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’m an alumna with three and a half years of parliamentary debate experience and sporadic judging experience in the decades that have followed. My senior year I was 3rd speaker of the year by cumulative speaker points. Since then I have judged at several worlds and NorthAms and organized and attended Canadian debaters’ outreach visit to Ukraine behind the Iron Curtain.

Courtesy and parliamentary language should prevail in all rounds: I abhor the recent trend at the collegiate level toward gutter language in rounds. Don’t use it! It won’t benefit you in debate or in the real word, either. It should go without saying that racist, sexist, homophobic and other abusive language has no place in the debate world: it has no place in my rounds.

I take notes during debates, but I’m not a slave to flowing. To that end, I appreciate debate in normal, conversational tones during rounds and am put off by speed talking. The same goes for spreading. Signposting is a wonderful way to organize and reinforce arguments and is greatly appreciated, though debaters need not feel they must number their arguments.

New arguments in rebuttals will be ignored, but POOs pointing them out are not a waste of time. I do not expect debaters to shrink from POIs, but I do not impose a quota: those who ignore all of them will be marked down for it. Neither theory nor kritiks thrill me: I prefer the round to be about the round. That said, I will consider any reasonable argument that is clearly enunciated.

What I value is style, content and clash – not necessarily in that order. Bring your best and treat your opponents with respect. The rest will take care of itself.

Brett Boelkens

Background

LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)

LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)

Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)

Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)

TLDR

-Put me (brettboelkens@gmail.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)

-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool

-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.

-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space

-Signpost please

-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.

-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.

-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be

-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool

-Write prep down on Zoom chat

-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview

-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded

-Quote I stole from Gomez:

I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.

-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something

-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”

-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.

Disadvantages

-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense

-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp

-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more

Counterplans

-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun

-Its probably best to functional and textual competition

-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato

-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate

-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to

Kritiks

-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me

-Ks should have specific links to the aff

-Links of omission aren’t a thing

-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery

Theory / T

-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.

- Current thoughts on common theory issues

-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable

-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's

-Condo good

-PICS good

-International fiat good

-Consult Process CP bad

-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations

-PIKS bad

-Word PIKS bad

-RVIs bad

-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on

-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful

CX Specific Notes

-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that

-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate

LD Specific Notes

-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.

-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments

-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified

-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please

-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR

-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge

-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.

-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”

I am a parent judge. I am looking for these three things:

1. Clear Reasons Why Your Argument Is True
2. Logical Extended Impact
3. Organized Arguments and Approach

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

I'm a newer parent judge. I appreciate clear articulate arguments and prefer conversational speed. Make sure to connect different arguments during there round as well as impact/tell me why they're important. Tell me what argument you're on. Explain any jargon. Treat your opponents kindly and with respect. Make sure your arguments follow logic.

Hi,

I am relatively new to judging, though have been familiar with Debate for some time. Please plan to speak clearly. Make your important points clear. Respect your opponent team. Also, please track your own time and opponent's time.

thanks,

Madhav

I have a background in astrophysics and am currently working on a computer vision project at a tech company. As a non-native English speaker, I'm not experienced in debating, so I request that you speak at a pace that allows me to fully understand. I'll be attentive to ensure I don't miss any points and will focus on identifying the key arguments. It's important to make compelling arguments, treat your opponents with respect, and manage your time wisely.

This paradigm is a little outdated in that I haven't gotten around to adding my prefs for other events so you can ask me in round. It hasn't changed much as far as LD or PF though.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

First time parent judge. Explain arguments clearly.

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

Hello everyone! I'm Wesley Ge, a current college student at UCSD studying Cognitive Psychology. I debated varsity parliamentary for 3 years at Canyon Crest Academy in high school and was also the parli captain there. I'm largely okay with theory, spreading, and Ks, as long as you explain it well. Be well prepared, treat your opponents with respect, and make sure to have fun!

Also, I'll love your argument more if you make a good anime reference >:P

As a judge, I strongly prefer and lean towards calm, strong speakers who make eye contact.

• Maintain decorum.

• Do not be rude.

• Do not speak over each other or cut people off.

Take your time to convey your points and thoroughly extend. Please do not spread.

Public Forum: I will be looking forward to the rebuttal speech and verbal exchange during crossfire.

Parli: I find sign posting very important, so try your best to include off time roadmaps and sign post during your speeches. Accept a fair amount of POIs and take the full speaking time to the best of your ability.

Have fun! :)

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

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.

INTERP overall: 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.

I am a parent judge.

I'm a parent judge with experience judging at a several tournaments.

I will flow your round. Please avoid spreading as well as excessive and unnecessary jargon.

I'm an engineer by training so I’m receptive to logical arguments that are well-linked.

Please remember to be respectful to everyone in the round. At the end of the day, this is only a debate round.

First time judging

"Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - My coach and professor Dr. Mungin.

I founded the Debate Club at Benicia High School in 2015 and became the program’s coach in 2017 after graduating from Benicia. For the past seven years, I have coached Parliamentary and Public Forum. Likewise, I competed in Parli, Extemp, and Impromptu at Solano Community College. Later receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science — Summa Cum Laude and a Master of Public Policy and Administration at CSU Sacramento. I now work in the California State Legislature as a Legislative Assistant. Similarly, I have worked on several political campaigns.

Need to Know:

I don't tend to have strong preferences for how you should debate. I instead prefer to see the diversity of styles out there.

My feedback normally consists of what I believe you didn't adequately respond to and how you could have gone about doing so. This is more so to aid in future rounds than anything else.

Spreading:

I don't spread but I do talk at a fast pace. I recommend you do so also or slower when you prefer so I that I can flow.

Speaker Points:

One time in a PF round evidence was read that there has only ever been one successful coup. Later that same team asked during cross: "Name one successful coup? No, wait name two. We know there's only ever been one." A good joke increases your speaker points dramatically.

My approach to judging is holistic. A single blunder won't break your case so don't panic if you lost on a critical issue. I try to look at everything you did - style, content, humor, teamwork etc.

I am new to judging. Please keep track of your timings. I would like you to talk slowly so that I can follow.

please be respectful!

I'm a lay judge, requesting respectful debate and valuing quality over quantity. Appreciate a slower pace, please.

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

Hi, I am a parent judge.In case you are presenting technical arguments, please explain a little bit to help me understand. Thank you and best of luck!

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.

I prefer and value clear and elaborate speaking with good content instead of rushing and squeezing in information into the time. Don't speak too fast! I value speaking style. Make sure that your content is good and logical instead of packing statistics and spreading in your speech. Have enough evidence to back up your claims but reasoning and logically explaining your case is more important. Impact out and link through all of your contentions to show the value of your side. Remember to weigh and clearly show how you win over the other team on specific points. Signpost throughout your speech and remain organized with your points, refutes, and counterarguments. Do not be abusive and make sure your content is not hateful. Please respect everyone in the debate including your opponents and your teammate. In the end no matter the loss or win, have something to take away from the debate as it is essentially a learning opportunity and have fun!

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge and have been judging / debating since the early 2000s.

Value (V) & Value Criterion (VC) Debate:

The decision-maker & breaker is based on whichever side BEST upholds their Value / Value criterion. Essentially, the winning debater will be able to showcase that in his/her world his/her value is superior and is better upheld. It is always beneficial to attack the logic of the other side's Value / Value Criterion to demonstrate this. For example, say the affirmative has a value of Justice and a value criterion of Equality. A successful attack on the logic here would be to show how Equality and Justice are in conflict such as if we set hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. (everything will be equal but it is not always fair). Of course, bringing this up in the context of the resolution will bolster the argument (for example, if we are not debating affirmative action). Logic and reasoning hold a lot of weight and can substitute for traditional evidence (statistics, studies, quotes, etc.)

Value criterions are there as such: a weighing mechanism. This is often lost / falls on deaf ears amongst debaters. A weighing mechanism is just that -- a method to determine what is the best determinant for a specific value. Let use this crude example illustrate that. Say we are debating what makes a great UFC fighter. In an LD context, our Values are "Successful MMA Fighter." Well, what determines their success? Is it heart? Is it experience? Is it youth? Speed? Strength? Striking? Wrestling? Resilience? Whichever criterion you think best allows for a successful UFC fighter should be the "VC" in this example.

Burdens and Case Logic:

The affirmative has the Burden of Proof during the round. This means, they must prove the resolution valid beyond a reasonable doubt. Similar to a criminal case, it is the prosecution job to prove the defendant is guilty. It is not the defendant's responsibility to prove his innocent, he simply has to prove that he is not guilty. This applies to the negative as well, he does not have to prove the inverse of the resolution. Please ask me for clarification on this point if you wish.

The negative the burden of initiating clash during the round. I would prefer that AT LEAST SOMETHING is said for each of the contentions and sub-points, even if you are running out of time. It can be something minor.

That being said, just because someone misses a contention doesn't mean that it can make or break a debate. The debater must demonstrate WHY that particular contention matters. Of course, the other extreme is not appropriate either (i.e., a particular side fails to attack anything or misses major parts of the case but has a strong case of their own).

In addition, I like when the contentions relate in someway to the value and value criterion. It clarifies the logic in the case and in general makes it easier for the side to argue their Value/VC.

The Negative's case can be flawed yet still win if the attacks on the affirmative are strong enough. Conversely, the negative can have a much better case than the Affirmative but if it never initiates clash, then I will defer to the affirmative (this hasn't been a problem).

Evidence is great, but evidence is not an argument. Debaters need to explain how/why that piece of evidence matters and relates to their argument. In addition, debaters need to explain the source and why this person's opinion matters. Just throwing "cards" at me, will not sway my decision.

In some ways, I prefer philosophical and logical discussions based on axioms and syllogisms. Stat-bombing me with studies and "cards" are not a substitute for solid argumentation and logical analysis. This may be controversial to some of you. But should we dismiss the arguments of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle simply because they didn't have peer-reviewed studies which fit a certain criteria?

General

I am a traditional LD debate judge, have been doing this for 20+ years. I generally dislike when you concede frameworks it shows a lack of analysis into the values and criterions themselves and kind of comes off as lazy.

Speaking can be a little quick but if you speak too fast and I miss contentions/sub-points it will negatively affect you (i.e., spreading).

Obviously, sign-posting is a must.

Cross-ex needs to be used strategically. It only matters if you refer back to it in a subsequent speech.

Clear, specific and unique arguments for each contention that are powerful and sub-point is superior. Repeating the same argument over and over again is not a strong strategy for success. Quality over quantity.

Voting issues are best at the end and it helps when the debater provides a clear reason why I should vote for a particular side.

I'm a Berkeley student with 0 experience. Don't spread and be clear. Please over explain things.

Add me to the email chain @ khain2461@gmail.com

Hey, everyone! This is Jude Nieves from the Debate Society of Berkeley. I wish you all luck in the rounds that you compete in! I will do my best to judge the rounds as faithfully and fairly as I possibly can. Never hesitate to ask any questions! Below, you will find some relevant information about me as a judge, and how to win my rounds.

Related Experience/Background:

• 2 years of Varsity Mock Trial at Clovis West High School
• Equity Director and active member of the Debate Society of Berkeley
• Lead Coach (public speaking and debate coach) with The Practice Space
• 2 years of Youth Court experience
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Liaison with The Daily Californian
• Genuine passion for debate, justice and equity

Being an aspiring future lawyer, I am going to treat these rounds as professionally as possible.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: An unfortunate repercussion of being a judge is that I often have to be the messenger of bad news. With that in mind, the reality of being a judge is that regardless of whether you win or lose, you may not agree with everything I decide. All I ask is that even if you don't agree, know that I will always do my best to judge these rounds fairly, considering all rules and points, with absolutely no bias or indecision. I care about fairness in these rounds, and I hold this to a high standard. Please keep that in mind as I announce any verdicts I make, and take the initiative to respect judge decisions.

As an important note: I take pride in giving detailed feedback for EVERYONE! When giving RFDs, I'll describe the reasoning for my verdict along with giving individual feedback on every single speaker: the things you did amazingly, any constructive criticisms, and anything that I think could help you! I hope you guys will value my feedback.

In order to win in my rounds, you must:

• Show up to the debate round on time (you'd better :P)
• Dress to impress (if you can)! I'm talking suits, dress shoes, dresses, heels -- not only will it make you more confident as you present your speeches, but it proves to me that you are serious about this debating opportunity!
• Present sound evidence, with possible rebuttals acknowledged preemptively in your speech ("prebuttals")
• Be professional and highly organized while also maintaining an optimistic, likeable tone
• Explain, in detail and with confidence, each contention that you have and why it is better than those of your opponents
• Make your arguments organized and easy to follow, so that I can process your words and flow them properly (the more understandable your speech is, the better my flow is, and the better you will score!)
• Please, please, PLEASE have your camera on (if it's a Zoom tournament)!!! It makes it a million times easier to flow. Plus, I want to see whose voice I'm hearing :D

As a little bit of a hint: the more professional and organized you are, the more likely you will get higher speaker points in my rounds.

I wish you all luck! I will maintain my kindness and optimism for you all. It's better to have a judge that gives you an emotional refresher rather than one who's so domineering that it only compounds your stress. Also, losing the debate does not necessarily indicate that you failed or performed poorly; sometimes, it's simply where the logic leans. So KEEP YOUR HEAD HELD UP HIGH NO MATTER WHAT! I'll try my best to judge fairly as well, though keep in mind I am new to this, since none of my high schools had debate clubs o.o

And remember: you've got this! Just by being here, you're already winning! <3

I started judging in the 2019-2020 season, and my judging experience includes over 50 rounds. I've mostly judged Parli but also the other debate events like Policy and Lincoln-Douglas.

I know most of the debate jargon, but I still want you to explain things in plain English. I value clear low-jargon communication in business, and I think debate should be communication practice for real life.

I can follow rapid speaking, but I appreciate organization, clarity, and carefully worded arguments. You will do better with me if you take your time and go for clarity. I look for the points that are most important or should have the most weight, so help me understand what part of your argument you think really matters.

Light theory is ok, but be prepared to carefully spell out why it applies and why I should use your theory argument in my evaluation.

This is supposed to be fun, so humor is welcome. I look forward to a great round!

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for 3 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

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.

He/Him

1. Experience

*I did parliamentary debate in middle/high school

*I attended various tournaments mostly in the NPDL circuit

*I have an intermediate understanding of theory

1. General Prefs

*Flay judge

*do not spread. I won't flow it.

*Off-time roadmaps are okay

*debate order of operations(How I decide who wins): PEMDAS

P:aPriori voting issues: abuse, skew, theory, etc.

E:Exceptional IMPACTS(a mediocre arg impacted will beat a good arg that was mentioned in passing)

M:general arguMents/flow

D: Details(evidence, anecdotes, etc)

A:Addition(crucial)

S:Speaker points(If its too close I will just give the win to whoever has more)

*I like clash

*I dont believe its possible for anyone, including myself, to be a tabula rasa. But I will try to compensate for my biases.

*No overly speculatory arguments

*speaker points graded on: the quality of your argument structure(are you detailed?), using LESS jargon(jargon is fine but I am looking for explanations to prevent gatekeeping), the organization of your speech, strategic stylistic choices made, persuasive word choice, wit, humor, and respecting opponents.

*I will NOT give speaker points for: how you dress/posture, whether your camera is on, the volume of your voice, your passion(Although I will enjoy listening to more passionate speeches), the speed you talk(as long as you're not spreading or talking at 0 miles per hour), accents or "speaking clearly", how "happy" or "agreeable" you are. Everybody, no matter what style of voice they were born with, has a chance to get a perfect score.

*no speaking out of turn(I know it gets messy in Point of Orders)

*joking and trolling should never ever be directed at opponents. any ad hominems or inappropriate behavior will be an instant loss/I will report you. Banter and trolling should be directed at ARGUMENTATION.

*swearing or inflammatory language is fine as long as it is not overtly offensive or adds emphasis to something.

*Please thank the opponents, judge(s), audience, and teammate in your speech or off-time roadmap. Please say gg wp after the round(good game, good round, nice work, or well played) just some affirmation.

1. Notable Biases

*I am biased towards contrarian, interesting, and nuanced positions.

*I am biased against appeals to authority and ethos

*I am biased towards order over chaos

*I am biased towards funny, memorable, and intuitive arguments

*unconditional: I am biased towards good faith debating

*my Political Compass (I know its not super accurate, still might be interesting for you to know)

*Pew Research Political Typology: Ambivalent Right

*ENFP-T (I know its psuedo-science)

1. Parli Specific

*Give good and clear framework always.

*If neg does not understand or agree with definitions, they should ask clarifying questions and I will accept good faith redefining mid-round.

*gov should make it their goal to make a reasonable and fair framework. Please do not ever attempt to skew the round in bad faith.

*LOGIC OVER EVIDENCE(all evidence must also be either obvious general knowledge, easily proven through valid LOGIC, or agreed upon by both sides. I will also accept at face value if I personally have heard(and believe) the evidence, but if there is no logic to back it up and the opposing team confronts it then I will drop the card) The idea is that if you present evidence, no matter what, you have to give some sort of analysis to explain the evidence. You cannot say "oh I saw this in the New York Times" and move on.

*No new arguments/abusive analysis in the last speeches

* Even if I understand complex jargon and theory I will not flow it if there is no layman's explanation given. This is to prevent gatekeeping.

*you must accept at least one POI in your speech, preferably more*

*POIs should preferably be short quips. If they are unnecessarily long or argumentative, It will impact the round(Exception: definitions and framework questions)*

*No vocal tag teaming/partner POIs. It's okay to pass notes and documents to your partner or opponents at any time in the round. (example: if the opposition requests a written copy of the Gov plan). You can also whisper to your partner when they aren't speaking. Please do not distract the speaker. Laughter is always fine unless it's rude.

*kritiks are winnable only if they are educational/relevant and not manufactured.

*Please JUSTIFY the framing of the round. Not every round needs to be only Net benefits/utilitarianism. If no framing, weighing mechanism, or criterion is given, I might just default to deontological framing.

New to Judging, appreciate normal pace, meaningful elaborations, quality over quantity and RESPECTFUL debating.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com

State-ranked High School debater. Run whatever you like. I judge based as close to the flow as I can, if an argument is not responded to and is flowed through by an opponent, I will take it as true. Will decide at the end of the round by assesing the landed impacts on both sides and then weighing them against eachother in reference to the established paradigm value. Please make sure to weigh impacts at the end of your speech and tell me why I should prefer your winning arguments over your opponents.

Of course, I will judge as tabula rasa as I possibly can but, of course, this is also not completely possible; I will always have some biases. For that reason, I think it is more fair if I state my political leanings: I am a registered independant and have been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the US, for going on 4 years. Again, I will never ever do something like drop arguments counter to my views but, being transparent, I also recognize that I have some bais towards a certain view point and thus I think it is better and more fair that I simply state them out right from the beginning rather than keep them secret. So there they are. Should all judges have to do this? Perhaps... I would like to see a round on that one day.

I always write long RFDs where I go through each argument and explain how I assessed them. For this reason it usually takes me awhile to write each round up, do not fret if you don't see the RFD as soon as the tournament ends, check back later. It is also for this reason that I do not often give oral RFDs. I love to keep talking about rounds after they end and hear your critiques on my judging, if you have any. Thus I always leave my email: dylanskolnick@gmail.com.

Hello everyone,

I am a parent judge who has judged a number of tournaments over the last year. Here are a few of my tournament do's and don'ts.

1. Truth> Tech. I value logical linking and clear explanation over technical debate. I find that tech is often used to skew participants out of the round, and as a judge, I find it someone difficult to follow. With that being said, I will take theory into account if there is a legitimate abuse, and if I can understand what is being conveyed (basically, you can make your point surrounding the abuse clear without the overuse of jargon). I will never layer tech first unless there is a very very clear reason why articulated by the side that is running it.
2. I am not a huge fan of excessive jargon. I prefer not to have to decode another language while you're speaking. I am familiar with many of the basic terms, but at a point, it detriments your point and gets lost on me.
3. Weigh, weigh, weigh, and terminalize. When I look to my flow at the end of the round, I tend to look at impacts first, and then logical linking. You have to tell me why your arguments matter, otherwise they are just words that you're saying.
4. Please be kind to each other!

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.

I am from Shanghai Jincai Highschool International Division. I have been judging debate for about 3 years now. I have mainly judge the World Scholar's Cup competition, but I have also judged a few public forum competitions.

I award points based on the quality of the arguments presented and the use of evidence and solid reasoning. I also consider how effectively the speaker used their time, as well as the clarity of their speech. I value clarity over speed.

I do try to take detailed notes of the debate, but I also place an emphasis on flowing the debate. Speakers should make sure to highlight real world impacts and discuss relevant implications of the arguments being presented.

I also value speakers being respectful to each other during the crossfire by allowing each other to ask questions and not dominating the time and discussion.

I don't appreciate (but will not dock) off-time road maps, kritiks, theory, and jargon.

My students have had a 100% success rate into entering USA Debate (currently occupying 3 of 31 spots). I used to travel around the world debating and winning (back when tournaments were only in-person). I am a coach at AlannahDebates.Com . I have judged finals for multiple tournaments. I would prefer it if you treated me like a lay judge.

WORLD SCHOOLS JUDGING

https://www.debating.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/NZ-Schools-Debating-How-to-Judge-Guide.pdf

PARLIAMENTARY JUDGING

https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/judging.html

If you are going to go Max Verstappen, I can effectively flow up to 350 WPM.

INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER SCORE

Content (40%): Depends on how many lines of flow I make for your speech. I don't flow any ineffective points.

Style (40%): Besides the linked WSD guide's description, I enjoy non-equity-violation jabs and jokes. Eg. saying your opponent's argument is as clear as your future is okay, saying your opponent's skin is as clear as your future is bad!

Strat (20%): Primarily how well you time/portion yourself. Any strategic actions such as consistent/effective POIs, not contradicting your teammate, strong framework, consideration to burden.