Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

I am a new lay parent judge.

1. I have only judged one parli debate tournament, but I have 24 years of experience as a practicing attorney, 9 of which was in litigation. I'm currently the Head of Patents at Google, which is a fun intersection of law, technology, and innovation.
2. Given that I'm a novice parent judge, I don't know a lot of debate jargon... but I do know a good argument when I hear it!
3. The trait I value most in a debate is a well reasoned argument backed up by persuasive evidence. I love great rebuttal/counter-arguments even more. Given that I'm judging JV, I will give leeway to imperfect speaking/presentation skills; that will come in time with practice and experience. That being said, if you have great arguments AND great speaking /presentation skills, more power (and points) to you!
4. I don't mind if you speak fast; I type and flow fast. However, please use your time wisely and prioritize your time on your best arguments; don't go fast simply to jam pack as many arguments as you can fit within your allotted time, especially if they are not persuasive. That's what lawyers do in real life.
5. I do appreciate an organized argument with clear guideposts along the way.
6. Be respectful to your fellow debaters. If you feel you have a winning argument, explain it to me without the use of put-downs or insults.

Hello! My name is Kendall (she/her) and this is my third year competing in parliamentary debate at Notre Dame San Jose.

A few reminders for rounds:

• Please speak clearly (spreading is not welcome, I'd rather have you articulate your argument)
• Off-time road maps are very much appreciated
• Explain all technical, round-specific definitions
• Signpost! Try to remain organized and let me know the basic flow of your speech
• Weigh and tell me why you should win the debate
• Theory is fine, but please be sure to explain it clearly for my and your opponents' sakes
• I don't have much experience with Ks, feel free to run them if and only if you can explain why it helps you win the debate (if I don't understand what you're arguing, I'm not going to vote for you)
• Finally, please be respectful. Any discrimination or generally rude behavior in round will not be tolerated.

Thank you, and hope you have a fun debate that helps you learn along the way!

I am a new parent judge.

I’m a parent judge and this is my second time judging parliamentary debate.