'm currently a sophomore at Piedmont High and have been debating parli for the past five years. I have the most experience in parli (norcal tech but also some lay) but I also know how LD and policy work. This might be a bit long, but I wanted to include everything I felt was necessary and would help you out! If any of this funny debate jargon doesn’t make sense to you or if you have any questions about why I evaluate stuff in a certain way please ask me before the round! I am always happy to take the time to explain - paradigms with a lot of lingo always scared me so i def understand feeling overwhelmed

- Basic human decency always comes before winning. This should be common sense (in debate and in life), but don't say or do anything discriminatory or bigoted or be rude to anyone in the round. This will not be tolerated and I will immediately drop you, have a Serious Discussion, and escalate to equity/tab accordingly. Please stop reading stuff written by Nazis. I don’t care if you think this isn’t tabula rasa of me, the violence behind these ideas, words, and actions doesn’t disappear just because you’re in a debate round. I also find that most arguments like this tend to lose on the flow anyways.

Don't misgender anyone. If you do this and do not immediately apologize and correct yourself, you will be dropped and a Serious Discussion will also be in order.

- Please don't ask to shake my hand. I wear a mask but idc if you do.

- Speak at whatever speed seems reasonable to you but if anyone in the round asks you to slow or clear you should slow or clear. I can and will determine speaks based off of adherence to this rule

- Grace period is like 10s, finish up your thought but I will stop flowing

- Weighing is really really really important! I can't stress this enough it's so important for evaluating the round. I want to see clean collapses in the back half of the round, metaweighing is cool, and just please do weighing work i will be sad if you don't

- Please actually interact with your opponents' arguments, I feel like arguments over stuff like author credibility are kind of pointless and shallow (esp in parli where no one can really fact check anything anyway) and if their author really is that bad surely there’s some logical fallacy/otherwise incorrect thing they’re employing and subsequently somewhere they’re losing on the flow? that you can talk about instead?? Idk, I just think proper clash makes everything more interesting and creates much better argumentation

- Tech over truth but the less truth there is the less tech it takes to beat it

Parli:

- I find that mspdp does not understand how POO’s work. Reading evidence is not a new argument. Reading an extension from the previous speech is definitely not a new argument. Reading a response to something someone said in the block is a golden turn and is a thing you can do. If you’re not mspdp then I assume you know that - I protect, but sometimes i forget so you should call the point of order just in case, I will not penalize you

- Please please PLEASE if you poi make sure they are 1) a QUESTION 2) directed at your opponents NOT ME. I have no problem with pois and in fact encourage them as a whole, just please use them for their intended purpose of asking a relevant and clarifying question to your opponents. I’m getting really tired of the whole awkwardly shoehorned in as a question, “well we say this so do you agree that x is true” thing like save that for your own speech. I also don’t care if you don’t poi, it won’t affect your speaks or my perception of you as “engaged” or wtv but I do generally think it is nice to accept a poi or two

- Case is cool. Please give me good links and uniqueness in the right direction!! I appreciate goofy counterplans and don’t have any strong opinions either way on theoretical illegitimacy, so open to theory. Please address any perm spikes

- I love k’s! I’ve currently been doing cap and cap adjacent k’s but I love learning about different k’s so feel free to run whatever in front of me. You should explain your lit base at a high level in your FW - better yet, assume both I and your opponents don’t know it and proactively answer any questions. If your k relies on confusing your opponents by not telling them what’s going on it’s probably not a very good k lol. I like specific links and they will probably give you an easier path to the ballot. Please have good solvency arguments attached to your alt, I think that unless you are very clear about how your spicy abstract prefiat epistemological rejection of something or another alt solves I find it hard to buy and will have a lower threshold for “no solvency womp womp” responses by the other team

K affs should have strong topic harms OR strong framing justifying the aff. Ideally both actually both is good. I will vote on FW/T as long as it doesn’t cross over into “K’s are prima facie bad”

- Theory is nifty. Defaults: competing interps > reasonability, text of the interp, LOC theory probably comes before MG theory, no RVIs but I can be convinced otherwise. K’s bad is cringe. Topicality tends to get very bogged down in semantics which I guess is kind of the point, but I would like to see more work done on voters, external impacts, and reasons to prefer your interp which imo should be the real meat and potatoes of a T round. I think there’s maybe something to be said for disclosing during prep that you are running a k of some sort, especially in novice, but I don’t really know how I’m supposed to enforce or verify that. Parli moment

- i don’t really know how to eval tricks except tropicality, I love tropicality

LD:

- please do good signposting and please slow down on analytics! It’s been a hot minute since I’ve watched any super spready rounds so please cut me some slack

- Email [redacted, will put up before tourn] Would be nice if you could format the subject line as Tournament - Round # - Aff AB vs Neg XY. It should not take you two minutes to send cards unless you’re having a legitimate issue, in which case you should let me know asap otherwise I’ll start prep after ~30s

- Take a look at the parli section, most of my opinions are the same. You can run plans and counterplans, lol.

- FW is very cool and important! Idk what else to say here.

- Trad LD is like weird to me tbh. Make it abundantly clear why your value + criterion matters ig?

- Look okay I get that debate can get rather charged and heated but being annoying in CX gets you nowhere, I appreciate some snark but being straight up rude is a different thing and not something anyone enjoys. Also please stop screaming "THEY MISHANDLED THIS" at the top of your speech, like they probably didn’t and you still need to explain why that matters

Other stuff:

- READ CONTENT WARNINGS. I err on the side of too many TW’s being better than the alternative (this obviously excludes jokes, which if you’re thinking about doing you should go touch some grass and seriously rethink your life choices). If you get trigger warning theory run against you just apologize, move on, and do better in the future. I do not want to see forced outing or justifications of violent rhetoric. I can and will drop the debater. Conversely, I would like it if you didn't villainize your opponents when they are actually making a good faith effort to improve (and it is usually easy to tell in these situations when people are acting in good faith!)

- Speaker points are a) nonsensical, inconsistent, problematic, and prioritize cishet white men, and b) very important to a lot of you. Unless you do something actively bad, I'll give you all 30’s at tournaments that don’t require me to give everyone a different score and at ones that don’t I probably won't go lower than like a 29. I will never ever ever dock speaks for something like your clothes, internet connection, things like stuttering/speaking quietly/etc (if it interferes with my ability to understand you i will let you know), sounding “angry” (esp if you are fem presenting!), speaking “informally”, etc!!!! there was this one tournament I went to where I got four separate rfds in which the judge took points off for my delivery lmao and I am sick of it

- +0.5 speaks for bringing me A Trinket (food, something from nature, or some otherwise nifty object), +0.1 for saying “we stay silly” or “yippee”, +0.2 for playing or referencing any segment of the musical masterpiece that is I Will Eat Raw by Joel jacobs at any point while I am in the room, showing me your flows after the round, calling elon musk a clown and honking your nose, or each phoebe bridgers reference :))

Also say something funny please debate is not as serious as y'all think I really wish people got more silly with it

+0.3 if you make fun of elisha bell

- If you think you might have any questions after the round, just ask me and I'll give you my email, feel free to ask about anything whenever!

- Wow I’ve been yapping for a while im so sorry. Anyways I'm just vibing you're just vibing, have fun, there's always room for improvement, good luck y'all!!

Don't talk fast, drink water, enunciate, and be confident. I enjoy long walks, watching football on sundays and con limon corn nuts while I am judging as a light snack.

I am a Junior in highschool

I did middle school debate all 3 years and am now doing high school Public Forum debate.

I am ok will all POIs and heckles as long as they aren't repetitive or so constant that they disrupt the speaker

POIs are generally encouraged, not giving any POIs or heckles throughout the debate will be perceived as a lack of engagement in the debate.

I will be timing your speeches but I am ok with you timing yourself.

Signposting during and before speeches is good for organization of the speech but is not necessary if you are clear on what you are responding to and talking about in your speech.

But how does this affect Lebron's Legacy?

Parli coach at Berkeley High.

Former debater and coach at Head-Royce.

Short Version:

I have experience competing in policy, parliamentary, and MS debate. I am K and speed friendly. Know the arguments that you run. I will NEVER vote on K if it is clearly prewritten/poorly understood by the team that reads it. I don't like any fishy tricks within the round: wasting your opponent's time, skewing the round (i.e. running then dropping an essential arg), and the classic...over spreading.

Make sure the choices you make in rounds enhance your argumentation. Be good people.

If you have read through this paradigm come to the round and tell me: "Sherbert Lemon." I will know and be impressed.

Long Version:

Check out these paradigms as these are the judges/coaches who have mainly informed my judging standards:

• Larry Dang (Policy)
• Joel Jacobs (Parli)

Shoutout to my first debate coach Vy Linh Nguyen. She runs GGSA and is a rising star in Parli debate. If you name drop her in round I will be VERY VERY Impressed.

don't need to call me judge, just call me maxwell/max, he/they, head-royce school '25

hrs ms debate '19-'21, hrs hs policy debate -current, hrs ms coaching -current (also dabbled in hs parli)

t/l for any type of debate: any -ism or -phobia will get u very low speaks and probably an L, weigh and clash, have fun

tech > truth but I'll probably use truth (common sense) to break the tie

for middle school debate:

I will vote for the team that I think should win solely by evaluating the content presented to me in the 6 speeches. to increase your chances, do impact calc and weigh in the last speech. use your weighing mech. if you do not do this, you most likely will not like my decision. arguments that I will vote on have a claim, reasoning/warrant, evidence, and impact.

Probably have decent topic(s) knowledge from coaching but don't use this as an excuse to under-explain things

I’ll decide quickly and write shorter rfds now. please ask questions or postround me (don't be offensive/step over boundaries)

email - headroycewd at gmail dot com. only for questions and genuine inquiries, please

don't count down don't introduce yourself i don't care it takes decision time away

list of things I don't like: (aka lower speaks)

3rd speeches without weighing

2nd opp speeches with new assertions

pointless/abusive heckling

taking 10 years between speeches and giving unnecessarily long roadmaps

list of things I like: (aka higher speaks)

weighing and writing my ballot

line by line refuting

clash and good pois

signposting and good structure - don't jump between flows it's hard to follow, I don't like matching the args for you

being funny

extra

please don’t shake my hand unless you have an undying desire to do so thanks

time yourself, do an offtime roadmap, be hydrated and prepared.

if you get this person tell him im a better judge

I flow straight down on my computer; please ask pre-round questions.

speaker points scale

I try to keep my speaks normally distributed; u = 76.5 sd = 2.5

80 - perfect. best ms debate speech I've seen. I will be sparing with this.

79-79.5 – great speaker - both content and delivery wise. you are likely a top 10 speaker at this tournament.

76.5-78.5 – above average speaker - moments of brilliance throughout speech, engaged with opponents' arguments, and had clear delivery, but did not grasp strategic moments to win debates.

74.5-76 – average speaker - you are filling time, making some smart arguments, but not fully engaged in rebuttals of opponents' arguments.

73-74 – below average speaker - structural speech mistakes, or not clashing with opponents' points.

71-73 – unclear speaking-wise, did not fill sufficient time, or did not make compelling arguments.

>71 - you did/said something offensive, or you didn't make any arguments.

Hey! I'm TT and I'm a second debater at Quarry Lane (1st speaker for Quarry Lane LY)

add me to the email chain @tiantianyang07@gmail.com - please share your speech docs!!

PF:

cards > paraphrasing

tech > truth

extend! fully and clearly extend arguments & responses

don't go too much overtime during speeches and prep

stay respectful and inclusive during round

LD:

*reminder that I'm a PFer!

framework and impact calc matter

no frivolous theory

no K's, no fill

LARP and policy is fine

no phil