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

Dinesh Elaprolu

I have been involved as a debate judge for last 2 years. I am familiar with both Middle School debate and Parliamentary debate.

As a judge, I believe my role is to evaluate objectively and not introduce my personal beliefs or opinions in my decision process. I want the students to follow the ground rules and be clear with their arguments and evidences. I will flow the round, so I expect clear reasonings and properly cited evidences in my decision process. As per the rules, I will not allow new evidence or arguments in the final speeches. I am comfortable with any speed, provided the debater can articulate his reasonings well.

I expect debaters to treat each other and the judge with respect and as I mentioned above my decision will be based on debaters performance and not my personal beliefs.

Please feel free to ask me questions after the round and I will try my best to clarify your doubts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

npdl toc '23 & '24

Hello my name is Evolette Mak, I am a high school debater that has been debating parli for two years and I really care about signposting, clarity, and having arguments make sense. Be aggressive in your debate but remember to respect your opponents. No hate speech or promotion of hate speech in the debate will be tolerated.

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.

LD Paradigm

I emphasize fw a lot, but will vote off of impacts.

Do impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude)

If you run plan affs, I'll be mad and dock speaks, but go ahead lol

Prefer disclosure

Spread all u want, but send me the docs. If you spread badly I'll dock speaks. Nobody likes incomprehensible spreading.

Drown your speech in theory shells for all I care. Please make sure I understand them though cuz theory i dont understand makes me cry.

TIP: Sound like your opponent committed a war crime, and I'm more likely to buy it than just reading the shell in a monotone voice.

I do prefer empirical evidence over philosophy unless it's something like Baudrillard where you target the mindset.

It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.

You can be as abusive as you want in arguments and observations. Fair warning, you might hit a few theory shells. I don't like plan affs, and will lower speaks, but you can run it.

No new args in the 2nr/2ar, please (common sense)

I will time, and when the timer goes off I’ll stop flowing so you talking longer than 10 seconds over serves no strategic purpose.

I am tech > truth and am a (mostly) tabula rasa judge

1. Theory

1.5 Trix (Read curry's paradox i love it ngl)

2. Larp and non-identity k

3. standard case

3.5 pomo phil

4. common Phil (kant, rawls, locke)

5. Identity arguments

Speaks

I think the method of giving speaks based on how far I'll think you'll go in the tourney is pretty dumb - however, higher speaks probably mean you're more likely to get to Elim rounds. Anyway, this is how I view speaks:

27: It was really bad/I couldn't understand you

28: It was ok/could be a lot better

29: It was decent/not bad/a little improvement but not terrible

30: Pretty good/good clash/impact calc

Credit to Venkata Yenuganti For the paradigm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MSDP Paradigm:If you ended up scrolling down to my paradigm here's how you get some free speaks as a reward:

1. Make a video game reference or do something funny and I'll bump your speaks. Or make jokes, idrc. Meme cases might probably not get a ballot from me (it sometimes has though).

Please give POI's and heckles. They make the debate so much more fun.

I don’t have any preferences when it comes to plans so do whatever makes you comfortable and debate best.

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.

I will score the speakers on the completeness and quality of their arguments.

1. Assertion

2. Reasoning

3. Evidence

4. Impact

The topic winner should properly weigh the debate in its favour with stronger evidence and comparative analysis.

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC theory comes before 1AR/2AC theory
• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Meeting the interp is terminal defense
• Theory comes before substance
• Fairness and education are voters
• No RVIs

K Debate: Sure! I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist nonsense that amounts to inclusive oppression or do nothing. Cap debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.

• Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• Stock issues are not my favorite path to the ballot
• I don't judge kick counter plans unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it
• Either flash analytics or slow down/clear because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• I evaluate most tricks like theory interps

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
• K's bad theory gets you 25 speaks.

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Not voting on cap good
• Not voting on heg good
• Not voting on racism good
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• Give me pen time