Coast Forensic League CFL Super Debate 1
2023 — Milpitas, CA/US
Parli Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi everyone! I’m Keira (she/her) and I debated on the high school circuit from 2019-2023. I love debate and all kinds of arguments (as long as they aren’t problematic), so feel free to run pretty much anything in front of me. If you ever have any questions feel free to reach out, I would love to discuss anything with you!
TL;DR - Make it as easy for me to vote for you as possible. Weighing is generally how you do that. I will evaluate basically anything that is read as long as it's not a blip and isn’t problematic. Generics are okay, I like creative arguments (but good well-warranted args outweigh regardless of whether they’re generic or not). Turns are wonderful so read lots!
Background on me - I’m a tech > truth judge but take that with a solid grain of salt because I probably have a higher bar for what counts as an ‘argument’ vs blips than other judges (I will vote on any argument as long as it's warranted). Sierra Maciorowski was the biggest influence on my personal debate paradigm. I was very much a NorCal debater who loved both tech and lay debate (so really read whatever you’re comfortable with in front of me) and I did dabble in east coast debate (and now APDA!) for a minute.
Round evaluation - the way I'll evaluate rounds is probably: layering --> weighing --> strength of link. If your rebuttal looks like this I will be very happy :)
Case - I love good case debates. Tech case debates were truly my cup of tea as a debater. Read strong uniqueness that clearly lines up with your links please! But if you’re going to have strong warranted claims anywhere please have them in the links because otherwise I cannot tell if your plan does anything. As for impact weighing: my default is magnitude > probability > timeframe but feel free to change my mind in round.
There are three parts to an argument - a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Please don’t read blips because I can’t vote on something that has no explanation or reason why it matters.
I'm not really a case framework person. I definitely won't penalize you for reading it but I also am not going to vote you up for it. The case framework debate usually doesn't end up being that important for me. I also don't like definitions debates (unless they're really abusive).
I will protect but call POOs because my memory isn’t great and my flows can get a bit messy. Jargon is all good, I will follow. PLEASE signpost so that I can stay organized and know what you're talking about.
Tech - Speed is all good with me but ONLY if your opponents are okay with it too. Do not use speed or tech to exclude others please. If you’re reading something really techy or critical I would really appreciate it if you would take lots of POIs.
Theory - I like theory. My defaults are competing interps > reasonability, drop the debater > drop the argument, and no RVIs but those are all easily changed by whatever happens in round (I LOVE reasonability with a good brightline). I’m down to vote on friv but I also have a much lower threshold for responses to friv.
Ks - Fun! I read many of these. I was particularly fond of K affs (doesn’t mean I won’t drop you to TUSFG but I'm also not a TUSFG hack). I can understand the gist of most arguments and I read a variety of lit bases but still assume I'm unfamiliar with most lit and explain it all. Take questions please because if your opponents can't understand your arguments they can't engage.
Some thoughts - I think K affs get perms but will 100% accept reasons why they don't. I don't like language PIKs (I just don't think I've ever seen one deployed well but feel free to disprove this). Links of omission aren't real links. I very much respect defending topical affs against K negs (its hard tho so good luck). Tricks are mean. I'll also vote on tricks. But not if they're blipped out.
Phil - I have never run phil or hit phil. If you want to try running it, please explain it well or I'm probably just going to end up disregarding it. Also make sure your opponent can engage with these arguments as well. And please don't read violent phil authors.
Speaks - I will usually give between 27-29.5 speaks, probably higher speaks for the winning team because I think speaker points should be a reflection of how well you convinced me your arguments are true or important.If you are offensive in any way or I find your arguments problematic, your speaks will drop. Just be kind please and have fun, that's what debate is all about :)
Don't be violent. Don't read problematic arguments. I will have no problem dropping you and tanking your speaks if you do. Debate is a space for us all to develop and grow together. If at any time you feel that you or anyone else is being excluded, please speak up and I will do my best to change that.
You’re all going to do amazing and I’m so excited to watch your round! If you have any questions feel free to ask at the beginning of the round or reach out by email.
I am a parent judge with two years of judging experience
Don't speak too fast
Emphasize important points with pauses!
I care about how you speak
Make your contention names clear when reading your case
Make your opponent's contention names clear when you are refuting them, and be specific as to what you are refuting.
Make sure all arguments are responded to
My name is Paul Choi, and I am a parent judge. I am an engineering manager in the tech industry.
I appreciate clearly laid-out arguments. Ideally, the contentions should flow together to create an overarching case for your argument. Each contention should be well-supported by evidence. There is no need to speak fast, or overwhelm the opponent or judges with the volume of evidence - oftentimes I find that the best debaters are able to clearly present their side of the argument with couple of well-chosen contentions and a few supporting evidences.
I have been in awe of many of the debates I've been privileged to witness so far. I am excited to hear more. Good luck and have a great round!
I look for the most talented team in terms of their arguments and rebuttals. All teams need to be respectful and please.. talk slowly.
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 finaled 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, book an appointment at reneediop.com or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/renéediop.
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.
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 it if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.
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 IM OPEN TO ALL KS! Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. 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, 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 email@example.com.
This is my first year as a parent-judge. I have debated in high school and college and therefore very familiar with the time and energy students spend in preparing for a debate contest, however that was in a different era and in a different country, so still a novice judge. I look for convincing, factual arguments, but also give extra points for creative thinking. Do make eye contact and be clear and confident when you deliver your argument. You should know your facts, but facts are not sufficient - how you use the to construct a logical and convincing argument is important.
Most important items if you have limited reading time:
PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you stole and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks
IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.
ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.
Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).
I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.
PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.
I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli at the time).
Approach to judging
-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.
-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/nonunique Ks.
-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.
-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.
Speaker point ranges
Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.
Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.
Impacts: Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.
Counterplans: If you want to have a solid plan debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.
Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain fairness/education) in general. I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).
Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files--write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Ks that weaponize identities against each other are rough for you and also for me--don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."
"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.
Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.
Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.
Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.
Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.
Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).
Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.
Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/interp, you are expected to provide it.
I am a parent judge.
Common sense will be my paradigm as below.
- Be nice to opponents.
- Prepare reasonable back data to enforce your opinion.
- Listen carefully about opponent's opinion and response with respect.
- Make stress on own's opinion. Imperative that key points are summarized.
In addition, based on Parliamentary Debate rule,
I will choose better team through these
- subjective, but I consider quality of argumentation, rhetorical skill, and wit.
- I will not use my own biases to taint your decision.
- I evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs.
- I will not make my decision ON ARGUMENTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THE ROUND.
- I will not use ANY NEW ARGUMENTS BROUGHT UP DURING THE REBUTTALS.
I appreciate contentions that are explained clearly and in an organized manner. Prefer fewer meaningful arguments over many less impactful ones. Take a few sentences to explain more important arguments, otherwise I might miss them. When referring back to cards made in earlier speeches, it's helpful to mention the essense of the studies rather than just the name of the author. Strongly prefer reasonable analysis over taking arguments to the extreme ending up in nuclear war.
This is my second year judging Parli debates. Below are some guidelines that might be useful:
- Manage your time well. Be respectful to one another.
Speak slowly and clearly. It is not a contest for cramming the most amount of content
Fewer arguments well developed > too many undeveloped arguments
I am a parent judge who has judged parli debate for 4 years.
- Please make your arguments clear/logical.
- Use strong evidence and clearly explain your impacts. I highly take evidence and impacts into account, so this could really win you my vote!
- Be organized. Signpost! It is really helpful for me to flow your arguments if you tell me where you are on the flow. Off time roadmaps are also always helpful.
- No spreading. I need to be able to understand you if I am going to flow your arguments. I think speaking too fast is not only hard for me to understand but also completely unfair to your opponents who may have difficulty following your case as well.
- No theory, K, or other advanced debate strategies. I am not experienced in specific debate rules and I highly lean towards on case debate! If you run theory or K, I will still try and flow it but be warned that you will most likely lose the round.
- Please be respectful of your opponents.
I am a parent judge, and this is my second year with debate. Consider me a flow judge.
I appreciate it when speakers talk clearly and introduce issues, and definitions or describe acronyms before using them.
Do speak confidently and in equal measure use logic and arguments to support your case.
I expect participants to be polite and courteous with the opposing team. Also, I expect participants to state what are the key facts I should consider, even when seemingly obvious. Do not assume I will credit you for a mistake of the opposing team unless you highlight it.
I am a parent judge. Try not to run theory unless you truly believe that something is wrong in the round, such as a rule being broken. Always be courteous and respectful to your opponent. I evaluate tech over truth, and will evaluate the round on the framework that you as the competitors give me.
I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.
I will be flowing.
Good luck !
I am new to judging, but participated in competitive speaking as a high school student.
I expect competitors to:
Show good sportsmanship
Be respectful of each other and the organizing staff
Engage in behavior at the event that fosters an inclusive environment
There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.
When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!
These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.
For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.
I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.
I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.
Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.
A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.
If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.
Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.
All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.
I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.
Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.
I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.
I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.
KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.
Tech v. Truth
I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.
For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.
My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!
Good luck :^)
I am a 2nd year parent judge.
I look for facts and examples.
Please be respectful and don’t talk over one another.
Please speak clearly, instead of fast.
Hello all, I am a parent judge and enjoy judging all formats.
Please speak clearly and to the point. I can handle speed but would prefer that you not rush as I might miss the most impactful argument. I will prefer that you have valid arguments along with being good debtors. My decision will evaluate all scopes of the debate: framework, reasoning, arguments, evidence, etc. Ensure to drive home the point why your impacts are better achieved over your opponent.
Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19
Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Assistant Debate Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.
My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.
In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org—and please cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!
Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):
- Rounds Judged: n = 170
- Aff Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
- Neg Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
- Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
- Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."
*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
***I'll include brief event-specific paradigms for CFL CHSSA State Quals Debate sometime this week. Realistically, I'm a good judge for PF & Parli given my competition + judging experience but I had short stints doing traditional Policy & LD so I can evaluate anything. My asks basically come down to 1) don't steal prep 2) run lay/trad cases for 2-judge panels - i won't really entertain tech or hidden spikes/triggers at this tournament, and 3) still utilize framework and weighing to tell me what offense i should prioritize. otherwise, good luck qualifying to state!***
Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)
Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.
TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.
- STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.
The debate space is yours. Run as slow or fast, lay or tech of a round as you want. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs, sorry.
- On a technical argumentation note, and for your own prefs, in my present judging career I am more comfortable evaluating theory debates over Kritikal debates. I have found that my ballots are ultimately more decisive when judging theory arguments. This does not mean treat me as a theory hack or don't read your Ks in front of me—I evaluate arguments agnostically but I feel compelled to be transparent about what I am better at evaluating.
Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.
I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.
I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.
Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.
Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.
Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.
- Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."
- This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, lay v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.
- In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weighfor you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.
Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.
For CFL Super Debate: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)
Down for all kinds of trichotomy arguments, theory interps are permissible here (i.e. feel free to run policy rounds on value/fact/metaphor topics if you want to justify it to me).
- Any and all spec is fine.
Read and pass texts to your opponents.
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.
- I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.
I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.
Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.
The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.
Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.
- I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].
Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. I am receptive to hearing these during a debate and am otherwise agnostic to how I evaluate them compared to other forms of arguments.
- Specific links > topic links > generic links. Make links as specific as possible.
I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters often don't operationalize framework in strategic ways and leave a lot of the line-by-line comparison to judge discretion. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the methodologies of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find common analogues (e.g. manslaughter v. murder) as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.
Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.
When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.
I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a deep understanding of their scholarship and provide accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but I don't arbitrate over that in my direct evaluation—it just reflects in how you debate and how interactive these arguments become.
I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.
I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win on theory, or at least make it a substantive layer of my evaluation. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other. Saying "Gut Check" doesn't trigger reasonability for me. Explain why I should do so and explain its implications.
In the interest of minimizing interventionism, I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is frivolous as my judging career progresses but at the same time, try not to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important to this activity's long-term growth.
- (Semi-unserious) Read Nebel T in front of me and I'll give your team 30 speaks regardless of decision :)
Points of Information/Order
PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.
Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.
Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.
For anything not covered here, feel free to reach out and ask me before the round!
I am a first year parent judge.
-Please be respectful of your opponents.
-Please provide me with your roadmap and guide me through your arguments.
-Well developed argument is more important than the number of arguments
-Speak at a moderate speed so I can follow all your points.
-Encourage to use cited evidence, examples and numeric values, if available.
Hope you enjoy the competition.
I am a parent judge.
Please speak slowly and clearly, avoid jargon, and make sure to signpost.
- Quality over Quantity - focus on weight of impact, explain it clearly
- Clear evidence with weight of evidence - source, reputation etc. (one highly reputable source better than five random sources)
- Stay away from technicals unless absolutely necessary
- Be respectful, clear, and concise in disagreements
Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.
In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).
I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.
Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.
I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.
Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.
I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.
Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.
In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.
In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.
Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.
I am a parent judge with some speech and debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.