As a judge, I value clear and organized argumentation that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic. I prefer debaters who are well-researched and able to support their arguments with evidence and examples according to their given framework. In Parliamentary, I appreciate teams who focus on clash and weigh the competing arguments and their impacts. In Lincoln-Douglas, I expect debaters to engage with the philosophical implications of the topic and provide a clear value framework that is consistently applied throughout the round. I expect all participants to adhere to the principles of fair play and respectful discourse. It should be a given that rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior will not be tolerated and will result in low scores or disqualification.

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

Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for three years. I am a scientist by training but mentor and work with attorneys.

Eloquent, logical, well-supported arguments will impress me. Speaking at a sprint and using techy debate tricks will not.

I appreciate debates that address the entire topic, approached from a global perspective. I prefer evidence-based arguments with solid analysis over emotional appeals or exaggerated hypotheses.

Please make debate accessible to me, other judges and your opponents by speaking clearly and concisely. I am unlikely to vote in favor of kritiks.

I hope you will have fun and approach debate as if you are in a real-life situation where something important is at stake, and you are doing your best to convince others to join you.

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.

edit: Please lower your volume to avoid yelling. I'm sitting 5 ft away from y'all I promise I can hear.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. Policy background, thus a lover of kritiks. Aff Ks are hot, but so are Framework & Disclosure Theory. I default to K > T > Case.

ALSO i usually give oral feedback after the round, i don’t write RFDs so i recommend taking notes

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I championed the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students. If you’re interested in parli debate tutoring, message me on Linkedinor email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO I'M OPEN TO ALL KS!Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Hmu after any round to ask a question, get advice, want me to teach you debate, or literally anything else. Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

I have four years of experience judging and competing in parli debate at high school and college levels (APDA and BP).

I take careful notes on paper. I tend to privilege reasoning and analysis over sources and evidence. I take a tabula-rasa approach and like when all assumptions are stated. As for behavior, just be respectful.

Signposting. I like speeches that are well structured (numbered or otherwise distinct arguments). A dropped argument does not mean an automatic loss.

Points of Information. They can make for a more vibrant and engaging round but I do not keep count of them.

Point of Order. I try to ignore new arguments in the last round but pointing them out to me via POO is helpful.

Speed. I do not enjoy high-speed speeches.

Tag-Teaming. In an online debate, tag-teaming is too messy.

Theory. I am open to theory if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is unfair or abusive. Theory must be well explained.

Kritiks. I think that kritiks are almost always poorly applied.

Topicality. Your interpretation of the motion should be reasonable.

One good argument can outweigh several bad ones. I don’t come into the round with a defined set of ethics - I like debaters to explain why a given outcome is good or bad.

Lay judge, parent of east coast debater. Please avoid complex jargon, and all progressive debate (eg. no theory, Ks, "weird underviews" as my child tells me). Go slow, be clear, I will be flowing.

Debate Experience

1. Captain of WSDC Team Korea 2018-2019
2. WSDC 2019 9th Best ESL, 24th Best Worlds, 1st Best Korean Debater
3. JWSDC 2018 1st Best Speaker and Champion
4. CNSDC International Champion, 2nd Best Speaker
5. GKDC Champion, 1st Best Speaker
6. DWDC Champion, 1st Best Speaker

My criteria is as follows

1. I don't care if you speak fast or slow, as it is personal preference. Please make sure that it is understandable though. I will be balancing the content and the rhetoric of your speech.

2. Don't assert arguments. I am looking for arguments with links between arguments and evidence.

3. Be respectful! The debate is about mutual respect.

4. Be confident! Even though you may not fully understand your case, confidence is key to putting up a facade that you do.

Parent judge with little judging experience, please don't spread and don't exaggerate on impacts :)

PARLI:

THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime roadmaps/thank yous. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.

1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.

2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.

3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.

4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.

5. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-90 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters. That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-90 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is probably not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." You said your first words 12-18 years ago. That's a long speech. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

d. Eggs>Easy.

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY DEBATE

I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.

I believe in the dynamic nature of debates, and each round should be approached with fresh perspectives. Posting my paradigm online might predispose teams to tailor their arguments to what they perceive are my preferences, rather than presenting genuine and organic cases. I want each team to present their most authentic arguments without the influence of a predetermined paradigm. This ensures that every round is a genuine display of a team's strategy and skills, rather than an adaptation to fit a judge's stated biases.

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.

Hello!

I am a parent judge, and I don't have that much experience judging so please bear with me. Make it clear where you are at within your speech, and give logical reasoning. I will vote off of whichever arguments convince me best, and have proper impacting. I am fine with whatever speaking style you are comfortable with, but try not to speak too fast.

I look forward to judging you!

Parent debate judge for 7 years - have judged Public Form, Congress, and Parliamentary debate forms. I have judged debates at all speeds, but please be clear and understandable - and slow down if your opponents ask. Reasoning and logic outweigh tactics and tricks. I am OK with more technical arguments - but take the time to explain your approach. Be kind. Be respectful.

I appreciate good sign posting, as it's a proxy for a clearly thought-out argument. I'd like to be able to walk away and remember the 2 or 3 major points on which you constructed your argument. In your final round, I'd appreciate a clear statement of why you should win.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps.

Please try to avoid debate jargon and technical debating...I am a humble parent judge. Here's what I know about:

Circuit: V=IR

Spreading: jam on toast!

K: Atomic number 19, atomic mass 39.098

Shell: oil company

I will do my best to give substantive, constructive feedback to help you in your future rounds.

Have fun!

-------

A few tips for Novice debaters debating before parent judges:

1. State your contentions as full sentences with a subject and a predicate, not just a subject. Instead of saying "Veto power," state a full sentence that tells the judge what to think about Veto power. Think of it as a thesis sentence where you give an overview of the contention. This will help parent judges keep track of your arguments. For example, "Permanent membership on the UN SC preserves veto power which leads to atrocities and nuclear war." Or, even just "Veto power leads to atrocities and nuclear war." Seriously, sometimes parent judges lose track of which side is aff and which side is neg! Help us out by being crystal clear when you state your contention, so we know what you want us to think / believe.
2. Try to avoid using abbreviations unless you first explain them. The parent judge might not be familiar with the topic, and won't be able to follow your arguments as well. For example: P5, SC
3. When reading from cards, some debaters just read whatever they have bolded or highlighted on the card, stringing together highlighted phrases. However, those phrases, strung together, often don't flow out as coherent sentences. This makes it very hard for parent judges to follow the argument. If you're reading highlighted sections from cards, make sure you add in any verbs or nouns or prepositions that are needed to make the phrases flow together smoothly as coherent sentences.
4. Speak more slowly than you might speak before experienced judges :)

Hi I am a lay judge.
Since english is my second language, I ask that you speak slowly and make it as easy for me as possible to understand your case.
Also, I am not very familiar with this topic, so it would be best if you defined confusing terms and used as little jargon as possible.

If I have made up my mind for who won the debate, I will be disclosing. However, if the debate was messy/unclear to me, I may need some more time to make up my mind.

I am a lay judge, so I will decide based on my understanding of your arguments. If you use jargon, please explain. Explain your case clearly; your warrants should include what it means and what the impacts are. If I cannot understand you (spreading), I will be not be able give you credit for your arguments. Please be respectful, speak clearly, number your arguments, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

Hi! My name's Madi, and I competed in LD for all four years of high school. Feel free to run whatever you want as long as you explain it well, and I'm good with speed as long as your opponent is.

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).

Hey! I'm Alex and I'm a sophomore 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. This is also true with responses: if you respond but don't say the exact correct jargon, I'll know what you mean.

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.

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

Hello!

I am a college judge and I have debated PF in high school. I've also done Duo Interp and doing British Parliamentary now. I like to see a lot of engagement and lots of clash. Please be respectful of your opponents.

Case: I vote on case, theory is not my favorite. Be concise.

I like to see signposting foremostly and I also like to see clear arguments with warranting, a link chain, and impacts. Constructive speakers need to be clear in each argument and back up each step of the link chain with empirics. Address everything that is relevant. Please do not spread and PLEASE WEIGH. I also don't really like definition debates.

Rebuttals:

Try to cover each argument and respond. Make sure to rebuild your own case as well. Weigh comparatively and using weighing mechanisms.

CX (PF):

Be respectful and ask content based questions. Do not talk over each other and make sure you don't take all the time for yourself.

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!

I am a new parent judge.

PUBLIC FORUM:

I have some public forum experience, but not that much. Make sure you clearly tell me what your impacts are, otherwise i probably won't value your argument much even if you win on clash. Don't just vomit out a card, be sure to tell me WHAT the card means, what the logic is behind it, and how it links up with the rest of your argument.

PARLI:

I don't much parli judging experience but have judged LD and Public Forum for a few years. I'm pretty flow, so if new arguments are made in rebuttal i won't consider it. I can handle a bit of spreading as long as it's articulate. I want to hear arguments with clear WARRANTS AND IMPACTS. If you do not provide impacts I won't consider the argument valid. Meme cases are fine, if there is enough warranting. I love unique arguments. I value POIs relatively highly so if you provide a really fire one I'll be more inclined to vote for you. Tag-teaming is chill.

I am a Campolindo parent/lay judge who has been judging since 2022. I do not have any debate background, but my son is always inundating me with debate information and I do have litigation/trial experience.

TLDR: Debate is a space for people to learn and engage in real-world topics. I'll disclose if the tournament permits. Please keep theory to a minimum. However, if there is real abuse occurring in the round, explain the theory in layman’s terms. I have a hard rule of no Ks, because I feel I cannot evaluate them fairly. Limit the use of complete debate jargon, but I know the basics (e.g. uniqueness, links, impacts, etc).

Case -- My favorite and only type of debate that I like judging!

Structure: Your arguments should have a three-part structure: claim, warrant, and implication. I won't count it against you if you don’t, but know that your opponents should be able to easily knock it down, so include it anyway.

(Dis)advantages: On actual (dis)ad crafting, I won’t be upset if you don’t have the traditional UQ-L-MPX, but it certainly helps me judge the round. The easier I can navigate through your arguments, the easier time you will have winning. In terms of links, don’t make the tags generic like “plan passes”, you need to actually tell me what the plan passing does. BE SPECIFIC. I need the "why" or reasoning. On impacts, please terminalize them and put some effort into explaining your impacts. Don’t just say a statement and move on. Speakers should provide evidence or reasons to support their statements.

Weigh your impacts:Too many teams forget to do this and it makes it much harder to judge the round. It also means that I may have to intervene in some sort of way when adjudicating, which I try to avoid. Not weighing will not lose you the round, but it certainly won’t help you win it.

Miscellaneous

- Signposts: I take copious notes. Do signpost throughout the round (ie. "on the first UQ", "on the first advantage", etc.), not just in the first speech. If you tell me where you are, it allows me to follow better, which helps you in winning the round.

- Off time roadmap: Go for it

- Spreading: big no for me -- If you spread and I can't understand you, then you accept the risk that I can't properly judge. You can speak fast if you are clear. If you go too fast for me, I’ll call out “slow”, but I really try not to interrupt.

- RFD: I'll disclose after the round if the tournament permits. Otherwise, I'll provide comments in Tab.

- Tech: No tech debate in my rounds, sorry :( This includes tricks, theory, and Ks. The only exception is if there is actual abuse occurring in the round. In that case, I'll try to evaluate any theory that you run, but keep in mind that you have to explain it to me without so much debate jargon. Also, I will not evaluate a frivolous theory (i.e. tropicality, no shoes, etc.), as fun and entertaining as it may be, it does take away from the education of the debate round.

- Speaks: I’m usually fairly conservative in awarding points. The default for showing up is around 25-26 or the minimum the tournament dictates. 30 is life changing. I try to award speaker points based on the actual quality of argumentation made in the round. However the lay parent in me also appreciates organization (signpost!!), delivery and presentation (being monotone or having endless compound run-on sentences is not engaging, and can be hard to follow along). On another note, my son tells me I would be a fun judge if I gave a slight bump for those who creatively/effectively work in Harry Potter references or start singing.

-Other random things, in no particular order: As long as it isn't overly distracting to others, feel free to sit, stand, or walk around when you are speaking. You may also rearrange the desks so long as you put it back in order after. I try not to interrupt during round other than a slight nod for issues under judge's discretion. I understand that all people have unconscious biases, but I try to have a tabula rasa mentality when judging.

NOTE: Please be respectful to each other -- passionate speaking is fine, abuse is not. Racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other sort of discrimination is not acceptable. Don't be exclusionary and ruin the experience of debating for everyone. I’ll almost certainly intervene if there is anything of the sort and I may (probably) drop you for it.

Good luck!

I am a relatively new judge with some prior experience in observing debates.

I appreciate debates that provide context and clarify which arguments I should prioritize in my decision-making process. I also prefer debaters to time themselves and talk clearer (slower) to provide more coherent arguments.

To give some background of my debate history I did 4 years of policy debate in high school with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League from 2018-2022. In 2023 I joined the Berkeley Debate Society that competes in the British Parliamentary format. As for my preferences I enjoy hearing K arguments, I really take in consideration impact calc, and I like seeing clash in a round. Structural arguments like framework and T are voters so they must be addressed if you lose on those you lose the ballot. Make sure to sign post, I believe making the round easy to follow is a part of being a good debater. Keep track of your own time as well. I will make sure you don't go over your allotted time but I expect you to respect the limits in place without me having to enforce them. If you ever want further feedback email me at brivlltr@berkeley.edu.

It's been a hot minute since I've updated this so I figure now is as good a time as any.

Background:

Nathan (they/them)

Experience: 4 years hs debate @ Bonita High School, i've done parli, ld, pf, so I will somewhat know what's going on. In my fourth year debating for UC Berkeley's British Parli / American Parli team, and have mostly judged parli tournaments.

Email: nwong1721@berkeley.edu

tl:dr: warrant everything and be comparative. I don't like being interventionist as a judge, so please make my ballot as easy for me as possible by making your wins on every clash explicitly clear, and outweigh your opponent on everything that's left on flow.

Full paradigm:

I've been debating for a while in mostly parli, so I'm fairly well versed in the game at this point. I make my decisions based on who can access the strongest impacts within round. Make sure everything you say has strong, believable mechanization and realistic impacts. Be comparative and charitable to your opponents. I don't like to have to insert myself into round too much, and I am more likely to vote for you if you do my work for me!

Case/Speaking:

Speed: I will flow as best as possible, but I recognize I'm not the fastest. Err on the side of caution with speed. I can handle it (I speak decently fast myself) and will flow it up to a certain point, but if you're unintelligible, I will miss things and I might accidentally judge-screw you. Signposting will help with this, so if you are going to go fast, make sure you slow down at tags and emphasize your impacts.

Evidence/Warranting: Specifically for parli tournaments that allow evidence from online prep: please please please do not just read me a card. You'll give me flashbacks of my pf days. Contextualize your evidence well and give me a mechanism behind why that evidence is true. If you're giving me a piece of evidence about the US about to go into recession and spitting out economic metrics at me, you better be explaining what is foundationally causing the US to head into recession and how y'all solve.

Impacting: If you mention nuclear war in a social justice round I will cry (make your impacts reasonable I beg of you).

Weighing: Every speech should at least implicitly weigh the impacts that your side is presenting with the impacts that the opposite side is presenting. Terminalize your impacts and provide tangible reasons (probability, magnitude, timeframe, reversibility, etc. ) why I should believe your impacts matter more than your opponents.

For parli whips: I should be able to find every substantive point that you're making on my flow somewhere. I'm usually pretty generous to whips on POO's, so as long as you've said something related to the point you're making in the prior two speeches, you should be fine.

Framework:

For almost every parli round, give me:

• Definitions
• A way to weigh impacts (weighing mech)
• A model (what happens on the aff side that doesn't happen on the neg?)

Framework debates: If aff is proposing a framework that is never contested, I will default to that framework and both teams should weigh and whip with that framework in mind. I am receptive to counterframing, but neg has to provide a good reason as to why I should prefer their framework over the aff framework. Neg, if you wish to get into a framework debate, you better bring back your counterframework during your MO/whip speech, otherwise you have just wasted some of your time.I advise both teams to weigh and win on both the aff and neg weighing mechanisms,as I've seen good cases lose because they failed to weigh on the more reasonable weighing mechanism.

Theory

I adjudicate theory before case. The threshold for winning on theory for me is very high, so if you are running theory, bring a strong case to go along with it. I advise against running parli theory unless your opponent is doing something blatantly against the spirit of debate (incredibly absuive definitions, discriminatory statements, etc.).

On topicality: Run it if aff is running a framework that the neg could have never anticipated (e.g. aff is running that the entirety of communism = the Israeli kibbutz system), but understand that if the aff is being even relatively reasonable with their definitions, I will likely side with the aff. If you do run the T, propose counterdefinitions and pray that I buy them over your aff.

On ks, I'd generally advise you not to run the k with me judging. For some topics its warranted, and if you really believe in it, go ahead. But I'll warn you that I've voted for very few ks.

On RVIs - I don't find them compelling. Even though I don't like ks, I think there is a place for them in a debate. If your opponent's k is frivolous, explain why it's frivolous, and win on case. I'm not going to vote for you solely because you beat a k.

If you don't know what any of the above terms mean, don't worry about it, you'll learn about them when you need to.

Conclusion

Last thing. Be kind to your opponents please. I really hate the style of debate that a bunch of people go for where they say that their opponent's arguments are "ridiculous" or "non-sensical." I think it keeps people out of the activity yadda yadda yadda. But honestly, I just really didn't like going against people who did that, and I still don't like voting for teams who come across as uncharitable or rude. Don't be that team pleaseeee.

Okay, that's enough with the serious stuff. Parli takes itself too seriously sometimes. Just go out there and have fun, and you'll probably have me vote for you! I like wild arguments, and parli as a format lends itself to those types of arguments. Good luck in round! <3

p.s. if you email me for feedback, add your favorite emoticon to the end of the email and I'll add it to this paradigm!

World Schools and British Parliamentary judge. Hate theory, love weighing.

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

Please don't give off-time road maps. I'm just personally not a fan because I think you should be able to do that during your speech time, while maintaining good time management.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at eliz.zhou29@gmail.com

Experience: he/him, 6 years BP, 5 years Canadian Parliamentary and 3 years of WSD, 3 year judging

No K's and no Theory, I will not vote on either.

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please sign post and make contentions clear.

BE RESPECTFUL