I'm a lawyer and have judged parli debates several times. I've also judged mock trials and moot court. I want to hear the strongest and most credible evidence that supports your position. Sometimes less is more. I like debaters that anticipate their opponents' arguments and try to steal their thunder. As for style, I don't care if you talk fast so long you are clear and understandable. Respect your opponent. To quote the Bard, "And do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends." 

I am a parent judge who’s judged at quite a few tournaments. Please be clear and explain your arguments thoroughly (no jargon). Please check your ego at the door! I look forward to a great round.

Always open for paradigm questions before round (honestly recommend this because any judge's perception of good debate changes by topic) and RFD questions after or emailed tohacapone06@g.ucla.edu

Head-Royce '24

UCLA '28

For Peninsula '25:

• background: I did parli in high school and have some other experience running EBDL for middle schoolers and coaching that
• ill evaluate anything you say so long as it isn't violent/problematic
• my preference is case debate, this was a majority of what I did in hs, and honestly just think its cleaner given a 20 min prep limit
• ill weigh magnitude > prob > timeframe for the most part but this will also depend on the debate itself
• it is your job to make something stick basically it is your responsibility to make sure important evidence/arguments get on my flow because realistically I can't write everything down
• I'm still surprised by how much this happens but please don't debate the top of the case if you just agree with what they said, for example, if you're neg don't go up and read a definition that is literally the exact same but on that note debating the top of case is highly important if their toc does not also benefit your case
• weighing mechanisms debates are usually kinda silly and oftentimes involve two teams who are arguing with each other but in reality are saying the same thing and if you don't give me a good weighing mech and an equally good reason why it should exist instead of net benefits then its not as serious of a part of my decision as most people think
• always tech > truth aka if u say "pigs can fly" and back that up as long as it goes uncontested that is a truth within the round
• obviously read the k and theory/ other technical stuff but within parli my bar is way higher for these arguments just given the fact that these are prewritten
• technical debate should not be a way just to trip up opponents and if these arguments aren't explained in a way that is understandable for someone who isn't familiar with technical debate I'm way less likely to vote for it; same thing goes with speed, speed and tech shouldn't exist to exclude your opponents
• POI as u see fit and don't be afraid to call the POO but understand the rules behind both and don't be annoying and I'll drop points for abusive POIs and POOs
• people usually miss the significance of impact debate across the board, this is usually going to guide any judge how to vote especially in the last 2 speeches and weighing is huge across the entire debate
• be creative, have fun - being engaging is part of your ethos

Hey friends!!!!

My name is Abigail Chen (she/her). I debated parli for 4 years with Campolindo HS and now I'm a freshmen at Georgetown University studying business. I'm good with any arguments you want to run! I try my best not to intervene and to be tabula rasa. In HS I ran Ks on both the aff and neg, theory (often FWT), and case.

Some of my defaults (always, obviously, up for debate):

- Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy (then it flows aff)

- Theory>Ks>Case

- Competing Interps>Reasonability

Ok other stuff

- Do not be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic or otherwise create harm/abuse/violence toward your opponents

- I am a firm tech>truth debater

- I really like it when debaters signpost, terminalize their impacts, weigh and collapse. If you do it I will be happy!

- Quick disclaimer that I've been out of debate for a hot second and am not 100% certain I can handle speed speed, but I'll let you know if I can't understand

- I will stop flowing exactly when your time runs out

- please put in bare minimum effort to be accessible to your opponents. this will be me if you completely spread out your opponents and they don't understand --> :(

- On a similar note you probably shouldn't assume that I know your lit

- POIs are great for making debate more accessible. Turning them into arguments is a cheap shot and means you don't know how to form refutations in your own speech and is just mean :(

- That being said it seems POCs are a thing now. I think POCs stop time and should be 100% purely clarifying on text.

- Always call the POO. I do protect but cannot guarantee that we will agree on what is new. Each side gets 15 seconds to state/respond to the POO, and then I will rule on it immediately (unless I'm not sure and need to check my flow)

- Perfectly fine with tag teaming but will only flow what the speaker says

- perms are tests of competition and are not a path to the ballot, i.e. the perm takes away the cp, but you still have to win something else in order to win the round (<-- this is a direct copy and paste from my partner's paradigm)

- Probably have a high threshold on RVIs (is this intervention?) which means justifying and explaining why I should vote on the RVI

- I will disclose! If you wanna hear it stick around

- If you make a Taylor Swift refence I cannot promise to not build an unconscious bias to like your team more

Ok I think that's it! As always ask if you have questions on my paradigm or anything else. Remember to have fun :)

I'm a student at UC Berkeley who competed in parliamentary debate in high school. I placed 7th in California my senior year, and made it to quarterfinals at the TOC. Ranked 20th nationally per NPDL rankings. 

I'm attaching some general preferences below, but in general I'm looking for teams that are interested in having a genuinely educational, interesting debate round- I don't like things getting caught up too much on technicalities. Remember to have fun, take deep breathes, and no matter what happens know that you're still an amazing debater and you've got this. 

General Preferences:

- POIs are fine, but calling them excessively to throw off your opponent will lose you speaker points.

- Weigh impacts clearly in rebuttal speeches. I won't weigh your case for you, so even if you have stronger impacts on my flow after constructive speeches, you won't win unless you take the time to tell me why.

- If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread please give it to me, but be warned that I do flow, and will only be judging you off of what I can HEAR.

- The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent.

- Evidence is great, but until you can link it to your case and show me WHY its relevant to your contention, it won't matter. Evidence is there to support your claims. Don't give me an entire speech spouting statistics without showing me their relevance.

- Don't ignore the main points of clash in the debate. In final speeches, I want to hear every main point of clash encountered and why you deserve to win it. Don't focus on one point they conceded and try to win the round off of just that. Focus on the debate at large and how it went.

Good luck to all competitors!

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!

I judged only one time before at GGSA Parli 3 Jan 2022.

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

I am a parent judge (software engineer) with less than 1 year of judging experience. I value arguments that are clear and organized when presented. If you speak too fast or have a messy flow, this will only hurt you, so keep your information and end goal clear.

Theories: I don’t understand theories. If you absolutely have to run a theory, slowly explain what a theory is, and why I should vote on it over case. Make sure to also explain how the other team is violating your theory.

Kritiks: I don’t understand kritiks so if you run one, I’ll most probably get confused.

Make sure to be respectful during the round.

I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I am not a proponent of Kritiks etc. — I feel they are often used by a team to obfuscate the real resolution that they should be debating AND to confuse their opponents. In my opinion, they do not fit what Parliamentary debate is supposed to be. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

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

Hello. I am currently a senior at Lowell High School. I am a varsity parli debater and have been debating for about three-ish years now.

Here is what I will be judging your round off of:

• Good, thoughtful arguments. Don't just find ones online and copy them into your flow. Think about your contention and how it impacts the debate.

• Impacting - Impacting is the most important thing and what I will be ruling on. If you don't impact enough, you will lose. You also must weigh your points in your VI. You will win if you outweigh your opponents.
• Signposting - Although I will be flowing, make sure to keep your arguments and refutations clear. It makes life much easier for me if you clearly state what you are going over.

• Speaking style - Don't just look at your flow. Speak to me. It's okay to look down at your paper occasionally, but you should not just read off of it. I would rather you just end your speech than just repeat yourself if you have extra time. Either end the speech or take the time to come up with new arguments/reasonings (depending on what speech you're on).

Try not to run theory. I understand it, but it is likely that your opponents will not. I won't vote on it if you do decide to so please just don't.

Hi everyone!

I'm currently a senior and parliamentary debater at Lowell HS.

I do flow, so keep that in mind throughout your speeches. I also make an effort to provide thorough, substantial feedback to each speaker in ballots.

In terms of preferences:

-Signposting: Please clearly state when you're moving onto a new contention. It's easier for me to flow and conveys your points more clearly.

-Spreading: I'm not averse to relatively fast speaking, but when it's not understandable by others in the round, namely your opponents, it's a problem.

-Theory: Please don't put me in the position of deciding a parli round based on theory application.

-Respect: This is pretty obvious, but please treat everyone with respect. There is no need to be rude to your opponents.

-POI's: Please make a good-faith effort to accept at least one of these if prompted; it improves the debate overall. I am very opposed to back-and-forth during POI's so please don't attempt to do that.

-Weighing impacts is CRUCIAL to your case; you will have a hard time winning if you fail to do this.

Overall, all of the above are just tips; I will flow and make my decision based on what's presented to me in the debate. Good luck and make your school proud!

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

My name is Nathan Nguyen. I have not judged before, but am interested in seeing debate techniques put to work.

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 :

Summary: I am a college debater and high school coach who understands the fundamentals of debate and loves hearing people argue.

Background:

4 years High School Parliamentary debate at Analy High School

3 years British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley

3 years Coaching at Berkeley High School

Judging:

I will flow the round and give the win based on which team can provide a more persuasive case. I am not a judge that will give you an auto-loss for not understanding the 17-step formula that the opposition (or your own team) expects you or others to know before the round, but I do consider weighing and proving your arguments to be true as integral to the round.

TO WIN THE ROUND, YOU MUST:
1. Show up to the debate (hopefully)

2. Have good arguments

3. Explain why those arguments matter (the impacts)

4. Attack your opponent's arguments

5. Explain why your arguments are stronger than your opponents (the weighing)

While that seems simple, I've seen many rounds where most of those steps go missing.

Although I will be flowing the round, I will not be filling in the blanks for your case. If you'd like to make my life easier, please signpost as you speak, so I understand where you are in the round.

Evidence alone does not win you rounds. Stating evidence doesn't mean I will understand why it is essential to your case, nor will I understand its general warranting unless you can explicitly tell me.

If there are fundamental disagreements about Definitions or Weighing Mechanisms, I will generally default to Government unless Opposition can prove the definition abusive.

Miscellaneous Jargon:

If you need to spread, you may, but I would prefer if you don't. I can't vote for your side if I can't flow your arguments.

Do not expect me to understand your Shells and Ks and Theory arguments. I generally do not vote on jargon UNLESS it can be clearly explained why it is more important than the debate round you were assigned to defend.

Reminder:

You are a fantastic human who's trying your best, so don't feel bad if you make a mistake or lose the round :)

Hi! I'm a junior senior at Campolindo, this is my 3rd 4th year doing parli.

TLDR:

I like weighing, warrants, good strategic choices, explaining your logic, & POOs. I don't like people who are mean to their opponents (talking too fast for them to hear, argumentative POIs, refusing POIs when you're running techy arguments, etc.)

Misc.

- tech > truth, tabula rasa, & all that.

- speed: I'm pretty sure I can handle speed in the novice circuit. Having said that, if your opponents call "slow" or "clear," you should slow down.

- POI's should be actual clarifying questions, not a chance for you to contest/refute your opponents.

- when in doubt, call POOs. I will protect against wildly new things, but if I'm not sure I will err towards it being not new unless you call the POO.

- I will time you and you should also time yourself.

- tag teaming is fine.

- don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

Case

- default to net benefits. But I like creative and strategic framing.

- presumption flows neg unless there's a cp, with some exceptions. (ask if questions)

- perms are tests of competition and are not a path to the ballot, i.e. the perm takes away the cp, but you still have to win something else in order to win the round.

- I'm cool with "cheaty" cp's like condo consult, PICs, delay, etc. In fact if your cp was really clever/strategic, I'll probably reward you w/ speaker points. Be prepared to answer theory though.

Theory

- I'm down for friv theory and whatever you want to run.

- if you use techy language like "theory is apriori," you should be prepared to take your opponents' POIs.

- read counterinterps (CI)!

- I default to CI > reasonability, and I'll only vote on reasonability if you give me a clear brightline as to what is reasonable and what is not. However since this is the novice circuit I'll be more forgiving with things like forgetting to read a CI, and I won't buy "they didn't read a CI so automatically vote us" arguments.

K's

if you're running a k in the novice circuit, you better know what you're talking about, answer at least 6 POI's, and talk at max speed slightly faster than conversational. Don't read dng in front of me, I won't understand it.

Speaker points

I'll be evaluating you on how creative, logical, and well-warranted your arguments were, as well as how strategic were the choices you made. Most people will have 26.5-30 points

Hello debaters,

I am a parent judge and have been judging for over a year. I value quality over quantity. Please speak slowly.

Thank you.

Good luck!

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.