Ivy League Parliamentary Debate Championships
2023 — NSDA Campus, NY/US
NParli Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
General: Please be KIND!
I didn't do high school debate but I've done a lot of college APDA.
Here are just some guidelines to win my ballot:
1. If you can explain your point very well, I will vote on it. The explanation matters more than the argument content o as long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.
2-Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument. If anything it will hurt your case! Please be considerate.
3. ALWAYS Weigh between arguments. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds. ( literally, tell me exactly why I should vote for you)!
Remember to have fun!!! We are all here to grow, argue, and learn. I know debate could be extremely stressful but try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! Also, be generous to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive.
If you have any other questions, let me know.
Class of 2026
Heeeeeeeeyyyyyyyy debaters! I'm James, a freshman at Columbia with some previous experience competing in PF in HS. Overall, I try to base decisions on which side has laid out a clear path for how their policy will lead to a greater good than the other side's. Just draw clear connections between your policies to their effects, weigh, and use relevant examples/evidence if applicable. Also, please speak at a reasonable pace so that I can flow your arguments properly and give you credit! Thanks, and I can't wait to see what you have in store!
Lincoln East High School 2018 - 2022
Columbia University 2022 - Present
Please add me to the email chain email@example.com.
Hello, my name is Zoran, and I've been competing in debate/speech for the last four and a half years (yeesh). I was a part of the Lincoln East Debate/Speech teams, where I've competed in two years of LD, two years of Policy, three years in Extemp, and a mixture of congress here and there. Overall had great success in the Nebraska circuit on both teams, qualified for Nationals in Policy, Extemp, and Congress multiple times, and competed at NIETOC (Speech). I also competed on the National circuit in high school for both LD/Policy, so I understand the differences between national and local. Currently, I compete with the Columbia Debate Society, where I judge APDA and compete in APDA/BP. Lastly, I study Political-Economy, History, and Business at Columbia.
Cameras: I am perfectly fine if you have your camera off for reasons, whether it be for tech/personal matters. I will have my camera on and would be happy if all of you did the same, but I understand, given the circumstances.
Speed: Generally, go a little slower and speak louder for online rounds; this will help everyone involved in the current round!
I am good with higher speeds, do keep in mind it's been a while since I've competed in the high school circuit, so I will need a bit of time to adjust. I will say SPEED if you are going too fast. On the other hand, please be CLEAR; people don't understand how important it is. I do not care that I have the speech doc. I will say CLEAR two times for each speaker. If you continue to be unclear, I will drop speaks and not flow your speech.
30: Best speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Perfect speech | 99th percentile
29.0 - 29.9: Top speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | little to no flaws | 90th percentile
28.0 - 28.9: Above average speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Few flaws | 75th percentile
27.0 - 27.9: MID speaker at tournament | Flaws were present | 50th percentile (Where most speaks will now fall)
26.0 - 26.9: Below Average Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Many flaws | 25th percentile
25.0 - 25.9: Weak Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Filled with flaws | 10th percentile
Below 25: You said something egregious (this has happened already at a tournament. Let's not have it happen again)
I want to include this section because I am a biracial debater who participated in a predominantly White circuit—moreover, the lessons and equity I have seen come from the APDA circuit in college. I do not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, gender discrimination, ableism, etc., when I am judging. I will call out any form of this I see in rounds and automatically drop the team doing such acts. The team that has done such acts will get tanked speech 25 or lower, and the winning team will get 29s. This is more out of respect for what has been said in rounds.
Moreover, if you believe I may be unethical regarding how I hand out RFDS, my flowing style, or anything else. Please email me (with the email above), so I can improve in the future! Debate is fundamental to me and can be stressful and challenging for everyone. I hope this eases your tensions and sets a lens for how I view ethics in rounds.
I was a progressive/traditional debater in high school, where I competed on the national and Nebraska circuits in Policy, LD, and Congress. I am fine with everything, and my favorite argument is the K. My least favorite is the CP. But I will vote on anything. I am still a newer judge, so if that concerns you, strike me, but I have judged numerous nat circuit policy rounds.
I flow tags & authors on the case level. I fully flow entire shells for topicality/theory/FW, so please read the t-shell slowly. I am extremely annoyed when teams on the neg read the shell as evidence. It's not helpful when more and more debaters are not sending shells over speech docs, please slow down for shells at the very least. I am fine with speed, but not when it comes to a straight shell. In addition, slowing down on tags/authors also helps differentiate the flow, especially in online debate. I need to tell you are switching audibly; you can still go fast, but it should not be the same speed as the card.
Tbh persuade me on this, I can see both sides, so whoever is winning the flow for the round decides.
I am combing both of these because I see a lot of crossovers already, and it's applicable where necessary. I will have an LD-specific section at the bottom for some nuance stuff.
I am mixed on disclosure. I will go ahead and vote on it; if you are running it, please send a screenshot with the wiki page. I am not looking for you. If AFF says they are breaking new, and it's true, don't run it. However, if you are running an identity K like anti-Blackness or are a minority debater, I am persuaded to hear disclosure bad arguments. Overall though, it is a procedural fairness argument.
If you know what this means, you understand how I view rounds.
I like the plan if it's formatted well and the plan text is engaging. The more hyper-specific the plan, the better. Please give me something truly unique. Also, if you want to LARP in LD by using a straight Util (Standard/Value/V-C) or insert a plan text go full f***ing ahead. I will love you. I am perfectly fine with traditional LD (more details below), but I am okay with you all breaking LD. One caveat is to make sure the plan links to the topic somehow. I will still hear the theory/FW arg on plans aff bad. But if it doesn't link, I have to vote you down (unless they drop the FW/theory, lol).
I love K affs. I ran a Deleuze K Aff for most of the senior year; I am perfectly fine with it, but could you make sure it links to the topic in some capacity? If it doesn't, then FW/theory will be more persuasive. Also, if you are hit with theory/FW, I found it very powerful to use your authors to argue against it instead of basic analytics or general block files. Improves the ethos to such a degree. I also ran a performance Aff on anti-Blackness with Tupac lyrics. So yeah, I am the best person for this in many rounds, so this is your chance to run this stuff. Please do it!
K is love, K is life. I am a K debater through the through. I am tired of policy teams not closing on the K. I understand it's not the right call, but I like it. I am also tire of policy teams running 2/3 card K (this might be a personal gripe). General links to the topic are fine but weak if the link is directly tied to the affirmative. More specific the link, the better! I only buy the perm if you de-link from the K. Like, don't read perm evidence if you didn't argue on the link debate. I am familiar with Deleuze, anti-Blackness, Cap, Set-col, and security, and I am least familiar with Puar, obscure authors, and model-minority myth. But I like a meaty K, and if you spend an entire 2NC on the K, you are my hero (please make it worth a whole 2NC).
Tbh, little to say here. I like DAs like all of them (Linear politics etc.); could you ensure the link and UQ are clear? I've seen this more and more, where people run a K link with an impact with no alt. I don't know if this is a DA, but if you want to run your K as a DA without alt solvency, Go for it. Offense is offense.
I will always prefer you engage with the affirmative if possible. I think boring FW/theory shells are cringe and suck the life out of interesting rounds. For example, if the aff is disclosed and mentions this, well, I find the FW/theory dumb. In addition, when it's a common K argument, It's even more cringe. Yet, I will vote on it if debated well. The only time I see theory on the level of FW necessary is if aff gets up and some Unicorns invade America, go full ahead; that ain't predictable in the slightest. I mentioned this above, but if your performance/k aff can link to the topic area, I see its relevance. On the other hand, for other theory arguments, go for them. Some are more persuasive than others. Vague alt and disclosure are always good.
Speed Theory: I am making a section for this, unless needed, such as for accommodation. This is bad in policy. I can buy this a bit more in LD, but I feel there are easy accommodations like disclosure, asking for speech docs beforehand, whatever. However, if your opponent is not accommodating to you, please run the theory and provide evidence, whether it be an email chain. I will vote on this!
I ran a lot of topicality (minor repair test) and found it pretty cool. It might just be the NATO topic, but it's been a little confusing (probably due to topic knowledge) a lot of the t arguments, so make sure to explain in detail the t flow for me. This is arguably one of the easiest places to vote. I default to reasonability.
My worse argument. I wasn't much of a counter-plan debater in high school, but I understand the nitty gritty. But, the techier the CP flow becomes, you will lose me. Also, if you are closing on the CP, could you please explain this to me? If there is one area where I could squirrel, it will be the CP/PIC flow. Also, could you make sure the CP/PIC is competitive? I am also fine with word PICs.
Preface: It's been a while since I have competed in LD. I was progressive but still ran trad, when needed. I have no topic knowledge for (Columbia 2023) so bear with me.
Value/Standard/V-C: If you are running traditional, that is perfectly fine with me. I start primarily at the top level with the framework for the round. I do not care if you have the Value/V-C or just a standard. Don't think if you win FW, you win the round unless it's a Kant vs. Util round LMFAO
Contention-Level: Contention-level is where you win rounds in LD. Making sure to have strong offense and defense is key
RVI: Ye, y'all get RVIs; theory in the 1NC is hella abusive, so I buy it.
LARPing: I mentioned this earlier, but I am fine with this in LD, link to the topic, of course, but neg will probably read FW. Now, would this be amazing if you both decide to LARP; I will love you. I would email your competitor beforehand if you want to do this, and I will evalaute the round like a minature policy round.
I think Condo is good. I will listen to condo bad args, so don't worry about that. My biggest pet peeve is when going a condo route, make sure what you are closing on makes sense together or just entirely collapse to one flow in the 2NR. For example, do not close on a topicality shell and an Aropess K in the 2NR; those literally do not make sense together. But, ye, if you want to spam the flow with 3 Ks, 2 CPs, and a DA, we are chilling.
Truth vs. Tech
I prefer tech more, but I do not want the most blippy args coming out of nowhere. I see the two as compliments; the higher quality evidence with insane tech is *chef's kiss*
Right now, I am open to trick debate (for the time being). I am still unaware of the nuance of it all and have yet to hit many tricks debaters or judged. But this will be updated if it's a terrible way to debate.
I am mixed on this because I was on the receiving hand of this back in high school. But if you want to run a Shrek K in front of me, do it.
PF (Revise later)
I probably will never be judging this event, but I am sorry. I have an extremely negative disposition towards this event (if you want to know, ask me). If I have to judge this event more or coach it, I will give a better paradigm.
Congress (Revise later)
I did a short stint with congress. I did it because I did extemp, so use that as a metric. I will be able to evaluate confidently and keep up with the news reasonably frequently, so if you are lying, I will know.
I currently compete in the APDA college circuit and have judged multiple rounds. Care much more for the bigger picture and how you carry evidence throughout the round. A slower speed is preferred compared to LD/Policy, roughly around PF or Congress speed is fine.
My name is Krishma and I am current a freshman debater and I have experience judging parli (college and high school) and very little experience judging PF and LD. In my brief PF and LD judging experience, one thing I encountered a lot was spreading. PLEASE, I encourage you to not spread in rounds I am judging. I prefer quality>quantity (and I really cannot decipher words when debaters speak that fast).
Any unethical content (racism, homophobia, etc.) results in automatic loss and low speaks. It is important to be respectful in rounds and I will be upholding this strictly.
Also I am not familiar with tech words. So unless I can infer what you are talking ab in rounds, I would not waste time using very particular debate jargon.
Academic (Business) Librarian & Tenure Track Faculty Member - Southern CT State University
Parent of HS Debate student
Education: MLIS (Univ of IL Urbana Champaign), MA (Univ of Cincinnati)
Bio: I am a graduate from and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and I'm currently Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University
TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.
Speed: Speed seems to be fine. Idk about online so depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.
Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.
K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. It forces me to be more critical in my evaluations. I believe that people that resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.
CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal isn’t to get permed right?
Condo: I really don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.
Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy
I am a college freshman in Barnard/Columbia in my first year of APDA debate. I did PF in all of HS, so while I do know basic terms and flowing and whatnot, I am still learning the logistics of parliamentary debate specifically. That being said, that does not mean I am incapable of my job.
1: This debate should be designed for the average person. If a random stranger on the street would not understand what you are trying to say, don’t expect me to. Just because I understand debate theory or jargon doesn’t mean I will favor you for it.
2: Please PLEASE fully demonstrate your impacts and why they matter. Weigh! I spent too long during HS trying to learn this; better late than never. I fully appreciate even a simple comparison that really nicely sums up why you won the point.
3: No spreading. I have seen spreading. I am not impressed. That will not change.
4: Organization is key. Clean and clear arguments, analyzed points, and even an off-time roadmap would be great. Not necessary, but nice to know what to expect.
5: I keep my own time; you are welcome to keep yours. I normally bang the table when your time is up, but if it's an online tournament you can give your preference if you want me to cut you off.
6: Goes without saying, but any oppressive comments (sexist, homophobic, racist, etc.) are an automatic drop and the lowest speaks I can give. I do not tolerate anything of the sort and will most certainly report it.
I like to think of myself as being experienced in the debate world, having been here for 3 years. I also know what I would’ve liked to see in my judges, and I try to fulfill that the best I can for you all. Have fun, relax, and I look forward to what you have to say in your debate rounds. Good luck.
For any inquiries (don’t hesitate to reach out), I can be found at firstname.lastname@example.org
This is the second tournament I have judged so far. I am a relatively inexperienced judge.
I will be following the standard rubric for judging.
Hi everyone! Background - I’m Isabel Marks, I’m a junior and captain of the Bard HS Early College Queens debate team (plug for our insta @bhsecqdebate), and I’ve been debating since my freshman year. I’ve done some (terrible) PF, but it’s been 95% East Coast parli. Highlight reel of my debate career: forgetting to respond to my opponent’s arguments because I really like talking about Richard Nixon, being told that I was “probably right but very confusing” and winning some smaller tournaments.
The basics: be a good person, explain why you’re right, explain why they’re wrong, signpost, weigh, say smart things, ask me if you have other questions/comments/concerns.
- Use your full time & talk like a real person! Clarity is appreciated because it helps me flow & understand your arguments.
- I judge largely based on flow. If you don’t say something in round, I will not flow it and cannot vote on it. I have had unfortunate cases where I had to vote for people who ran false arguments but the other team didn’t respond to them effectively so I had to vote for a team that was wrong in the real world. Tech > truth because that’s probably the fairest way to judge debate.
- General protocol about how if you say something racist/sexist/homophobic I will give you low speaks, a loss and report you to equity. I’m also going to add that debaters often make super ignorant arguments and I don’t want to hear them. Poor people are people. People who haven’t had access to good education (or simply chose not to pursue it) are people. Addicts are people. You get the gist. People who don't have your life circumstances or have not made your choices deserve respect, help and access to resources. Doing this will lead to low speaks, a loss, an equity report, an explanation from me about why you’re wrong, and probably a reading list. If you heard something I missed, please contact me ASAP!
- Think outside of your own perspective! Don’t just weigh & provide arguments within the context of your life, think about how it will impact others. This helps me to see that you're thinking deeply about these issues, which will help your speaker scores
- Things I think about when deciding speaker scores: Did you make creative, detailed arguments? Did you organize your speeches well? Did you make the most out of your allotted speaking time? Did you change my mind on any voting issues during your speech? How did you respond to POIs?
- I’ve heard obvious outside research in no prep tournaments way more times than I’ve expected. Do not do it. If prep is allowed, don't just give me a statistic, tell me why it matters.
- Examples & information that you happen to know are welcome!
- Please explain those examples & information, and give me a clear link on how they prove your point.
- If you’re going to do research, it should at least be correct. Don’t give me a statistic that isn’t real (this has happened).
- Debate is not a perfect medium. It’s fun to do! I’ve learned a lot! But it also doesn’t allow for nuance or concession in the same way that a discussion does.
I’ll largely give verbal RFDs & will definitely disclose. If you want a written RFD or extra feedback, please feel free to ask or email me at email@example.com!
Hi! I debated World Schools format for two years in high school and some BP. As of 2022, I do college debate (mostly APDA and some BP).
I'm fine with most arguments, but here are some basic guidelines:
- Don't spread–I can't give you the win if I don't understand you. Slightly above regular conversation speed is ok.
- I've never debated in the US high school circuit so I won't understand any specific technical terms.
- Be as clear as you can about your logical flow, weigh and tell me how to vote!
- I'm not familiar with a lot of theory so it's probably best to avoid it unless you can explain it clearly to me in round.
Violating equity (homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc) will result in an automatic loss and low speaks. Feel free to email me with any concerns or issues regarding such behaviour.
Sophomore Policy Debater @ Mamaroneck High School
If Policy: add firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain.
+.1 speaks if you start every speech with "The Fact of the Matter is..."
I am a Policy Debater. I flow fairly well. Please send out your speech docs. Clarity>Speed. If I do not understand I will not flow it.
I debate Policy; AFF and NEG. A K AFF needs a thesis, strong links, and good answers to Framework.
A K Neg also needs strong extensions.
Please explain your K's to me. Contextualise them to the round. The other side should be contextualizing their framework to their arguments and the K. Sure, I'll buy that Nato's bad. If you're the neg, why does that specifically matter contextualized to what the AFF does?
You should extend your "story" in the 2NR. Your links, your impacts, why solving is important. I want you to explain to me at the end of the day why you won the round.
Against like a security K, your best weapon is the case. Prove your threats are real and the links fail.
Clash/Education>>>>Spreading 10 things in the 1NC. I will vote on Condo there if done well.
I think Fairness is an impact but I think clash and education are both better if done well.
Do the case debate. I don't understand why the 1NC reads a bunch of great case cards, lets the 2ac get away with meh analytics and then only makes a few token extensions in the block. I would gladly vote for a strong case + 1 DA 2NR if done properly.
Please don't waste my time. Don't steal prep/clip cards/etc.
Open cross is fine.
Do a roadmap before your speeches.
Try and project some ethos. Be confident! Even if you're losing!
No objectively bad args like death good please. You can do goofy things like AZSPEC but make it seem at least competent.
A dropped arg is a true arg. But mindlessly extending theory will not make me vote on it. You actually have to explain why this theory violation was critical enough to warrant the ballot and ignoring everything else that happened in round.
Using your opponents evidence against them is a big plus. On the other hand, don't get too focused on i.e 1 piece of rehighlighting. It's probably not going to zero out their case.
Don't know much about Parli so if you see this I am probably judging for a friend.
A few things:
Avoid Parli-specific Acronym's please. But if it's a broader debate term (like flow) I'm perfectly fine.
Why is there a 'grace period?'
Write my ballot. Good weighing wins rounds.
I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.
Hi Debaters! It's a great honor for me to serve as your judge and for me to be back at PF debate.
I was a former PF, BP and current APDA debater, with the highest honor of former national and provincial champion in PF and BP.
For the sake of debaters and the judge, please be clear of your thesis and logical as you elaborate the arguments. Please do NOT speak TOO FAST. Particularly for an online tournament, it's crucial to be clear and remain the speed at an appropriate level.
English is not my native language so intentional obscure diction might confuse me.
Please feel to communicate any problems before the round starts and I would do my best to give you all the best experience!
I have seven years of experience with high school speech and debate. Now, I am a part of the Columbia Debate Society with one year of college debate experience. I have judged high school Parlimentary and PF.
For all debates, I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace and organization. I do not enjoy spreading, and I like it when speakers clearly outline their arguments and line of reasoning. I will flow with you to keep up, but I also appreciate sign posting.
Other than speed, I have no strong preferences about cases and am open to listening to all arguments. Please be considerate when addressing sensitive topics!
updated for march 2023:
did pf in high school, currently judging for trinity. zero topic knowledge, not familiar with current norms. i'll evaluate the round with a technical standard but please treat me as lay in terms of your actual argumentation. i won't intervene on any level so it's your responsibility to point out anything of note. email email@example.com with any questions & good luck !
- i like funny people and bold strategic decisions -- these will boost ur speaks
- i'll vote for the team w the least mitigated link to the greatest impact. which means u need to both win ur link and weigh ur impact in order for me to consider it. ideally, you'll interact with your opponents weighing
- please collapse, signpost, and do thorough extensions/warranting. implicate your defense/disads. the blippier you are the less likely i am to follow
- tech> truth but my standards for responses get lower the more unreasonable the argument is
- non-interventionist in all aspects. it's your responsibility to call your opponents out for being overtime, subpar extensions/extending through ink, dropping something, having bad evidence etc. i am lazy and won't do any work unless you tell me to
- speed trades off with my understanding. again, think of me as lay
- second rebuttal should frontline turns
- no defense needed in first summary if there's no frontlining in rebuttal. extend turns if you're going for them
- i have absolutely zero topic knowledge. please explain things to me like i'm a toddler
I'm new to judging PF and have experience judging one APDA tournament.
I appreciate speakers being respectful towards one another and speak clearly and slowly. Please support your arguments with evidence and evaluate their impacts.