Congress

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.

LD Paradigm:

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

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

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

IMPACTS

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

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

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.

Background: 4 years of Public Forum Debate Experience, Lots of Speech Experience, current member of the Cal Parli team.

General Paradigms:

• Make sure your warranting is sound. Creating link chains and reaching impacts only works for me if you have good substance to your arguments.
• For later speeches, remind yourself to balance offense/defense and prioritize arguments that stand better on the flow. Do not feel the need to pace through going over every single thing that has been said in the round to not gain any offense or frontlines on your case.
• Be respectful. Have fun.

Hello, debaters! I’ve been judging parliamentary debate for a year and I’m still getting accustomed to some aspects of the game, so please assume lay appeal.

General Overview

• Spreading: I strongly prefer not to hear spreading in the round. While parliamentary debate doesn’t require evidence in the same way as policy, speed can hinder communication. I’d rather hear fewer, well-explained points than a barrage of arguments I can't fully absorb.

• Clarity: I’m not deeply immersed in political or current events, so context is key. Make sure to explain your arguments clearly, especially when dealing with more niche or complex topics. A logical link between your arguments and your stance is essential. Don’t assume I know the latest political news—provide background and clarity.

• Kritiks & Theory: I prefer rounds that are focused on case rather than theoretical arguments or kritiks (Ks and Ts). I’m not particularly comfortable evaluating these types of arguments unless there’s a clear, genuine abuse happening in the round. If you run theory, please be sure that it directly applies to the fairness or educational value of the round, and is not simply being used as a time suck or distraction.

Case Over Everything

• Prioritizing Case: I focus heavily on case arguments. That means your core case, the logical structure, and clash are my primary considerations. I'll weigh case impacts more heavily than off-case arguments. Strong, clear arguments that directly engage with your opponent's points will stand out to me.

Evidence & Argumentation

• Evidence: While evidence isn’t as central in parliamentary debate as in other formats, I appreciate when you include it. However, I’m not looking for a pile of evidence; quality is far more important than quantity. I’m happy to see well-chosen examples, analogies, or expert testimony, but you should prioritize logical reasoning above all else.

Speaking & Style

• Speaking Style: I won’t be evaluating you purely on speaking style, but strong delivery, clear enunciation, and a structured approach can boost your speaker points. It’s essential that your communication aids the flow of the debate rather than complicates it.

Weighing & Impact Analysis

• Weighing is Critical: Weighing the impacts of the arguments is essential. I need to understand why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. If you don’t do this, I will default to my own judgment in assessing which impacts I think are more important, which may not favor you. Be explicit about why your points should take precedence—whether it’s based on magnitude, timeframe, probability, or another metric.

• Give Me Your Ballot: After the clash in the round, make it easy for me to give you the ballot. Essentially, I want to hear your RFD within your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote for you based on the arguments that have played out. The clearer and more structured your explanation, the easier it will be for me to write your name on the ballot.

Debate Culture

• Respect: Maintain good debate culture. I expect civility and mutual respect throughout the round. Disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated and may negatively impact your speaker points.

I’m looking forward to hearing your arguments and seeing how you engage with each other! Let’s have a great debate.

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 am a parent judge.

Hey, everyone! This is Jude Nieves, a Lead Coach from The Practice Space and a member of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I wish you all luck in the rounds that you compete in! Below, you will find some relevant information about me as a judge and how to win my rounds.

Related Experience/Background:

• Legal Studies major at UC Berkeley
• 2 years of Varsity Mock Trial at Clovis West High School
• Active member of the Debate Society of Berkeley and Former Equity Director
• Lead Coach (public speaking and debate coach) with The Practice Space
• 2 years of Youth Court experience
• Former Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Liaison with The Daily Californian
• Aspiring lawyer; genuine passion for debate, justice and equity

In order to win in my rounds, you should:

• Show up to the assigned classroom on time (you'd better :P)
• Be professional and highly organized while also maintaining an optimistic, likeable tone
• Present confidently and make good use of the time available to you
• Try your best, no matter what happens!!!

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: An unfortunate repercussion of being a judge is that I often have to be the messenger of bad news. 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.

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 round 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!

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

Summary: I am a college debater and high school coach who understands the fundamentals of debate and loves hearing people argue.

Background:

4 years High School Parliamentary debate at Analy High School

3 years British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley

3 years Coaching at Berkeley High School

Judging:

I will flow the round and give the win based on which team can provide a more persuasive case. I am not a judge that will give you an auto-loss for not understanding the 17-step formula that the opposition (or your own team) expects you or others to know before the round, but I do consider weighing and proving your arguments to be true as integral to the round.

TO WIN THE ROUND, YOU MUST:
1. Show up to the debate (hopefully)

2. Have good arguments

3. Explain why those arguments matter (the impacts)

4. Attack your opponent's arguments

5. Explain why your arguments are stronger than your opponents (the weighing)

While that seems simple, I've seen many rounds where most of those steps go missing.

Although I will be flowing the round, I will not be filling in the blanks for your case. If you'd like to make my life easier, please signpost as you speak, so I understand where you are in the round.

Evidence alone does not win you rounds. Stating evidence doesn't mean I will understand why it is essential to your case, nor will I understand its general warranting unless you can explicitly tell me.

If there are fundamental disagreements about Definitions or Weighing Mechanisms, I will generally default to Government unless Opposition can prove the definition abusive.

Miscellaneous Jargon:

If you need to spread, you may, but I would prefer if you don't. I can't vote for your side if I can't flow your arguments.

Do not expect me to understand your Shells and Ks and Theory arguments. I generally do not vote on jargon UNLESS it can be clearly explained why it is more important than the debate round you were assigned to defend.

Reminder:

You are a fantastic human who's trying your best, so don't feel bad if you make a mistake or lose the round :)

Hi! I'm a junior senior at Campolindo, this is my 3rd 4th year doing parli.

TLDR:

I like weighing, warrants, good strategic choices, explaining your logic, & POOs. I don't like people who are mean to their opponents (talking too fast for them to hear, argumentative POIs, refusing POIs when you're running techy arguments, etc.)

Misc.

- tech > truth, tabula rasa, & all that.

- speed: I'm pretty sure I can handle speed in the novice circuit. Having said that, if your opponents call "slow" or "clear," you should slow down.

- POI's should be actual clarifying questions, not a chance for you to contest/refute your opponents.

- when in doubt, call POOs. I will protect against wildly new things, but if I'm not sure I will err towards it being not new unless you call the POO.

- I will time you and you should also time yourself.

- tag teaming is fine.

- don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

Case

- default to net benefits. But I like creative and strategic framing.

- presumption flows neg unless there's a cp, with some exceptions. (ask if questions)

- perms are tests of competition and are not a path to the ballot, i.e. the perm takes away the cp, but you still have to win something else in order to win the round.

- I'm cool with "cheaty" cp's like condo consult, PICs, delay, etc. In fact if your cp was really clever/strategic, I'll probably reward you w/ speaker points. Be prepared to answer theory though.

Theory

- I'm down for friv theory and whatever you want to run.

- if you use techy language like "theory is apriori," you should be prepared to take your opponents' POIs.

- read counterinterps (CI)!

- I default to CI > reasonability, and I'll only vote on reasonability if you give me a clear brightline as to what is reasonable and what is not. However since this is the novice circuit I'll be more forgiving with things like forgetting to read a CI, and I won't buy "they didn't read a CI so automatically vote us" arguments.

K's

if you're running a k in the novice circuit, you better know what you're talking about, answer at least 6 POI's, and talk at max speed slightly faster than conversational. Don't read dng in front of me, I won't understand it.

Speaker points

I'll be evaluating you on how creative, logical, and well-warranted your arguments were, as well as how strategic were the choices you made. Most people will have 26.5-30 points