Hello!

I am a parent judge who has little experience. Please refrain from using theory and kritiks as well as jargon.

I enter round tablarosa, and want to see a good, equitable debate.

Most of all, make sure to have fun!

I am a lay judge. I have been judging for around 3 - 4 years for parliamentary debate.

I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. I'm pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

This is my third year competing in parliamentary debate so I am very familiar with parliamentary debate. A few things about how I aproach judging:

• Terminalize all impacts
• I will always value warranting more than statistics
• Dont spread
• If you run a kritik you will not win.

Bonus points if you work in Metallica or Led Zeppelin lyrics into your speech (speaker points)

Hello wonderful debaters, if you are reading this then I am probably judging you next round, how exciting! I am a HS Parliamentary debater, I prefer Truth>Tech, and most importantly, if you can work in a Taylor Swift quote or reference in a speech, I will give you higher speaker points.

Overall, run whatever you want, but do so in a way that is understandable and accessible to both sides. Assume I know very little about theory, K's, philosophy, or other complex debatery topics, so if you run them you need to do so in a way that a lay judge can understand.

Do's:

• Speak Clearly (I have hearing issues and if you speak too fast or mumble I may not understand you)
• Respond to the actual arguments being made
• Please, please, please signpost
• Give me a solid weighing mechanism in PMC or LOC and then weigh during the PMR and LOR
• Explain concepts or definitions clearly and try to give examples
• Ask/take one or two POI's

Don't

• Be rude or make debate inaccessible
• Rely too heavily on evidence (It can be good to back up points but the arguments should be based on logic)
• Use unnecessary jargon or theory (If you do use these, explain them clearly, or they will only serve to weaken your case and waste time)

Other notes:

• I am very receptive to blatant compliments before or after the round
• I am a fan of unpredictable Counter Plans, but please explain and weigh them well (I once won a round running abolish the Senate)
• If you have any questions feel free to email me: georgiabiddlegottesman@students.berkeley.net

Hi! My name is Nara and this is my second year of doing parli. I have judged many times before, but please remember that I am in no way a perfect judge! That being said, I will try to do the best I can. I am a flow judge that is not very techy.

tl;dr: Be respectful, weigh, warrant, signpost, and most importantly, have fun!

My most important round takes/how I judge:

1. Weighing: this is the first place I look when casting my ballot; exactly why I should vote for you on your arguments and why they are more important than the arguments of the other team. Any weighing is better than no weighing! Weighing also doesn't have to start in the last two speeches, it would be amazing if you could start weighing in the member speeches!
2. Signposting/Roadmaps: please please PLEASE signpost!! It's so frustrating when I don't know where you are in the flow and can't flow what you are saying! Signposting makes it so much easier when I look back at the flow to cast my ballot - if you don't signpost properly this is a chance I may not flow your argument. I prefer on-time roadmaps rather than off-time roadmaps.
3. Warranting: Tell me why your arguments/claim matter. I will buy anything you say, as long as you warrant it - I expect more warranting for claims that are harder for me to buy so that you can gain access to the impact. For instance, I would expect more warranting for the claim that aliens are going to take over Earth than I would for the claim that social media is addictive.
4. Theory/K's: Please don't run these, I'll try to follow you, but have very little experience with k's and them being run. Theory (very strongly opposed on the East Coast) - don't run it unless you absolutely have to; don't be shocked if I drop you when you run theory. On the West Coast, I'll be more accepting of theory, but have no experience of how to judge it.
5. Be respectful: Do not use anything that can potentially harm other people; e.g. sexism, antisemitism, racism, homophobia, etc. Debate is meant to be a safe space where people can come together to debate and have fun, not be personally attacked by other people. If you happen to be offensive in any manner, I will instantly drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. Please let me know if you feel unsafe at any point in the round and I will immediately turn my attention towards that.
6. Spreading: Just don't do it. It makes you sound like a total robot and completely unappealing to listen to. Debate is supposed to be a place where you improvise and learn how to be a good speaker. You don't do that through spreading. Spreading = bad.
7. Tech > truth

Speaks:

• I will give you the speaks that I think you deserve, and I tend to average around a 25 - 26, but it really depends. If I think you deserve higher speaks, I will not hesitate to give them to you.

How to boost your speaks (I will give +1 or +1.5 for these):

• Show me your pets
• Talk in a British accent for the entire round (I will admire you forever if you do this and this will probably boost your speaks crazily)
• Bring up animal rights
• Do a 360 degree spin when you read a turn
• Make me laugh (be funny! Debate is supposed to be funny, it makes the round much more enjoyable)

Hi I am Rosie (she/her). I did American Parli debate at Berkeley High School for three years and I won the 2022 NPDL TOC. I am now captain of IPDA debate at UC Santa Barbara.

This is all you really have to read, if you want to read my specific ramblings see below.

Please don't give me an off-time roadmap. I like good case debate. Don't talk fast or use jargon. Quality over quantity--usually the team able to explain better wins. Be creative and have fun, just don't be unfair to your opponents.

Preface: I want my paradigm to be accessible to people who don't know debate language. If you are confused about anything I have written please ask me to clarify. I remember being very confused reading paradigms--I still am sometimes--so please, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. At the bottom of my paradigm I have linked a document that I wrote going over the basics of some of the debate terminology I have used. I have also included my email if you want to talk personally.

Long(ish) version:

My preferences are pretty simple: I enjoy case debate with good reasoning. I do not enjoy theory. I like voting issues in rebuttal--tell me what the most important issue in the round is and why.

Tabula rasa

I guess one could call me tabula rasa (meaning I pretend I know absolutely nothing about the world at the start of your round). However, if someone says something absurd, and you give a two second reason for why it is absurd, I'll believe you. That being said, don't expect me to do the work for you if your opponent lies or makes a large leap in logic.

Evidence

Evidence in parli is easily misrepresented or straight up lied about. Statistics should support your argument, not be your argument's backbone. I will be hesitant to decide a round based on one statistic or piece of evidence. If you want me to weigh your evidence more, provide details. Also, if you think a statistic is suspicious don't be afraid to call it out, tell me why I shouldn't trust it.

Counter plans

Counter plans are fun. I don't need plans to be mutually exclusive, but I will vote on arguments saying all counter plans should be. Run them if you wish!

Jargon

Do not expect your opponents to have read the same literature that you have. Don't expect me to have read the literature that you have. All jargon should be explained, even jargon as simple as "utilitarianism." If you are using a lot of jargon and don't take POIs it will be hard to win my ballot. Also, if your opponents use too much jargon, please POI them and call them out for making the round hard for you to debate.

Theory

I know some people can be unfair so run theory if you need to. I wouldn't use theory as your primary path to the ballot if you can avoid it. That means if your opponents don't state a weighing mechanism, you are better off giving me one yourself than telling me to vote against them because they didn't. Attack the plan/weighing mechanism/etc. only when you can genuinely prove it has made the debate less fair or educational. Also, as long as you get the point across, I don't care if you run theory in a proper shell or not.

Kritiks

I don't like them very much. Only run when abundantly necessary. If your opponents tell me that Ks are bad I will be inclined to believe them.

Don't spread and have fun everyone! I look forward to judging you :)

Email me at nataliabultman@gmail.com if you want to talk or have any more questions.

Document that explains things: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lnmSwREGG2zKGaC1PodU9wv1tED2oCxL_9qjPrO9upA/edit?usp=sharing

Kritiks over everything. If your opponent isn't running a K but you are, then you most will likely win.

Speak as fast as you want. The faster you are, the more speaking points you will probably get.

Tech>truth

You cannot, under any circumstances, convince me of anything. The only things I will believe are things I believed in coming into the round. That said, I will only judge based on arguments given in case, so if your case doesn't align with my ideology, sucks to be you.

“The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic,” - Joseph Stalin

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!" - Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Vladimir Lenin

“Struggles of masses and ideas. An epic that will be carried forward by our peoples, mistreated and scorned by imperialism; our people, unreckoned with until today, who are now beginning to shake off their slumber. Imperialism considered us a weak and submissive flock; and now it begins to be terrified of that flock...” -Che Guevara

"All our progress, every slightly significant achievement we have made in socialist construction, has been the expression and result of our domestic class struggle." - Joseph Stalin

I competed in LD in high school as well as other Speech Events. I've coached and judged LD and parli debate. Generally, I value the resolution and believe the Aff has the burden to show the resolution is true and neg's burden is to show its false. However, you can run Ks but provide some standard to weigh the round with persuasive arguments on why it is the appropriate standard. It is important for me that the value criterion is well defined and each party has to compare the criterion with that of their opponent. I will use the best criterion to decide the round and how contentions and impact-level arguments interact with the criterion.

Speed: I can keep up with speed to the point it is comprehensible but if I cannot understand what you are saying, it will not make it into my flow, which will ultimately be to your detriment. I like off-time road maps before your speech.

I am a parent judge who is fairly well read on current events. I tend to vote for teams who focus on the big picture with realistic impacts rather than insignificant and poorly warranted impacts.

Please self govern your prep time. Speak clearly and make sure I can understand what you are saying.

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

HI! I have never competed in or judged debate and am very new to this activity. I will take notes on what you all say, but I will not write down anything I do not understand or cannot hear---in short, have clear diction, state your points clearly, and have logical analysis. Please do not use complicated debate jargon or anything I would not understand. If you do, explain it very clearly and I will try my best to understand. I like humor! Please be respectful to each other and have fun!

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!

Hello, I'm a first time parent judge. I will be weighing your arguments purely on impacts, so please refrain from using theory-based contentions. Also please don't spread; I prefer clear arguments. Happy Debating!

- Aditya

Summary

It’s your debate, I’m down to hear any argument. Comfortable with case/K/T/tricks/phil in roughly that order, but happy to evaluate any argument you make (including rejecting the res). As a debater, I went for a roughly even mix of K/case in tech rounds. Speed is fine if your opponents can handle it. Weighing and warranting win rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the round. Call the POO, articulate the cross-application, make the debate as explicit as possible for me. Email p.descollonges@gmail.com.

Background

I competed in parliamentary debate for six years, mostly at Nueva. I was most successful at tech parli, but also found success at both NorCal and Oregon lay tournaments (see bottom of paradigm for notable results if that matters for your prefs for some reason—it probably shouldn’t). I also debated 4 NPDA tournaments last year. I’m a sophomore at UChicago and coach for Nueva. You can reach me at p.descollonges@gmail.com. To prevent this paradigm from being too unwieldy, I’ve only included actionable preferences (i.e. preferences that have a clear impact on what arguments you should be making). Outside of these explicit preferences, I strive to evaluate all arguments fairly, but if you’re interested in my specific thoughts on an argument, feel free to ask me before/after the round (e.g. whether I personally like condo—I’m more than happy to evaluate it, but I also think condo bad is underused).

NON-PARLI EVENTS (feel free to skip if you are a parli debater!!):

I'm fine with speed up to ~300 wpm. If you're in PF, go as fast as you want. For LD, feel free to spread, I'll slow if needed. For policy, you'll probably need to cut speed, but feel free to ramp and I'll slow when I need to—just give me pen time and a speech doc.

I do not know your event. I do not know your norms. I'm sorry about that! I'll do my best to evaluate your round still. Regardless of event, I will vote on clearly articulated framework/weighing/sequencing claims ALWAYS, especially if I'm not comfortable with your event. In general, I assume defense cannot win rounds. I default to a net benefits/other offense-based framework, I'm willing to evaluate stock issues framing but am probably awful at it and need a justification for it.

My lack of knowledge about norms is not an excuse to be sketchy. I am more than happy to look up the (conviniently nationally codified!) rules for non-Parli events if something feels wrong to me. This doesn't mean I'll drop you for reading a K aff (because hopefully you're reading implicit or explicit args that breaking rules is good if there's a rule against your position); but it does mean that you shouldn't expect to get away with e.g. gross speech time violations. I'll generally defer to anything both teams seem to agree on if both teams seem comfortable and I am unfamiliar with the event, unless you try to convince me to give you a double win or something in that vein.

I am a parli person. This does not mean I don't care about evidence. I have a low threshold for ballot comments about sketchy evidence. I have a much higher, but still comparatively low, threshold for intervening on evidence ethics. I have an extremely low threshold for not voting on evidence your opponents call out as sketchy if it is sketchy. I will read cards necessary to decide my ballot (yes, this includes in PF.) I will not vote against you because e.g. you citing a specific sub-conclusion that helps you from a study that argues generally in the opposite direction unless your opponents point it out, in which case I will read the card. I will affirmatively intervene to disregard or vote down blatantly fabricated, misconstrued, or excessively powertagged evidence in compliance with NSDA evidence rules (7.4.A/B/C). I will also strive to comply with NSDA rules for formal challenges (7.2/3), but am not experienced with this procedure. Please just be ethical with your evidence.

Feel free to read my parli paradigm if you want an idea of more specific preferences! Ask me before the round if you have any questions.

PARLI:

Logistics

I hate protected time, but will grudgingly accept that some tournaments use it. It’s ultimately up to the speaker—I will not intervene if the speaker wants to take a POI during protected time. I will follow tournament rules on grace periods, but grace periods aren’t speech time—please don’t make new arguments. I will disregard them.

Call the POO. I protect in the PMR, but give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker unless a POO is called. Incorrect answers to a POO do not waive this protection. I do not protect in the LOR, because there are situations where the aff would prefer I not protect—call the POO if you want me to drop the arg. In novice/beginner rounds, I reserve the right to protect.

Please don’t shake my hand. I don’t care if you sit, stand, etc.—as long as I can understand you, you’re fine. I don't care what you're wearing.

I’ll give at least one of oral or written feedback depending on the specific circumstances of the round, defaulting to a longer oral RFD with a summary in the ballot. You are welcome to record anything I say after the round and/or request I write it out in the ballot. I will try to get substantive and substantial feedback to you in all circumstances—if the tournament bans disclosure and/or we’re running on a tight double-flighted schedule, expect a longer ballot. My preference is to give both an RFD in which I explain how I analyze the arguments in the round and individual speaker feedback, but in complicated outrounds especially, there’s a chance I won’t get to individual speaker feedback. If you’re specifically curious, always feel free to ask. I’m open to postrounding, but if I’m talking to you, I can’t change my ballot. If you think there was a genuine equity issue in the round and I've already submitted my ballot, the person to talk to is the tournament equity director, not me.

I’ll ask for any information I need for my ballot (e.g. speaker positions). No double-wins, no double-losses except in rounds with equity issues.

Speaker Points

If the tournament seeds based on speaks (speaks, -1HL, or z-score) as the first tiebreaker for teams with the same number of wins, I’ll default to 29s (or as close as possible). I’ll give 30s to anyone who impresses me, particularly with strategic argumentation. I will not hesitate to drop your score as a clear signal that I disapprove of some behavior (see equity section below), but will not go below 29 due to mistakes or perceptions of you as a “weaker” debater.

If the tournament does not seed based on speaks as the first tiebreaker, I’ll give speaks in the ~26.5-29.7 range in most rounds. You’ll get higher speaks for good strategic calls, clean argument execution, and cool extemporaneous warranting. Arguments I like that I haven’t heard before are 30s. I won’t go below 26.5 except as a statement of active disapproval (i.e. if you get a 26.5 or below, your debating was not bad/sloppy/inexperienced, it was problematic).

Equity

Please strive to be a good person in round and out of round. Be respectful to your opponents. I will stop the round if necessary to protect any participant in it. If you are uncomfortable, I’d appreciate it if you communicated that to me (or the tournament staff!) in some way.

Misgendering your opponents will result in lost speaker points at minimum and a round loss if egregious and/or intentional. This is also true for gendered/racialized/etc. negative comments or behavior. As a white man, I don’t have a great way to evaluate the exact harms of specific behaviors, so I’ll generally defer to preferences expressed by affected individuals in dicey situations and/or go to the tournament.

Regardless of current literature on the net effect of content warnings, in the context of the debate rounds, content warnings seem clearly net-good in terms of their risk-reward tradeoff. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you!

Case

I love case debate. I wish more people did case debate. Good case debate will make me very happy as a judge. That means clear arguments with clear impacts, good interaction with your opponents arguments, and a clear (and preferably explicit) articulation of what offense will win you the round. Warranting is also key. Arguments with well-explicated warrants backing them up will almost always beat arguments without warrants.

The best way to win a close case debate is weighing. The best way to win a close weighing debate is to do metaweighing. Please tell me whether I should prefer e.g. evidence or logic. Please explain to me how that applies to your arguments specifically. If you do this, you will win 90% of the case debates I have seen.

I’d love to see more link turns. I’d love to see more uniqueness leveraged after the PMC/LOC. I’d love to see more warrants on internal links.

CPs

Down for anything. Win the theory debate. I’ll evaluate all CP theory I can think of. I’ll also evaluate all CPs I can think of, but please have good reasons to prefer, especially if you’re reading delay, etc. Condo is fine by default. Dispo means you can kick it if there’s no offense by default. PICs are fine by default.

Advantages to non-mutually-exclusive CPs are not offense (or defense). Advantages to mutually-exclusive CPs are black swans, but I’m open to hearing why they’re offensive. Perm debates are good, but please don’t say anyone is “stealing” anyone’s advantages.

Evidence

Please do not fabricate evidence. Please do not plagiarize unless the tournament requires you to do so (please reference evidence you use rather than presenting it as original analysis). If the tournament empowers me to do so, I will check your evidence after submitting my ballot, and go to tab/equity if I discover something that seems like an intentional fabrication. Obviously, you have limited prep—mistakes are human, and I won’t hold them against you.

If you give me author’s name/date/source for a claim, you’ll likely win contests over whether that literal claim is true or not. This does not modify the strategic position of the claim in the round. If you do not give me a citation for evidence, I will treat your claim as a claim. Given that I try to be tabula rasa, this is normally fine (i.e. in most debates, it won’t matter if you cite a source for the US unemployment rate).

Ks

I like hearing good K debate! I really like hearing new shells, well-thought-out strategies, good historically-backed warranting, and solid links. I really dislike hearing canned shells from backfiles you don’t understand.

I like KvK debate. I am open to rejecting the res, I’m also open to framework. I have a high threshold on Ks bad theory from the aff, but would consider voting for it.

I’m most familiar with Marx, modern Marxists, and queer/disability theory, but I’m open to hearing anything—just explain it well.

Please have specific links that are not links of omission. Please give me a role of the ballot.

I’m not convinced the aff gets a perm in a KvK debate, but I’ll default to allowing it.

T/Theory

I’m happy to listen to literally anything. I generally prefer fairness on T and education on theory, but please don’t feel bound by that. Jurisdiction is absolute BS but I’ll vote for it.

I default to competing interps over reasonability, potential over proven abuse, and drop the argument when it makes sense. I do not default to theory being a priori, make the argument (especially if your opponents could plausibly uplayer theory). I do not understand why an OCI is not a separate shell, but I’ll listen to them. I’ll reluctantly vote on RVIs, the more specific the better. I view RVIs as making local offense on the theory sheet a global voting issue by default, but will appreciate and evaluate specific texts as well.

If an argument boils down to "did the team say the magic words," I'll default to the team that spent the most time on it in absence of argumentation on either side (e.g. what counts as an RVI). If that doesn't make sense to you, ignore it, and rely on good argumentation rather than linguistic technicalities.

Results

College: Second seed at NPDA nats '23;Mile High Swing 1 Finalist

Champion/Co-Champion: Evergreen ‘21, ‘22; Campo ‘21; TFT ‘17; Lewis and Clark ‘22; UoP ‘20; NorCal Champs ‘21, ‘22

Finalist: TOC ‘22

Semifinalist: NPDI ‘19, ‘20, ‘21

Background: MBA | Technology Industry Veteran | Parent | Novice Debate Judge

Focus Areas:

• Definition: Clear, non-ambiguous definition of all components of the motion
• Substance: Strong analysis, clear evidence with real-world examples
• Style: Clear and objective communication, strong and continuous delivery of speech, respectful debate etiquette
• Strategy: Effective use of debate theory, ability to anticipate, adhere to topic, respond to opponent's arguments

I value quality over quantity. A citation or example where there is a depth of understanding shown will be given more value than numerous examples with little explanation. Connect your arguments to the resolution. I will judge the round based on arguments for and against the resolution. Arguments that can break a topic down to it core issue are valued over arguments that come at a topic from tangential and/or superficial angles.

Speaking at a high rate will result in examples being missed and reduce the effectiveness of the argument. A barrage of citations show a students ability to do research, but not necessarily an ability to dissect an issue and reason.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

I am a parent judge and a lawyer. I primarily judge parliamentary debate but have judged public forum and LD a few times. As a parent/lay judge, I am not trained or well-versed in the technical rules/strategies for parliamentary debate (or any other format for that matter). Moreover, as a lawyer, I present and evaluate arguments for a living and in the real world where "kritiks" "theory" and spreading are typically not effective means to persuade. This means I value logical, substantive arguments about the underlying case/resolution over technical gamesmanship, jargon, and speed.

I also value "sportsmanship" -- which means debaters who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, disruptive etc. toward their opponent(s) both during and before/after rounds will have a very difficult time earning my support.

UPDATE for Berkeley: Alternate parent (Suneeta Krish) will be judging instead of Damien Gerard. This will be my 1st time as a Judge, but I look for the same point as below.

Damien Gerard: I am a third time parent judge. I look for clarity, logic, well explained arguments. I do not give price for words per minute so articulate well and take your time.

Intro!

Hi! My name is Jacob, I'm a junior, and a Parlimentary debater at Berkeley High School. I've been debating for about two years, in which I have gone to loads of tournaments. Most recently, I won the NPDL Tournament of Champions.

Accomplishments include: Advocating for selling the USFG to Canada for $1, talking a lot about cheese caves, using the word brobdingnagian.

TLDR for rest of paradigm: I am a traditional flow judge. I dislike most tech arguments (including Ks and Theory), and have a hard time following speed. I want you to give me solid warranting for each point, and not just evidence to back it up. Try to make your speach interesting - have humor, lean into your own style, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most imporant parts of the following paradigm are the evidence, top of case, and general argumentation things sections.

Signposting

One of the clearest marks of a good debater is that they signpost well, and their structure is easy to follow. If I can't follow your structure, or don't know where on the flow you are, I will flow what you are saying in the wrong spot.

• This means give me clear claims for your arguments

Top of Case

• People often neglect important definitions. Don't tell me one sentence about what the some crazy economic term means, because then I will be confused

• If the motion necessitates a plan, give me one. Its really hard to judge the round without it
• Do NOT try to squirrel your way out of disadvantages by making unfair definitions/weighing etc. I want to watch a good debate that would be meaningful in the real world
• I'm generally dissapointed to hear arguments along the lines of "This argument doesn't follow our weighing mechanism, so it shouldn't matter". Please just engage with the argument.
• (I don't actually think weighing mechanisms should be a necessity, so you can feel free to omit it and just make arguments. Your choice. )

Evidence (This is mostly for west coast tournaments)

• Arguments should be mostly supported with arguments, not evidence. Empirics are secondary
• I am very sympathetic to teams calling out faulty evidence. Because we are in a format where teams/judges can't look up evidence, see how it was found, sample size, etc, I can't just default to believing evidence is true
• If you intentionally make up or alter evidence, it makes it hard for me to vote for you. Also its like super un-cool.

General argumentation things

• "Terminilize" your impacts. This means tell me why a bump to the economy is beneficial/harmful. It makes weighing easier.
• I really dislike when debaters say "there is no warrant here!". Usually you are wrong, and even if you are right, just tell me why they are wrong.
• Make arguments like you are having a real world discussion. If it would be dumb in that context, its probably not a great argument.

Rebuttal Stuff

• Do lots of weighing. It really helps me as a judge.
• Collapse. When teams don't collapse on a couple of issues, it makes weighing the debate really hard.
• I really listen to rebuttals. If you collapse on something, I will look at it first. If you give me good, unopposed weighing, I will default to believing you. I will actually think about your weighing in my deliberation

Jargon

Debaters often use language that has a special debate meaning - words like "Internal link, uniqueness". I think that it is bad practice, and it makes my debate coach sad.

POI's and POO's

• You should ask POI's. It is smart strategically.
• You shoud accept at least a couple POI's. If you don't accept any, it makes you look scared
• I do NOT auto protect against new arguments in the rebuttal speeches. As such, I encourage POO's
• Calling an excesive amount of POO's hurts your credibility.

Theory/K's:

I am not a theory or K debater, so I’m unfamiliar with your material. That said, I can understand most theory/ks.

GENERAL RULE FOR KS AND FRIV T: If you run it against case debaters who have never hit tech before, I will side with them.

Spreading/Speed:

• I do not like spreading, as I feel that no debate should be won by making your opponent not hear you
• I understand if you have a lot to get through, you may have to talk a little fast. That is fine to a point.
• If your opponent is talking too fast, say slow, and they should.

General debate etiquette

• Be respectful to the other debaters in the round. Teams should never come out of a round hating eachother.
• Debate is very serious and competetive, but also very silly. So try to have fun and learn from it.
• Humor in debate:If you are funny, I will like your speach, and your speaks will go up.
• Equity violations: I don't anticipate having too much interaction with equity violations, but it makes me sad when I do. Follow the rules that the tournament gives you, make respectful arguments
• Be a silly goose to fight the oppressive anti-whimsy powers that be!

Fun facts!!!

• Did you know that the government owns about 1.5 BILLION pounds of cheese in a cave in Missouri?
• Incorporating the previous fact into your speech (seemlessly and in a way that makes sense) might gain you .5 speaker points.

• "Go hang a salami" backwards is "Im a lasagna hog". That makes me happy. Whoever found that out must be a very interesting person.
• Cars have windows and can move. However, houses have windows but cannot move. Thus, the windows are not the thing that makes something move. It is something else entirely.

• I think someone should try incorporating the phrase "Your honor, if you'll allow me a little latitude here, I think you'll see where I'm going with this" into a speech.

If you meet someone named Sophie Tsulaia, say Jacob sent you

This is my third year judging parliamentary debates; my son is on the debate team at Berkeley High School. In real life, I am an attorney and a significant portion of my practice involves litigating appeals on behalf of defendants convicted of crimes. I would rather be convinced by substantive arguments than "theory" technicalities.

Hi Everyone!

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

Things I like:

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

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

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

Things that give me the ick:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

->I go to UCSD! If you think you might wanna go, feel free to ask me questions about it.

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

Hi, I'm a parent judge with experience judging east-coast parliamentary debate. I am primarily a flow judge, and I can handle speed (although I prefer if you do not spread). When presenting arguments, I value quality and well-developed link chains over quantity. Clear signposting really helps me, so please be explicit about which contention or refutation you are addressing.

I try to base my decision on the strength of your reasoning and impacts, rather than my personal beliefs. However, if you have any questions about my decision, feel free to ask, just be polite about it.

Please do not run theory or Ks with me. My experience is primarily with east-coast parli, so I'm not familiar with these types of arguments. If you believe it's absolutely necessary to use them, explain them clearly and logically.

I have 5 years experience debating in parliamentary debate. My partner and I won CHSSA and participated in TOC. If you're doing LD or PF I have only done one tournament of each so excuse me if I don't understand it very well.

first off, tech>truth

Plans---All types of plans are welcome, including out of ordinary ones, as long as you can defend why it is resolutional. Counter-plans are welcome and same with the aff perm on the counter plan. As long as aff can prove the two plans are not mutually exclusive and there is actually benefits to gain, I'll vote for the perm and flow over the advantages that come from the counter-plan. That goes for the neg as well, if the aff perms the CP, tell me why they shouldn't be allowed to do that or why it will actually be worse by running both at the same time. My team once ran a plan to nuke Iran and how it will end the middle east problems, so feel free to run any plan as long as you can prove why it would win the criteria.

Theory---I'm fine with all the theories you try to run if you provide a full shell and proven abuse. The aff just calling fiot is not a viable response to the theories, give me the full responses, also, no time suck arguments.

Kritiks--- I love Ks and frequently run Ks against my opponents, I am mostly familiar with Cap and Fem, although I have met buddhism, gift, and set col. I will vote for aff Ks if they win the framework debate and tell me why this should be the most important thing in round, make sure to include a rotb.

Case---Links to impacts and solvency to plan is important, at the end of the round, what i'll base off of for impacts is the rebuttal. Make sure to tell me why your impacts still stands and why it fits the criteria the best. Prob vs Mag, aff vs neg World comparison all all great ways to show why its better to vote for you.

speaks--- Most of the time I'll give at least 25 speaker points, timing, emphasis, putting emotions into your speech and showing how much you actually believe in your side will affect speaks. If you run a K really well I'll most likely give 30 speaks to both debaters on that team and likewise lower speaks if they ran it pretty badly. Speaks don't affect how I judge the round, even if you are a better speaker but the other team's case is stronger, I WILL give them a low point win.

Voters in order---Kritiks, theories, criteria, impacts

poi---try to take 1-2 poi's per speech

RVI--- come on guys, if it's something along the lines of talking too fast(when you didn't tell them), time suck, etc, just use the time on strengthening your case of refuting theirs, I'm not gonna be voting on that.

I am not a tabula rasa judge only to the points of facts, if you make a point with made up statistics or factually proven wrong information, I will intervene on the flow, dropping your speaks and disregarding that point while weighing the round. Outside of facts, any other things you say, like ex:nuking everyone would be good, as long as your opponents dont refute that point, i'll believe it.

don't worry about my own politics, view on LGBTQ+, or any of the controversial topics as long as you are addressing everything respectfully and not with intentions of disrespect or contempt.

feel free to ask me any questions before round starts, good luck guys.

Hey! My name is Paulina (she/her) and for some general background I debated for four years in Parli at Bishop O’Dowd High School and graduated in 2021. I haven’t been very involved in debate since graduation so I will try my best to keep up and flow every argument, but it is probably not a good idea to spread since I am out of practice flowing. That being said, if you are going too fast I will just tell you to slow.

TL,DR: I am open to hearing any argument (as long as the argument isn’t racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or violent in any way). I am most comfortable evaluating theory and case, but if you want to read a K go for it and just make sure you really explain your lit base. Please, please, do a lot of impact calculus and framing! Don’t forget to signpost and really develop your links. I will try to protect the flow but if you think it is important and I might miss it just call the POO. Feel free to email me (paulinaoakland@gmail.com) with any questions that you may have about my paradigm or any round!

Tech>truth

General:

This debate round isn’t about me and my preferences so have the debate that you want to have and tell me how to evaluate the round. This paradigm is more so that you all can understand my defaults and preferences, but at the end of the day I am open to evaluating whatever so have fun with the round and explain your arguments and you should be good :)

Case:

I love case debates that feature a good collapse and have really strong weighing and framing throughout. Make sure to not only have plenty of warrants but actually explain why those warrants matter. I really love good brink scenarios and you should always make sure that the uniqueness is in the right direction because I will find it hard to vote on a linear argument unless there is not other offense in the round. I am happy to hear all kinds of CPs (even cheater CPs) but also happy to vote on any sort of CP theory. Please, please, make sure the CP has a text and be ready to provide that text as soon as the CP is read. I believe that perms are a test of competition, but that is just my default so feel free to make any arguments stating otherwise.

Theory:

Theory was my favorite thing to read as a debater and I am willing to listen to any sort of theory argument you can come up with (totally fine with frivolous theory as long as its developed). I default to competing interpretations and drop the debater, unless you tell me otherwise. If you are going to go for reasonability please provide a brightline. If you are going to go for theory make sure you are doing sufficient weighing and properly explaining how you access fairness and education. I am totally fine voting on RVIs but you need to be able to justify the RVI with warrants and actually attach an impact to the RVI the that is weighed against the other theory impacts in the round. As well as respond to any RVIs bad arguments read. I am also fine with conditionality, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad.

Ks:

I am least experienced with K debate and my partner and I read theory (FW or Ks Bad) in pretty much every K round we were ever in (with the few rounds we read Ks as the exception), but that being said, I am still happy to evaluate any K. It is likely that I am not familiar with your lit base so please make sure you are sufficiently explaining your arguments to everyone in the round. Please take questions! Ks and their accompanying literature can be inaccessible sometimes so it is important to make sure that your opponents can engage in the round (and it is likely that I will have the same questions so it is probably in your best interest to take questions).

Speaks:

I am not huge fan of speaks at all and I will always give them based on strategy. I give speaks for things like good weighing and a clean collapse in the MO or PMR, or a good response strategy in the MG. I will give low speaks to anyone who does not slow or clear when asked, says anything violent/offensive, or excludes their opponents etc. Please try to keep the debate space an inclusive and safe space for everyone :)

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Hi! I'm a previous West Coast Parli debater, now college student who does Ethics Bowl (kinda similar?) Be kind to each other, don't be overly technical for the sake of looking more competent, and don't spread. I don't love frivolous theory or Ks, but if they're genuinely needed I can handle 'em.

I LOVE when debaters take their time to make arguments, and speak like they're trying to be convincing, like a person would actually talk to someone else, not like they're trying to speed run their case. To me, if your manner and voice immediately changes from calm to frantic the second you're on time, it is likely that your case will be harder to follow. I will never vote a ballot on this, but if your argument is good, please take the time to explain it well; it is so much more likely to be understood and flowed through by me and I think by most other judges. If your argument is not so great, spread away.

I won't vote against you for using off-time road maps, but I don't prefer it — use your time to do all your outlining and debating.

Counterplans are great, but I don't love plan-inclusive counterplans — I won't reject them on that alone, but it seems difficult to have a productive interesting debate with them.

Try to take some POIs, I understand you can't take all of them, but one or two is more than reasonable.

Have fun and be respectful!

I won't give you better speaks or a better chance at the ballot but I will give you a virtual gold star if you can manage to work the word "snail" into your argument.

I am a parent judge.

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

Hi, I am a new parent judge and excited to be here. I weigh on impacts. Please make your arguments clearly. Have fun in the process! Thank you.

Hello debaters,

My name is Nitin (he/him) and I am a "lay" or parent judge who knows the basic format of parliamentary debate. I will do my best to pick the team that argues most efficiently and effortlessly in the round.

A couple of personal preferences for the debaters:

- Please signpost.

- I would appreciate it if when speaking, not to speak super fast so a regular person couldn't understand what was being said. I am unfamiliar with most debate jargon and would prefer it if someone explained terms and definitions to me in a simple way.

- I am a fan of persuasive speaking. If you can break down a complex argument in basic understanding, it will be a lot easier to work on.

- As for theory, I am not experienced when it comes to matters of debating about the debate itself. If you happen to want to run theory, prepare to explain it in great detail, as there is a risk of my misunderstanding.

- Please be respectful during the debate. Don't be mean or disrespectful in language/behavior throughout the round, or it may result in lower speaker points.

Above all, the debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun!

I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.

Things I like in debate:

- Debating on the resolution

- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms

- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting

- Strong clash

Things I do not like in debate:

- Spreading

- Kritiks

- T-shells / theory

- Falsified evidence

Things I am probably OK with in debate:

- CPs and basic LARPing, where permitted by tournament rules

Things I am probably not OK with in debate:

- Highly implausible impacts

Please include me in email chains; if I don't hear it, I won't flow it.

Ask me for my email address at start of round.

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

new to judging parli

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

I am a good judge. trust me ;)

but fr tho i debated for 5 years (Parli). Currently HS senior

I've seen heard and experienced anything that could be thrown around in any round at any level (but pls do surprise me)

good innovative responses and points > friv tech arguments (but call opps out for taking away ground, being extra t, etc all the good stuff)

use smart responses...don't just say smth isn't true, use line of reasoning to prove why its not true.

Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.

Judging Experience – In the last several years, I have judged at numerous debate (mostly parliamentary) and IE tournaments throughout the country. I judged at a few IE tournaments prior to then.

Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.

Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.

Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.

Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.

Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”

Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.

I debated parli in HS for DVHS and was mostly a caseish debater but i enjoy a well-run and explained flow debate

I would prefer if you didn't spread

If you want to run k or t, explain thoroughly what it is and what it means

I weigh on the weighing mechanism unless told otherwise

I will only protect the flow in JV/Novice, I expect open to be able to catch new args in 3rd and POO

I also really like terminalized impx

I appreciate contentions that are explained clearly and in an organized manner. Prefer fewer meaningful arguments over many less impactful ones. Take a few sentences to explain more important arguments, otherwise I might miss them. When referring back to cards made in earlier speeches, it's helpful to mention the essense of the studies rather than just the name of the author. Strongly prefer reasonable analysis over taking arguments to the extreme ending up in nuclear war.

I enjoy logical argumentation and reasoning. There is no need to impress me with complicated jargon, as they do not add to your argument. I also do not enjoy speed debating and spreading, where some debators try to say things as fast as possible, as that is not reflected in our real world of reasoning.

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

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

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

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

Most importantly, warrant out your impacts.

<3

Be respectful. Be clear. It's about quality and strength of argumentation not about speed and volume of arguments made.

I'm a 4th-year varsity debater, so I have a good understanding of debate jargon.

Be as organized and clear as possible. I won't stop you from spreading, but if I don't catch something, I won't vote on it. I protect the flow, but call POOs if you see them regardless. Please please please signpost!!! I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what you're talking about or where on the flow you are. This means restating your opponent's argument before responding to it.

I am truth>tech -- please call your opponent out if they present false evidence.

I will vote on a really beautifully explained impact over a bunch of statistics with no explanation on how they affect the round. I won't make assumptions for you -- if you don't tell me why climate change is bad, I can't vote on it.

I like philosophy, and I love when arguments are connected back to the weighing mechanism. If you feel confident enough to present an uncommon weighing mechanism, do it, but make sure you explain it well and connect your arguments back to it. I find that impacts painted with smaller strokes can be just as effective as broader impacts. Focus in on how something would affect individuals; tell me a story.

I won't stop you if you run theory or a K, but I'm really not a big fan. If you stray from the basic structure of a debate round, you have to make sure you're being really clear to be fair to both me and your opponent.

Being rude to your opponents won't earn you any points. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll drop you immediately. Don't do it.

Hello debaters. I am a lay parent judge from Menlo and this is the first tournament I am judging. I do not tolerate any hate speech or badgering. Please be respectful of your opponents or I will dock your speaks. Please signpost and speak clearly, if your opponents ask you to slow down please respect their wishes. I am open to hearing any argument but if you are doing theory or a kritik please thoroughly explain or I will be confused. Most importantly, have fun!

Ok, I guess it is customary to first tell you at least a bit about myself. When my home needed repairs, I took a class at a community college. I learned to do my own wiring, plumbing and basic building. That wasn't my vocation, that was for fun,

STRUCTURE/ FORMAT: Follow the rules and tenants of the type of debate you are in. You have a topic, do not lose sight of that topic. Each team must have a framework that supports their position all on its own. Remember rules regarding introducing new arguments, cross-ex, ext. specific to your debates. These are not issues I should have to remind you of, but I will deduct points for.

CONTENT: Then, they can also refute the other side's contentions as well, but I don't like seeing a team wasting time pouring over their notes trying to find exact quotes to refute. Use your time wisely, make sure your contentions alone support your statements, then, you can refute your opponent. Make sure and look at the big picture, look back at your topic over and over, don't get tunnel vision on a single idea.

SUMMARY:I judge the totality of the debate, the quality of the issues presented, and who argued their position best.

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).

(Any prns) I currently debate at Berkeley High School

My hobbies include debating, watching people debate, showing people how to debate, and writing about why I actually can't stand debate

Among my extensively long list of achievements (I’m pretty awesome) there’s highlights such as being called “scary nose ring girl” by 5 separate teams, and crying at TOC when my acrylic nail broke because I was typing too ferociously

Give me your case order on time. I barely protect, call the POO.

On case

-Tech > Truth to an extent, my threshold for throwing out arguments that r blatantly untrue and pointed out by the opposing team is LOW, but I’ll vote on arguments you win w/o intervention.

-Statistics <<<<<<< warranting and logic.

-Does Tabula Rasa REALLY exist?

- dropped points are given weight depending on impact weighing exactly like all other points y'all do too much

- If the argument is offensive I will auto strike it

- Signpost

-Pro CP anti PIC

Speaks

-I do speaks based on organization

- Take POI’s (1-2)

- Be funny

- Faster than conversational is fine u are not an auctioneer

-Will tank your speaks so fast if the vibes r off (you're being problematic or excessively mean lolz)

Kritiks/Theory

-I will NEVER vote on friv T. Unless it’s kind of funny then maybe (kidding don't give me secondhand embarrassment)

- Run wtv you want I have standards for kritikal args make it worth the time

- Don’t be lame and run smth crazy on some novices or lay teams cause why would you do that

- Speed theory hate feels mad ableist.. I LITERALLY cant vote on imps your opponents are excluded from engaging with

-NYPDL: Obviously avoid theory, K's r banned lol. If you need to run some lay east coast theory make sure you tell me:

1. Debate rule/norm
2. How your opponents have broken that norm
3. Why it makes the round unfair
4. What I as a judge should do to make the round fair

Lmk if you have questions have fun stay silly

Hey! I'm Anika, current high school parli debater @ Evergreen Valley (Papaya LOL)

TL;DR: Literally just signpost and impact weigh and you'll be fine.

Side note - if I have debated you before just know it holds no influence over my decision

Some of my prefs:

1) This is arguably the most important thing on here: SIGNPOST I swear to god. If I don't understand where you are, I cannot flow what you are saying. Literally just saying "contention 1, my opponents say... however..." is perfect

2) Roadmaps: I'm cool with offtime roadmaps, actually prefer it if you tell me beforehand your speech order

3) I wish this went without saying but please give your opponents/me the text of your cps/plans/interps etc. (unless the plan is just res text lol then dw about it) Also if you talk fast, slow down to read these types of things plss thx

4) Warrants: (a) I am a firm believer that examples are not warranting and that if you are going to rely on examples to be the backbone of your argument you first need your warranting/logic as a foundation (b) please please explain and detail your warranting, don't just give me unexplained stats (c) I swear please don't fabricate your evidence it is extremely obvious

5) Impacts: impact out everything - and terminalize to death, dehumanization, or quality of life (especially if your new to debate and struggle with weighing - this will make everyone's lives a little bit easier) Also for LD - link you impacts back to the framework please, don't just drop the value/criterion after mentioning it once at the beginning.

6) Rebuttals: I love when you respond line-by-line, I hate blanket responses or responding to like one thing in the contention (the only time this works is when you explain why that singular point being untrue undoes the whole solvency of the contention). Whatever you do, don't just say "cross-apply" contention #_ as a response without actually giving said response/explaining further.

7) Weighing: Most importantly, please weigh. The earlier you start weighing in the round the better tbh.

8) POO: I don't protect so call the POO.

9) POIs: I know you have a lot to get through and don't want to take the POI, but I prefer when you take at least one because your opponents are trying to understand what tf is happening. That being said, don't abuse POIs by asking silly questions, its stupid and a dirty trick (especially if you are first time debaters)

10) Tech: idk Ks so please refrain from using them, I'm cool with theory so run it if you want but make it clear please. That being said I <3 friv theory lol

11: Speaks: you may or may not get a 30 (or 28 in nypdl) if you say a suits/white collar quote

Most of this stuff is for parli so if I'm judging another event, I probably don't know much about it (sorry about that) but I will def try my best to judge you fairly

They/them ( Ask for other ppls in rounds pls!!)

You can call me whatever. Razeen, Judge, ご主人様.

email chain: razeennasar1@gmail.com

As a judge I critique y'all with feedback. However, I feel judges can't be told about their competency. Especially with the position of authority. Please don't see me as an all-knowing authority figure. I am a student just like y'all. I sleep, go to school sometimes, and am a disappointment to my parents. I'm human not a debate robot. You can use this form to criticize my judging without having your name attached. Or say I'm not lame and I did well.

Note: everything cut down word wise so it takes less time. Hence bare bone wording. Pls ask for elaboration irl :) Based on average reading speed TLDR will take 1 minute, whole thing 6.5 minutes of reading. Immensely cut down from initially 20 min(egregiously long).

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeRkloyjH8sARng_HNNNPtHhlMFaIrPK0jekgp7bspJ9jppeg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Speaks:

If you look at my speaking points history I'm generally pretty generous. If you do 4 things for me I will give you 30 speaks for free!

1. Ask your opponents for pronouns or just have some exchange related to that in round
2. Email me your case so I can read along while you read your case (if I miss anything I can reference back or re-read during cross). Don't make excuses about why you can't. If you don't want to then just don't do it. The only exception I will make is if you show me the TOURNAMENT doesn't allow me.
3. Finish your speech coherently and use like 95% of your time with legitimate substance.
4. Send evidence efficiently and don't waste time in between speeches or waste time in general.

For every one missed I'll doc 1.25 speaks. If you are just mean or rude to your opponents then I'll just give an auto L with 25 even if you win on the "flow".I have no tolerance for being mean :) I will try my best to find reasons to vote against people who are borderline mean through the flow too. A respectful environment is a prerequisite to people feeling comfortable to debate! All these asks for me are EXPECTATIONS, not preferences!

SHORT I DONT WANT TO READ AN ENTIRE THING OF NONSENSE BUT I WANT TO KNOW THE JIST:

Did HS PF debate+ college parli. was okay in HS pretty good in college now.

Mostly, Tech>Truth. However, don't use tech to bully. Still subconsciously influenced by bias. Uncontrollable. Some arguments I inherently understand more.

IF IM MAKING EYE CONTACT THAT MEANS I AM CONFUSED AND DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FLOW NOT THAT I AM LISTENING INTENTLY!!! IF YOU TAKE ANYTHING AWAY TAKE THIS!!! At one point I get self-conscious if I look too much in confusion when I don't know what to flow and look down. >~<

Pf 2nd rebuttal frontlines. No New Offense FF not in summary. Policy/LD don't know extension norms thus gonna be forgiving w/ extensions.

Generally against tech being topicality, Theory, and Ks Would consider non-disingenuously for real abuse/problematic rhetoric.

Spreading can't flow fast so it's bad. Don't sound like you are drowning.

Extinction big no no. Unless topic calls for it. No daylight savings causes extinction(real round)

Make sure not same impact scenario. Don't weigh Nuke war w/ Russia against Nuke war w/ Russia on magnitude. Compare links. Talk about uniqueness.

I prefer warranted low magnitude high probability vs high magnitude low probability. Even if an argument outweighs, if it isn't extended well and I can't explain it I won't vote off it. Argument understandability is a prereq to voting on any argument for me. I have ALOT of rounds where I vote for an impact cuz it's the only one explained.

Jargon pls no. I barely know prog debate.

Don't expect me to understand afro-anthropessimism pre-post modern feminist neo liberal hauntology @400WPM.I barely understand my college lecturers at 1/4th that speed. even at normal pace without accessible wording I won't get it. 100% have not read your arg lit before. Need slow good explanation for new concepts to me aka most of arguments.

Don't assume I remember what each author said. I don't remember 1/2 of UCSD debaters in a quarter. You think I'm gonna remember aiusdbh 13 from the 1NC 45 minutes ago.

PF DEBATE

-----------------

Pls email me your cases before the start of the round.

Pls frontline in 2nd rebuttal rather than 2nd summary

I will vote off turns if not blippily read and make sense.

Pls use voters in the final focus and COLLAPSE. I'm serious about collapsing.

I... am lazy and use single-use paper plates cuz I don't like doing dishes, but also my romantic partner is in marine biology and roasts me for single use plastic... aka I can see both sides :)

POLICY DEBATE

------------------

Don't understand "new sheets" and flowing is hard. Though i try my best. Most decision focused on 1/2 AR/NR. Better to be honest it's hard for me than lie. Sorry! I will try to be as informed as possible by the round. Pls bear with my stupidity. Know I'm trying my hardest to give a good decision.

PARLI DEBATE

--------------------

I compete in college parli. I have no clue what the norms are in HS parli. College parli is basically policy without the cards. So that is how I see parli. Pls don't try to spread it's already painful to hear in college. If it's the norm I'm fine with topicality and Counterplans. Please don't read an aff K, and if that isn't a norm yet thank god. I am open to K arguments if it isn't used to shut out opponent and outspread them with complicated jargon.

I have won 4 college parli tournaments this past year so like I feel like I know what's up with parli.

I love debates that are on topic and have relevant and easy to understand arguments that have nuance!

Longer preferences

--------------------

I am an idiot

---------------

I'm stupid, not a humble statement. Don't let the absurd length fool you. It's a sign of insecurity, not knowledge. This is at the top for a reason. I make wrong decisions when forced to think myself. Verbally make a speech that I can nearly mimic in my RFD.

I'm not competing so don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms/words are. Common sense ideas to you aren't common sense to most people. I can't figure out push or pull doors don't think I can figure out your argument.

Debate jargon for prog is a no no. Just take the couple of extra seconds to explain. Don't assume arguments. Explain things like "fairness/education voter" and "reasonability means judge intervention" even though seems common sense explain why these are good/bad.

Fully explain all your args. The reasons why an argument is logically true beyond evidence.

Don't say extend from past speech. I already forgot that last speech bro. I have the short-term memory of a goldfish. Think of it this way, in your classes if your teacher says expanding on what was said 15 minutes ago, and doesn't somewhat reexplain there is simply confusion.

Access

--------

Don't use tech debate as a way to bully new debaters. Tech is meant to make debate fairer, and challenge knowledge. Instead, it's become a tool used by the privileged to win silly arguments with coach-made responses that less-resourced schools can't beat. Don't contribute to bad debate norms I will be sad.

Experience:

HS PF+ College Parli. was mid in HS (4-3 STOC). College I got better & have won tournaments. College parli is budget policy w/out cards. However, I'm mostly a topical debater. Vaguely understand/use CPs/T/Ks/Theory.

General debate

------------------

In short, I will try to find the quickest way and clearest way to vote. If an argument is messy I'll likely vote off something way smaller that may not even outweigh. I want your last speeches to be what you want me to say in my RFD.

Tech Truth?

I am generally tech over truth with a couple of exceptions

1. When tech is used as a means to exclude
2. Dump low-quality args hoping for drops.
3. Arguments are clipped
4. Borderline false args e.g Nuke war good(low threshold for response)

Case

Please send case. Allows me to flow. Flowing helps me keep track. More likely to vote for yall. Also just good practice.

Rebuttals

Please try to signpost. By that I mean if you directly say, which response with things like " on x argument, their yth response about z we have x amount of responses. or if it's 1 response give the response.

Also, please don't say "no evidence, no warrant, no explanation" rather explain why the lack of a warrant means their argument is false and what it actually is like. Also, I am down for logical arguments. Not everything needs to be carded if it's analytical. If something is analytical like "no one wants to be nuked" and you say nO eViDenCe then there is no way I'm voting on the response.

Final speeches:

Please voters. Frame independent reasons to vote rather than line by line. go reasons why you win, and cover defense/turns on their offense.

Line by line = Line w/out the ine.

While I try to exclusively flow. Directing me on the flow can make me interpret the flow in a better way for y'all. Will focus on what I'm told to. So focus on best args.

Pls collapse. 1 good arg>3 bad arguments. Either you collapse or my mental health collapses.

Don't say "extend (author)" or "extend my response on x argument." extend what the author says or the argument itself. If you don't explain your arguments and just assume I know them I won't vote for them!

-----------------

Weighing

-----------------

I.Will.Do.Anything.I.Can.To.Not.Vote.On.Bad.Extinction.Scenarios.Within.my.Power.as.a.Judge.

Exceptions are topics that kinda rely on those ideas. Like Conflict for NATO/ great power conflict. Or climate change for PRC econ or enviro. Heavily prefer against it.

Probability weighing:

Fleshed-out arguments are rewarded. Don't go for the "risk of offense infinite magnitude extension multiply infinity." not gonna vote on that. arg of "risk of offense" means you aren't good enough to defend case. a low chance of your case to me is a 0 chance. However, the opponent needs to win probability claims.

Same/similiar impact weighing:

Make sure you aren't having exact same or similar impact to the opponent then OW on "magnitude"

Many topics have different sides same impact. Rather than weigh impacts you compare links or compare uniqueness. Uniqueness is the better route for me. 2 possible ways to deal w/ clash IMO.

1.Mostly look to Uniqueness 70% of time. Is SQUO going good or nah. If going well why fix something that isn't broken. Inversely, if things going wrong we need to take action to fix.

2. Distinguish impacts. Explain why your scenario uniquely links more. Maybe it's more specific. It affects more countries. It has bigger actors. Your link bigger than theirs. Whatever way to show e.x how your link into nuke war is better than theirs.

---------------------------

Progressive Debate

---------------------------

Structural Violence: Only prog argument I vibe with. Main it center of your narrative. Don't make it secondary defeats the purpose of prioritizing underprivileged if you deprioritize them by dropping arg on it.

Spreading: I can't follow it at all. I'll try to follow doc. Tell me what you cut from it. Heavily prefer not. Don't use as a way to shut out opponents. Will insta L.

Topicality:Don't read to add an extra layer. I will be sad. Don't make bad debate norms. Abusing new teams w/out resources to learn about debate in the meta sense is shameful. Only read if legit non-topical. If actually hurts ability to debate use it. Don't say "fairness/education voter" explains why. Default reasonability.

Kritik:I PROMISE I don't know your lit. I am stupid. keep it simple. Don't use area-specific lingo. If you have to have heard it before to know it don't read it. If you can't be simple w/ it that means you don't know it. Kinda troll nowadays become cancelling your opponent for "insert ism"

I have, lately, been more sympathetic to them in certain instances. I am fine with Kritiks on nuke war impacts, western construction of "terrorists," Orientalism on China impacts, Democracy promotion bad/ causes othering, AI deserving rights, Speed bad K, and tech debate bad K. Ultimately, I won't want to vote on a K that can be linked to anything and any topic. I feel that anything that is legit misunderstood and really messed up to the point where it shouldn't be "seen from both sides" is a place I would legit evaluate a Kritik.

K aff: No lol. screams "I'm not good enough to defend the topic, and I'm lazy." If you feel passionate anyway read it.

Theory:Frivolous theory will lead to AUTO L 25. Won't deal with it. Default RVIs. Minimal experience judging theory. The threshold for abuse is high. Must prove in-round abuse, not potential abuse.

MISC

----------------

If you made it down here Idk why you wasted time reading this far lol

Disclose decision:

Yes, if tourney allows. Will try to be quick. Will try to be constructive as possible. If not being constructive lmk. Want to talk about strengths, improvement areas, the round itself, if you loss potential paths to the ballot. For winning team how to make more clear. A lot of apologizing. Pls if you have an issue bring it up w/ me directly rather than say stuff outside of round. I want to clarify and not "judge screw" as I had that as a debater I felt and ik the frustration. If you found RFD good bad you can give feedback on form.

If flight 1 goes quickly I will give feedback. If y'all troll with timing I'll just type my feedback. I assume y'all prefer to hear, just start the round ASAP.

NDCA wiki:

If you disclose that's cool and awesome! However, I'm not receptive to disclosure theory in PF. In other events, if used to bully new debaters that won't be tolerated.

Decorum:

The presentation has a subconscious effect on everyone. Will try to prevent that.

No tolerance for rude debaters. Will drop if bad enough rudeness. Don't be overly rule stigent/ talk over people/ be snarky/make too many faces. Also, will lower speaks. Be nice! Isn't hard. Will give high speaks otherwise.

IRL politics:

Pure tab judge is impossible and fake. IRL knowledge sphere is Marxism. not the "government does stuff" leftism though. Fine with being critical of America and the economy.

Parent judge, moderate experience with Parli and some PF, I maintain as detailed a flow as possible, truth>tech

(if there is jargon in this paradigm it is because my daughter actually wrote it while consulting me on the content, not because I understand debate jargon)

Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace (don't spread!), signpost, limit jargon, etc. (if I don't understand you, it doesn't go on my flow, if it doesn't go on my flow, I'm not taking it into consideration)

Just saying cross-apply this with (x contention) is not a valid refutation in the absence of an explanation

Clearly state and weigh your impacts, provide clear logical links, POO any rules violations

Not super experienced with Ks or Theory, it is likely best not to run it with me and if you do, you must explain it well and in detail

Be respectful to your opponents and me. I will give you lower speaks if you are not.

A big pet peeve of mine is when debaters tell me how to vote ("judge, you MUST vote government on this"). I'm sorry, I know it's just what you do in debate, but it's really annoying - tell me how I can vote, give me voting issues, weigh your impacts against those of your opponents, but please for the love of God do not order me to vote for your side. I'm the judge, I'm here for a reason, I'll tell you who won (after flowing the round and evaluating it to the best of my ability)

I did speech and debate in high school and college and love seeing all of you engage in it as I know what an educational and fun activity it can be. Above all, I hope that you have a fun, educational, and constructive debate and that I can facilitate that to the best of my ability. Good luck!!

I am a parent judge who started in 2019. I have judged mostly parli bc that is my child's format, but I have been roped into LD and PoFo, so I have familiarity with those events as well. I am most comfortable judging parli. I do my best to understand and properly flow debaters’ arguments. I want to give everyone a fair chance in debate, based on the merit of their arguments and the delivery to me. I have a few requests and guidelines for you, as debaters.

Content

truth>tech

I don't really buy the whole If You Give a Mouse a Cookie string of events, like offering AP classes in HS will lead college TAs to all end their lives. (not being disrespectful or flippant regarding suicide - this is an actual argument I have heard). I have heard so many prepackaged arguments about the most benign policy leading to mass poverty, poverty is cyclical, it takes seven years off your life, etc. If it is something that a reasonable person could see would lead to everyone falling into abject poverty, I would buy it, but I don't buy the overterminalizing. Funding playgrounds will not lead to nuclear war. Adding Finland and Sweden to NATO will not lead to extinction of humanity. (One really good, intelligent debater who was in the unfortunate circumstance of finding herself on the Opp side of an Aff skewed res in octos or quarters had to actually resort to that as a last ditch effort, and while I appreciate the endeavor, I could not buy it.)

Theory

Please don't be theory-happy. Use it only if other side has made an egregiously irrelevant or extratopical argument or interpretation. I feel like teams have gotten all too eager to use this and of all the theory shells that have been run by me, I have not found a single one compelling.

Kritiks

Big risk in front of lay judge - I don’t expect that you’d try it in front of me. am not smart enough to understand these. If you choose to read one, I'll try to understand it, but you are likely wasting your time (and may fry my lay judge brain!). From what I see, people spend a lot of time working on these and just waiting for a time to bust them out rather than actually putting work into a good debate. But go for it if you feel like it.

Lying

Please don’t lie or fabricate evidence. It’s better to lose a round for a lack of evidence than to lie your way to victory. The whole point of debate is to be educational to both sides of the argument and lying voids that altogether. Lying is cheating. It can get you in trouble. If I catch you lying, I will take appropriate action. Without lying, debate is much more enjoyable and fair for all parties.

Signposting

Please signpost! Since I am new and rather inexperienced at flowing, signposting is very useful. Signposting allows me to be more organized. If you do so, I will be able to judge your debate more fairly, with more understanding of each argument.

Format

Please be clear with every aspect of your arguments, from links and impacts to delivery. This helps me understand and judge the round properly.

I understand that non-speaking partners may need to support speakers when it is not the non-speaker's turn, but I find too many interruptions, constant and audible feeding of content, and taking over for the speaker to be irritating, distraction, and signs of poor preparation and lack of professionalism. At best, I will not flow or consider any content presented by team member when it is not their turn and at worst, I may dock you for it. If you must provide your speaking partner with your thoughts, please try to do so quietly, unintrusively, and if possible, non-verbally.

My Style

I take judging seriously, but am not power trippy. I am pretty relaxed and understand that you have put hard work into this tournament and into this round and have gotten up early to do it. I appreciate that. I think it's great that young people are doing this and you have my respect and admiration. I understand that it takes guts, even for more experienced or less shy debaters. If you are new, I want to encourage you, so please do your best, but if you are struggling, I will not look down on you. Use these tournaments, especially when I am your judge, as learning opportunities to work on shedding inhibitions and becoming a stronger debater.

I write A LOT. I try to get down every word a speaker says, and thank goodness, because I have had to use my copious notes to decide whether an argument or stat was brought up previously when an opponent claims it was not! Since I am scribing away, I may not look up at you much or make eye contact. If I don't return your eye contact, please don't take it personally. I encourage you to look at the judge and at your opponents and audience since this is what is intended for a real life application of debate, such as in an actual parliamentary, political, or courtroom setting. Especially for those who are more shy or new, please take advantage of this smaller and perhaps less intimidating setting to practice making meaningful eye contact to help you in the future.

If I look at my phone during a round, I am not texting or playing 2048, as I most likely am every minute between rounds ;-) I am checking exact wording of a res, time, or something regarding the content. I take my judging duties very seriously and am always mentally present during rounds!

Other Notes

I appreciate you putting your time and energy into debate. I want to do my best as a judge to make it fair and enjoyable.

Please Don't:

Interrupt others

Run racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments

Be overly invasive or picky with POIs (one novice debater used one in her first tournament to question the speaker about his discrepant use of 72% and 74% when referring multiple times to what portion of the US's cobalt imports come from China - c'mon. In this case it didn't warrant a POI.)

Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand

Be a jerk to your opponents, even (or especially) if they are struggling and especially if you are a stronger team/debater or older or more experienced. I appreciate that it takes guts to get up there and speak. If you snicker or smirk with your teammate or send (zoom) or write (in person) each other rude messages about the other team and share derisory laughs, I will go exothermic. I will let your coach, your school, and tournament directors know.

Please Do:

Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate

Feel free to remove your mask if tournament rules allow it

Be respectful

Have fun and not be overly aggressive

Thank your opponents

Be ready on time for the debate

Chill with jargon and technicalities, though if I find that the side arguing such things fails to properly lay a foundation with definitions and/or doesn't make it a voting issue in their final speech, I will most likely ignore it. Remember, jargon is not an explanation. I come into the round as a listener, not a fellow debater, so if you want to invoke jargon you must clearly define it as you would with a lay judge, otherwise I will not count it as a sufficient explanation toward whatever point you are making.

-I am friendly toward Theory if one side is making an abusive definition or unreasonable plan/CP, and I prefer it be limited to those instances.

-Please don't run Ks in Novice.

-No tag teaming. I will dock a full speaker point from members of a team anytime they do it.

-I will take every assertion made as the absolute truth until it is contested. I will accept "insufficient evidence" as an adequate response in the first four speeches (of course, if the other side did provide a sufficient warrant to their claim, they may simply point that out). I will not accept this as a response if it is first brought up in the Rebuttal speeches, and am happy to toss it out if the other side calls a Point of Order.

-The most important thing to remember is that it is the speaker's job to connect the dots between the arguments they're making and the conclusions they are drawing. I will not do it for you.

Above all be respectful, enjoy debate, and don't be afraid to lean into an argument you completely disagree with!

I am a parent judge with very little knowledge on Parliamentary debate, so please keep the jargon to bare minimum. Thanks!

Hey! I'm Alex and I'm a freshman at Berkeley majoring in econ. I did Parli for all 4 years at Menlo-Atherton HS and now compete with the Debate Society of Berkeley. I was fairly successful - won SVUDL 1 (21') + finals at Cal Parli (21') and Stephen Stewart (22'), but I had my share of 0-5s, 1-4s and 2-3s at the start of my career. I'll disclose and give feedback after the round (so long as the tournament doesn't yell at me for it), but if you want additional comments after that, I can email you more of my thoughts. You can also send me an email (alexparikh-briggs@berkeley.edu) if you want more specific feedback/help with something that happened in round.

Non Parli:

If I end up judging you for an event other than Parli, please just err on the side of caution. Idk the nuances of these events too well, but that isn't to say to treat me like a lay judge. Everything below still applies (mostly).

Misc:

tech>truth. I hate intervention, so I literally won’t intervene against anything unless it’s racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That being said, please just respond to bad arguments so I don’t have to vote on them.

Speed: I will admit, I’m not the greatest with speed. I can handle faster than conversational for sure but I probably can’t handle double breaths. General rule: I think as long as you aren’t going as fast as you possibly can it should be ok. I’ll slow/clear if needed.

POI/POO: Use POI’s. I will flow them. Make sure they are a question, but as long as you do that, I’m fine with tricky/interesting POI’s.

• POO’s: Just call them if you think it’s new. I’ll do my best to protect, but if I screw up, I don’t want that to cost you.

Time: I’ll time and give 0-30 seconds grace (I’ll ask both teams how much grace they want b4 the round starts and we’ll do what you agree on). The millisecond you go overtime, I’m not flowing.

Tag teaming is chill, maybe not every sentence though.

• On that note, I’ll give speaks based on execution of strategy and your overall contribution to the round. This means I don’t care how pretty your speech is, I just care about what you’re saying. I’ll be pretty generous and probably give an average speech around a 28 and adjust from there. Feel free to swear.

If I have nothing to vote on at the end of the round, I’ll presume neg (this shouldn’t happen). If there is a CP, then I’ll presume aff. If the aff then does a perm “do both,” it goes back to NEG. Ask me about this before the round if this is confusing.

Please collapse in rebuttal. Tell me what you want me to vote on.

• If you’re the LOR, DO NOT REPEAT THE MO. (I did this several times, it’s ok, but try not to).

Case:

I did all the different styles - APDA/East Coast, more “Flay'' west coast, and “tech”/NPDA west coast debate. This means that whatever style of debate u want to have is fine with me. That said, here are a few things:

l’ll go off of net bens if I get no other framing. Feel free to be squirrelly, just be ready for fairness/theory arguments.

Every argument should have some form of claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously, feel free to beef these up and use whatever structure you want (Uniqueness/Link/Impact is what I did mostly)

Evidence is cool, just make sure you can explain to me why that evidence is the way it is. For example, if you read me the argument “1 year of poverty takes off 7 years of your life” but can’t tell me why that’s true, I can’t vote on it/evaluate it.

Do weighing. This means DIRECTLY, not implying, why your impact is more important than the other side. I have no defaults. If one team weighs and the other doesn’t I'll just prioritize that framing. If one team goes for magnitude and the other goes for probability, whichever team does meta weighing is what I prefer. If there is no metaweighing, well… I’ll probably have to intervene sadly. Use different forms of weighing like scope, reversibility, etc. Your opponents won’t know how to handle this. I know this is hard, so just do your best. I struggled with it as well.

I really like CP’s. My partner and I literally read advantage CP’s whenever it was possible. Given this, I’ll evaluate whatever CP you want to read, LIKE ACTUALLY, ANYTHING. Just make sure it’s well constructed. Be prepared for your opponents and I to ask you for a text. If it needs to be a paragraph, so be it. I'm down for whacky arguments that you don't think most judges would buy. If it’s not a policy round, just call it a counter advocacy to avoid the trichonomy debate, I'll treat it the same. Same thing if the resolution starts with “This house.”

• If you're the Aff and you’re gonna perm, please tell me whether it’s a test of competition or you’re "doing both"/taking the advocacy. I don’t default here so you need to explain it to me.

• Condo is fine, but be ready for theory.

• Don't do all this work making a nice CP and then lose on a perm. Make sure u think about this during prep. Competition on net bens is fine, u just have to win that then.

Theory:

Definitely my favorite debate argument. I will listen/vote on any theory argument you read. This includes friv t (my threshold for voting on theory is very low lol). I literally ran the interp, during an online tournament, “All participants in a debate round must have their cameras off.” One of the voters was climate change - apparently having ur video on has a 97% greater impact on the environment.

Absolutely no defaults on theory - tell me it’s apriori, tell me drop debater/argument, tell me no RVI’s, tell me competing interps (reasonability is fine too, just give me a brightline), etc.

• On that note, if you’re against friv t, go for an RVI. I don’t understand why people are so against it in parli. You should be able to win the theory argument (friv t is usually easy to respond to) and in that case you win the round.

Again, any shell you can possibly think of is fine. If you run a shell that I haven’t heard before, I’ll boost ur speaks by a full point. I don't really understand how 30 speaks theory works, but if you make it make sense to me, I'll probably just give both of y'all 30 speaks.

The format of your shell, while I’d prefer interp/violation/standards/voters, doesn’t matter. I’ll vote on paragraph theory as long as all of the elements are sort of there.

I'm lumping this with theory because that's where it seems to appear most: IVI's. I'm willing to vote on these, but I need them to be layered and have pre-fiat education/fairness impact that is pretty large. Thus, my threshold for voting on IVI's is much greater than for theory (usually cuz these are just blipped out in 20 seconds, if they're actually explained then probably on par with theory).

K’s:

I will admit, it was hard for me to engage in K’s in high school because that almost always meant my partner and I would get spread out. That being said, if you can slow it down just a tad, I’m totally willing to vote on it. I’m not really familiar with much of the lit you might be using other than cap stuff. Because of what I said above, accessibility matters a lot to me. If you’re running a k, take lots of questions to make sure the other team can engage with you. Also, if they keep saying slow and you just don’t slow, it will be very hard for me to vote for you.

Valid ways to respond to K’s (for teams that aren’t the most familiar):

Read counter-framework/Attack Framework

Attack the Alt

Read Theory

Attack Links

Attack Impacts

I also am not gonna default that K’s come before case, you need to tell me this.

Hi, I am a parent judge who is new to judging debate rounds.

Things I look for:

• Logical explaining of arguments
• Good impacts
• Talking at a reasonable pace

Directing me with prompts like "you should write this down" are also going to be very useful for your side.

Bonus points for being respectful and having a positive attitude.

Hi! My name is Violet, I am a high school Parli debater and your judge today!

Most importantly, if you can work in a Taylor Swift quote or reference in a speech, I will give you higher speaker points.

Do's:

• Speak Clearly
• Respond to the actual arguments being made
• Please, please, please signpost
• Give me a solid weighing mechanism in PMC or LOC and then weigh during the PMR and LOR
• Explain concepts or definitions clearly and try to give examples
• Ask/take one or two POI's

Don't

• Be rude or make debate inaccessible
• Rely too heavily on evidence (It can be good to back up points but the arguments should be based on logic)
• Use unnecessary jargon or theory (If you do use these, explain them clearly, or they will only serve to weaken your case and waste time)

Other notes:

• I am very receptive to blatant compliments before or after the round
• I am a fan of unpredictable Counter Plans, but please explain and weigh them well (I once won a round running abolish the senate)

View Past RatingsView Judging Record Search Judge Paradigms

There are 12,191 paradigms on Tabroom
reviewed since January 1, 2024

Join the NSDAAboutHelpContactPrivacy PolicyTerms

I was part of my high school debate team and I love debates. I am a person who is extremely data driven, so if you have legit data , you have my vote.

I like clear off time roadmaps, bulleted lists, summaries, timeliness and being respectful to each other. Profanity or Arguments will not get my vote.

My order of preference:

1) Case: I am a huge fan of case. This is the true spirit of debating. So if you are Aff, support with any past precedents or data and if you are neg, present AP.

2) Theories: I am not a huge fan but if it is a theory that has a compelling value, then I am willing to hear it

3) Kritik: This is an enigma to me, never faced one but open to learning more.

I would appreciate no spreading because I can't keep up with the language and typing. Avoid jargons as well. I am more of a tech judge as I try to be a blank slate and take your arguments and data at face value. Although I may take them at face value, that doesn't mean that you can get away with running some friv theory or a copied Kritik from some database. If you want to run theory or kritik, put some effort to have a good off.

TLDR: Please no spreading, Ideally do Case debate and Kritik and non-friv theory are not appreciated. Also, I am a blank slate/robot and will take arguments at face value.

Parli: I'm a semi-experienced judge; I've judged at approx 7 tournaments. I'm a research manager in my job which means I frequently develop insights with rationales & evidence. I am most interested in your logic and persuasion. I'm not a "technical judge." Please keep your pace no faster than medium so I can fully comprehend your well constructed arguments. Thanks!

Extemp: I've judged one tournament with extemp rounds. I look for clear structure, elements that make your points relatable for "regular people" like me, evidence that links well to your claims and ability to pace well to get your full structure in during the time given.

Speech:I have more experience with Parli and less with Speech but I lean on my background in theater and improv to guide some of my observations. In interpretation events (e.g. POI, DI), I'm looking for cohesive themes that weave together your sources and ideas into a strong POV. I pay attention to thoughtful, appropriate movement that enhances your scenes. I'm looking for distinct characters with clear personalities conveyed through line delivery, vocal and facial expression, varying intensity. I appreciate the hard work it takes to be vulnerable and genuine. In Extemp, I'm looking for a well organized, logical plan showing your clear POV on how you are approaching the topic. I hope to see who you are shine through your analysis and delivery.

I am a relatively new parent judge who has judged few other debate events before this - I want to establish some guidelines and expectations for debaters in this round. My goal is to ensure a fair, organized, and respectful debate experience for all participants

1. I prefer when debaters provide a clear and well-defined roadmap for their arguments at the beginning of their speeches. A roadmap helps me follow your arguments and analysis more easily, enhancing the clarity of your presentation

2. I strongly discourage the fabrication of events, statistics, or evidence. It is essential that debaters base their arguments on reliable and credible sources.

3. Please be mindful of the time limit set

4. Tag teaming is allowed but please repeat clearly what your partner says

5. Please note that I do not prefer theory and Kritiks in debates.

6. I do not tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments

About Me: I'm a parent judge in my first year of judging, and I'm thrilled to be here to assess your debates.

Here are the specific aspects I prioritize:

1. Logic: While evidence holds importance, I give higher weight to the clarity and strength of your logical reasoning.

2. Clarity: The ease with which I can follow your thought process and the effectiveness of your speech are important to me.

3. Honesty: I greatly value fair play, so calling out any fallacies or inaccurate/unfair statements is a plus.

I'm a lay judge who has been judging for a few years now. I flow the entire round and will vote almost exclusively on the flow. I value quality over quantity ie I would prefer fewer well-warranted arguments over more poorly-warranted arguments.

Signposting is super important to me. If I can't follow where you are on the flow I will flow your argument in the wrong place and maybe evaluate your arguments wrong; I promise you don't want that.

I am generally not a fan of anecdotal evidence and prefer logic and warranting over personal experience or examples. Please don't try to pull at my heartstrings (they don't exist :)).

I slightly lean tech>truth but if you don't know something please don't make it up. If I know you are blatantly lying I will probably not vote for you.

I can handle speed but if you're gasping for air then you're going way too fast. No theory or Ks. I have zero experience with them and will probably not evaluate them correctly.

I'm so impressed by your dedication to this activity and I'm looking forward to judging!

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

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

Random musings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case:

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

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

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

CPs:

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

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

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

Kritiks:

Ask me or ur coach before round

Theory/T:

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

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

Defaults:

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

hi all, i'm sim (she/her). currently a second year NPDA and NFA-LD competitor, i also competed in high school (mostly for Congress) at the TOC level. a little bit about my judging preferences:

parli-

1) i evaluate the flow. you can read almost any argument you want and i will do my best to ignore my biases and treat debate like the game it is.

a. at the top, this should go without saying, but don't be rude, don't be a bigot or a bully. i hate judge intervention, but you doing any of the above is grounds for intervention.

b. for speaks, i think i'm a pretty fair judge. i evaluate not based on your articulation necessarily, but on the weight of your arguments and strats. if you want better speaks, feel free to drop a giulia tofana reference somewhere lmaoo.

c. please clash. implied clash is not good enough. i won't connect the dots for you.

d. collapse. debate is like a bell curve. it should be at its most wide right in the middle, but narrow it down at the end. tell me exactly what to vote on and why.

e. impact calculus. don't forget your impacts and weighing. i don't care about your argument if it has no impacts.

e. signpost! signpost, signpost, signpost.

f. i protect against new arguments in the last two speeches, but make sure to call them out anyways.

2) speed: i can hang with most speed, so go as fast as you want. i just ask that you slow down for interps/plan texts/rob's and/or provide them to me written out. don't sacrifice clarity in favor of speed. if i can't understand you because there is no clarity and you're going 1000wpm, it might not get on the flow. in that case, tough. also, please don't try to spread out obviously inexperienced debaters. you shouldn't have to resort to speed to outdebate a novice. be inclusive!

3) theory: i'd like to think i'm pretty comfortable with most topicality and framework arguments. i'm down to vote on condo bad args, down for MG theory, don't love RVIs, default to competing interps over reasonability like 99% of the time, will totally vote on potential abuse. frivolous theory is so fun to watch so feel free to run it -- but know that you probably have to collapse to it 100% to win my vote there.

a. ivi's: unless its an ivi about an equity issue, you have to do a lot of work to convince me to vote here. this means reading an ivi as a proper shell, not as a last ditch one-line effort when you're losing on theory.

4) kritiks: i'll listen to whatever you want to read, but please explain the lit to me like i'm a five year old. i understand some authors (marx, kant, fanon, tuck and yang), but for most of them i'm probably lost. i'm not much of a k debater myself, but i'll do my best to evaluate.

--

LD
pls share the speechdrop. for the love of debate, don't forget to flash ALL the positions you're reading and don't drop the wrong doc. i am not familiar with the topics or what people are reading rn, so telling me your aff is the most common aff on the circuit in response to t won't really be helpful.

other than that, i generally evaluate ld in a fairly similar style to parli.

Hello debaters,

My name is Leena (she/her) and I am a "lay" or parent judge who knows the basic format of parliamentary debate. I will do my best to pick the team that argues most efficiently and effortlessly in the round.

A couple of personal preferences for the debaters:

- I would appreciate if when speaking, not to speak super fast so a regular person couldn't understand what was being said. I am unfamiliar with most debate jargon and would prefer it if someone explained terms and definitions to me in a simple way.

- I am a fan of persuasive speaking. If you can break down a complex argument in basic understanding, it will be a lot easier to work on.

- As for theory, I am not experienced when it comes to matters of debating about the debate itself. If you happen to want to run theory, prepare to explain it in great detail, as there is a risk of my misunderstanding.

- Please be respectful during the debate. Don't be mean or disrespectful in language/behavior throughout the round, or it may result in lower speaker points.

Above all, a debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun!

Hi! I am a relatively new parent judge. This paradigm was written by my daughter so take the prefs with a grain of salt.

Debate experience: 2 years Parli, 6 years LD, 6 years Oxford, 4 years mock trial, 4 years ex tempt, and 4 years impromptu.

I will flow all arguments from both sides. Ultimately, I vote for, quote: "Whichever team is better."

Preferences: I can handle a fast speech but preferably no crazy spreading. To be safe, please no theory and Ks.

But beyond that, please stay classy. I value a no-drama, high-integrity debate. I will significantly lower your speaks if I find you being unsportsmanlike in the debate space.

Good luck have fun!

Tabroom paradigm

The tldr if you are almost done with prep and just realized i have a paradigm:

East cost/BP level lay, truth> tech, do not love theory/K’s, honest and well-weighed arguments will get you very far, be kind and respectful. In general, if you are nice (+ bonus points if you weigh) I will happily and fairly judge whatever round you have!

Background on me:

• she/her

• I’ve been debating and judging competitively for 4 years. I have experience in American Parli (Exclusively east coast parli), British Parli (my fav), and World Schools.

• Debating as a freshman at Wesleyan University now!

• Particular areas of interest: government, law, courts, justice, social movements + social action, history, feminism, Jewish history + culture, IR, art

• Particular areas of disinterest: sports, econ/finance (you can run these but no jargon)

• I was an equity officer on the NYPDL board for two years and ran equity in local middle school leagues for a few years. Equity is very important to me.

• I adore debate and the debating community! If you ever want help, feedback, advice, support, don’t hesitate to reach out! + do your part to keep this community awesome. Good vibes in and out of round please! (to contact me: juliaswenja@gmailcom)

Things to know if i’m judging you:

My general philosophy: Debate is about being the most persuasive, not being the sneakiest → for this reason, clear+ intuitive arguments, polite + equitable behavior, and honest weighing are the most important things to me.

• Truth > tech but not by miles. Be reasonable and honest, and warrant and weigh.

• Equity is very important to me: treat every person in the room with respect and politeness, and treat every argument with thoughtfulness and nuance. Be aware of the position you speak from, and be conscious of how your identity informs your advantage in the debate world. Respect and kindness are non negotiable parts of being a persuasive speaker and member of this awesome community.

• Theory/K’s: I am an east coast/BP judge, so think east coast/BP level lay. I will not autodrop anyone, but I have no experience at all with theory or Ks of any kind and have a high level of skepticism about it. I wouldn’t recommend running theory in front of me: I will judge fairly whatever debate happens but will be quite grumpy with you.

• Speed: I am a good flower and can keep up with any speed east coast or BP. No spreading please!

• Signposting: signpost please!

• Content warnings: any obviously triggering content needs to be content warned. Don’t run very graphic violence in front of me please.

• Offtime roadmaps: Not my fav. You were given an amount of time by the debate gods. Use it!

• Rhetoric: I love a strategic use of rhetoric/emotion. Can be a powerful tool in persuasion!

• Rebuttals: I adore rebuttal speeches, and a strong LOR/PMR has a lot of power for me. Good round vision and weighing will make me VERY happy. I dislike dishonesty or redundancy in rebuttals.

• organization/flowing/coverage: I’m not a strict flow judge and don’t care a ton about dropped arguments. However, prioritizing and strategic coverage is important. Spend lots of time on the best arguments!

• Definitions debate: noooooooothank you

• Cases:

• Sneaky cases/Counter plans: I have a preference for straight opping and goving motions. I don’t like sneaky strategic decisions and prefer not to judge them unless there isn’t a different clear path to victory. If you run a CP, please commit to it.

• Creativity: I have no strong preference for creative cases: if they’re good arguments, run them, if not, keep it simple. Please don’t sacrifice intuitive and clear cases to creative ones. I will chuckle if you run something funny or clever but there won’t be extra points for creativity.

• Quality vs. quantity: I love dense + heavily warranted cases! Feel free to throw as many mechs as possible

• Principles: I have no strong bias for or against principled arguments. If the argument is warranted strongly and weighed well, I will happily vote on it. If not, I probably won’t.

I am a first-year judge, and am not experienced with technical debate. Please explain your arguments very clearly. Provide logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument. Please be courteous .Look forward to a fun learning experience! :)

I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:

Approach to Judging:

1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.

2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.

3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.

4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.

5. Please no theory or kritiks.

6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.

7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.

8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.

Bonus speaker points if you say something in Telugu to end the last speeches.

Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I am a Parent Judge and I would like to hear about facts and figures during the debate. I would prefer to hear debate points in a slow and clear way.

All the best to all the contestants. Having been a judge for more than a year I look for good eye contact, clear and concise arguments, respectful behavior and clear speaking. Confidence is the key, not aggression.

Email : subrantap@yahoo.com

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.

Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.

I am a lay judge. I have been judging parli debate for 1 year. I prefer clear and not too fast speaking. I vote off of strong arguments and whichever team has the most points standing at the end.

Dear Buetiful Debaters,

My name is Luca Vicisano, I am a 4th year hs parli debater, I use he/him pronouns and today, I'm going to be your judge. For some background, my achevments include going 1-4 at James Logan and loosing a round in which my only job was to convince the judge that bombing North Korea is NOT a good idea.

To make this quick,

Judging style:

• Tabula Rasa unless your argument clearly doesn't make sense. Arguements must be adequetdly warranted and logical.
• I am very responsive to blatant and shameless *ss kissing

Do's:

• Debate well
• Be good people
• Be respectful
• Explain any jargon, theory, and background neccesary for both sides to have a fully functional and educational debate.
• Be organized
• Please have clash. Weighing is great and all, impact calculus is fine, and counter examples are good, but what really gets me going is some attacking of links and using warranting to disprove the other side. This is NOT restating your own contentions.

Don'ts:

• Theory when unnecesary (hint: it's likely unnecesary)
• Spread / Talk fast (stop making debate inaccessible)
• Jargon (stop making debate inaccessible)
• Be rude
• Make debate inaccessible
• Rely on imperics (evidence) to back your case (no me gusta that, use logic and warrasnting, not your long *ss files)
• Be boring

In all, I want you all to have fun, I want to have fun, I want you all to be nice, please ask me any and all questions after the round.

Love,

Luca

P.S. - In case you have you more questions that you forgot to ask or if you want to confesss your undying love for me; lucavicisano@students.berkeley.net

Specific Stuff:

I would potentially vote for a K as long as it's:

• a) presented in a semi-lay style or doesn't rely on an understanding of jargon
• b) not spreaded
• c) each part is clearly explained
• d) well warranted and linked to opponent's advocacy or resolution
• e) not claiming a far-fetched impact
• f) interesting, thought provoking and unique
• g) only used against a team at least semi-familiar with K's

Otherwise, I will cry.

CP's:

• I love CP's however, I get slighlty annoyed when straight up is perfectly debatable
• I don't buy monetary exclusivity or wtv its called

Plans:

• Make your plans creative (without being non-topical)
• Make sure your plans are understandable
• Clear up any vauguenes

Rebuttal Speeches:

• DONT summarize the round line-by-line
• Prove why you win under both interpretations if theres disagreement on top of case
• WEIGH, do the work for me. I dont like having to grapple two impacts while deliberating — i want to get to telling you every thing i think you did wrong asap and not have to sit and think.

I am a parent judge. DO NOT SPEAK FAST. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I cannot rule in your favor.

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

Good luck to all debaters.

I am a lay judge. Theory is okay, but please state it in simpler terms so I can understand better. Please speak under 270 words per minute because english is not my first language. I will lower your speaker points if I can't hear you clearly.

I care about your presentation and contents of the speech, though your case takes the highest priority in my judging. If you are doing a speech event, my reason for decision will be for debaters who have the better presentation.

For those participating in debate events: in your final/summary speeches, explain to me WHY I should choose you, not why your opponents are not good.

I have no debate experience, but I have judged some rounds, so I know a bit about debate.

Have fun debating!

I'm Zach Yoo (rhymes with Shaq-Fu), one-time CHSSA Parli champ. Once lost a round where my opponents said the house wasn't a part of Congress.

Please do not...

-Be disrespectful

-Make up statistics

-Off-time roadmap (Your time will start when you start talking)

-Tag team (I will not flow anything said by your partner during your speech)

-Off-time roadmap

-Kick your counterplan

-Make arguments that suck

Please do...

-Signpost

-Be funny!

-POO

-POC (if allowed by the tournament)

Other than that, debate however you'd like. PICs are fine. Kritiks are fine. Anti-K theory is fine. Will be tabula rasa-ish (in other words, I will try not to insert my personal opinions into the round), but please don't try to convince me of things that are factually untrue, and don't expect me to believe something that just doesn't make sense.

If you have any questions after a round, email me at zacharyyoo@students.berkeley.net

1/ I am an avid supporter of signposting: Using transitions and naming the contention is general good practice -> I follow general good practice in presentation.

2/ I am always looking for strong links and logic in combination with performance and presence.

3/ Have fun, do your best!

both sides need to eat more fruit they look malnourished

paradigm lol https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work

I prefer that you avoid spreading. Quality over quantity. Spreading causes confusion and missed arguments and is not a skill that you can use in real life.

short and sweet: flow judge, don’t spread, be equitable, don't make me think too hard. good luck!

extended version:

hello debaters! my name is emma, and i am a flow judge, high school debater, and sophomore at dalton. no matter your skill level, I am absolutely honored to be judging you and to have the privilege to share this experience with you. this is my second year of both pf and parli, and this activity means the world to me, so i hope to make each round the best possible experience for everyone involved.

in-round:

1. equity: debate should be a safe space where everyone feels welcome and wanted. be respectful to yourself, your partners, your opponents, and our environment. two things under this. first, we are operating under the assumption that everyone in the round is trying their best, so please do not laugh at or mock your opponents and/or partner. it’s incredibly disrespectful and just frankly disheartening to see. second, don’t run racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or any other form of potentially offensive argumentation. providing a safe and equitable space for all of our debaters is my first priority, and if you are offensive, disrespectful, or make your opponents feel unsafe in round, expect the L and <23 speaks. all this being said, please feel free to come to me if you feel uncomfortable in any way. I want to work to make debate a better space, and I promise I will do all I can in terms of supporting you to make you feel most comfortable and make the debate space accessible to everyone. If you are competing in an NYPDL tournament, the league also has an amazing equity team who can work with you if you feel equity violations have occurred. this is the link to their equity violation form.

2. speed: don’t spread. i'm a relatively fast typer but if i can’t flow it, i can’t count it.

3. tech > truth

4. organization: try your best to signpost as much as possible. an organized flow is going to help me vote most clearly in the round, and significantly decrease the possibility I accidentally drop something you say.

5. abusive defs: don’t set them. it’s bad debate etiquette and makes the round less fun for all of us. if you feel your opponents set an abusive definition or framework, i encourage you to call them out on it!
   
   

final notes:

1. because of the nature of high school debate and high school judges, I know plenty of you are going to be older, better debaters than i am. i have a lot i am still learning, both as a judge, as a debater, and just as a person. i ask you to be patient with me, but also, feel free to reach out if you have suggestions on how i can better serve you and other debaters in the future! i am always open to hearing how i can improve.
   
   

2. i know how scary and anxiety-inducing public speaking and debate can be. i have struggled and still sometimes continue to struggle with a giant fear of public speaking. i don’t expect you to be the best debater ever, and so long as you’re trying your best, you’re doing amazing. i believe in every one of you and I think you each can do great things. you got this!
   
   

3. here’s my number (917-708-3038) and email (c26ez@dalton.org) if you have any questions or concerns at all! please don’t hesitate to reach out.

P.S. - find a way to compliment sophie rukin or zach berg in one of your speeches and i will give you 0.5+ speaks (i'm not kidding)