hey whats up guys!

I'm Joey Choi a junior at Mountain View High School! I have debated parli for 3 years.

Parli:

Do Impact calc

SIGNPOST

Refute all your opponents contentions

Good argument > useless blabber

For debate events, I tend to value logic, evidence, and delivery over theory. That said, here is some guidance to win my ballot.

Tag your arguments so that I can follow them easily. Fully support your them with well-sourced evidence, and give me an impact for why it matters to your case, or why it is a reason itself to vote for you. A framework/criterion/value is not necessary in every debate format (within reason). I can use net benefits if you give me a reason to prefer it over the other team's proposed weighing mechanism. Any A Priori issues like definitions or criterion/framework/value should be backed up with a reason to prefer yours over the other side's.

Respond to all of your opponent's arguments even if it's not the best response. Dropped arguments matter even if they are sub-par arguments.

Give me voting issues in your final speech. Organize and tag them. If the other team gives me the voting issue of whoever is wearing purple, while you gave me no voting issue at all but gave better arguments, I will vote for the team wearing purple. Tell me what to think, how to think, and why to think. The judge is always right, but the judge is also an idiot.

I do not appreciate speed, though I can follow it. If both teams engage in spreading, I will evaluate accordingly, but I will reward teams who emphasize rhetoric.

hey! I'm kavya!

A little about me:

• I am a high schooler (from Washington High School) who has debated since fourth grade
• I have done MSDPD and Parli debates throughout my debate career thus far.
• I am the assistant debate caption at my school, so feel free to ask me any questions you have!
• she/her

My credentials in case you're wondering (cause I'm like ur age and i look like i'm an eighth grader):

• Semifinalists at NYPDL and NPDL
• Broke at Cal Parli
• 15th overall speaker at NPDL

here's what you're probably wondering:

1. tech > truth: please know what you are saying and running. Don't just bring up stats - stats don't win.
2. I prefer against theory and Ks but I won't vote against you if you run one.
3. talk at an understandable speed and be clear, concise, organized
4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost cause if there are a lot of wash arguments, chances are I'm going to look at the most organized, easy-to-flow arguments, with the best links
5. Warrants: Make sure to warrant and link each and every argument cause I love a strong warrant
6. Collapse on arguments; call out conceded ones
7. Impacts/Weighing: show me exactly why I should vote for you and not the other side.
8. Please give trigger warnings if dealing with a topic that requires one before your speech.
9. Try to take at least one PoI if time allows. It shows confidence in yourself and your side.
10. Pls, explain all plans and counterplans. thanks.
11. Be respectful to your opponents (don't over PoI --> don't constantly interrupt them, laugh at them, make rude faces etc).
12. BE CONFIDENT. that's self-explanatory.

I will always come into the round as if I have no prior knowledge about the topic (tabula rasa), so use that to your advantage and explain everything and exactly why your side solves best, or is the best.

Other than that, if you somehow manage to mention "Verstappen"OR"finding nemo" in your speech, I'll add +0.3 speaks (but pick one :). Remind me after your speech if you refer so I can make a note and add it.

Also, remember to have fun, and always feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round, or for any specific feedback you may want (I'm more than happy to give.) I will give rdfs tho at the end, and I'll disclose when allowed.

Some basic stuff:
Lots of signposting, make sure to tell me where you are in your speech or what points you're addressing. This will make it a lot easier for me to flow and also help me make sure I don't miss any of your points
Obviously, make sure to be respectful to your opponents and refrain from making any remarks that are homophobic, sexist, racist, etc.
Please weigh the round for me! It'll be a lot easier for me to judge the debate if you come up in your last speech and tell me why exactly you should win.

Extra speaker points if you make a Taylor Swift reference

Ex-PF debater who judges flay. Just be kind and respectful.

Hello,
My name is Motoko Iwata.
I am currently a varsity debater at Palo Alto High School, and have experience in both PF and parliamentary debate.
Number one guideline - do not say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything offensive/attacking your opponent personally.
You can consider me to be a flay judge:
Mindset: I will try to maintain tabula rasa throughout the round. That being said, I do expect proper warranting and solvency for any arguments, especially those that may have dramatic impacts or have link chains that are difficult to navigate. If you do not give me solvency or warrants, I will consider that when weighing the two sides. If the opponent points out that you don't give me solvency or warrants, I am very likely to drop the argument entirely.
Theory: I don't think that running theory or other forms of tech debate are good for the round, but if you run it, run it well and clearly. Do not run it for the sake of complicating the round. As I am not a tech debater, so I would appreciate if you outline your argument very clearly and let me know before the round as well.
For speaking: I ask that you speak at a reasonable pace. That being said, I will accept spreading. If you are planning to speak quickly throughout the round, please let me know beforehand so I am prepared. Also keep in mind that spreading means that the likelihood of certain important aspects of your argumentation may not be flowed by me, and therefore, may not be considered. So, please make sure you emphasize anything vital for the round.
Manners: Please be respectful and courteous in cross-examination. Debate should be a comfortable environment, and unnecessarily raising voices does not increase quality of the round.
Weighing: Weighing will be the most important thing. If you do not weigh and the opponent does, I will most likely buy their weighing (considering it goes conceded). If both sides don't weigh, expect me to weigh the arguments for you, and don't expect it to be in your favor. Make sure to weigh at the end of your speech, and tell me specifically why you win the round.
Let me know at the start of the round if you have any questions about my paradigm.
You can start an email chain with my email (mi47685@pausd.us)
Please let me know if you have any questions after the round at this email as well.
Have a wonderful debate.

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email. add spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com to the chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period, though you should try to finish punctually. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages. the only time i might not disclose is if you're part of the first flight.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (refer to the NSDA evidence rules). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Background: 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Novice Extemporaneous Speaking)

Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California

IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California

How do I judge Speech?

The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout. Please do not get up in front of the room until you are called. Judges are often still writing on the previous speaker and do not wish to be rushed. When we're ready, we will indicate. It is disrespectful to enter or leave a round while someone else is speaking. If a competitor AND/OR her/his spectators break decorum, this will be reflected in scores/rankings. Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific. Take risks, but justified. It's never a gesture for a gesture's sake, or atypical movement to be atypical. Incredible things never happen when you play it safe.

How do I judge Debate? Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us. Debate is NOT about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking, fact bombs and excessive spreading are exhausting. This is not debate. If I can't understand you, how do you expect me to ascertain the unintelligible? If I don't believe your conviction, how do you expect to convince me? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate. Always show respect for your opponents. Lack of civility damages credibility.

DEBATERS, PLEASE READ -- Feel free to time yourselves. But if you choose to time your opponents, 1) turn off your alarms, 2) NEVER tell your opponents "time" and 3) respect that the judge's time is the official time.

Hi, my name is Adam, and I am currently a varsity parli debater and senior at Nueva. (5 yrs parli experience)

Accessibility:

I will flow your round and am comfortable with speed, but please make sure that your opponents are also comfortable with your speed. Please provide content warnings for any arguments where they might be necessary. No explicitly racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. arguments, I am likely to intervene against them if your opponents point them out, especially because they are probably untrue.

Prefs:

Tech > Truth

(Debate is a space for argumentative creativity. I evaluate the flow tech > truth because I don't trust myself enough to eliminate my own biases or to be all knowledgable about the world. Please don't intentionally run false arguments, I may be mad at you in the feedback)

Case:

All arguments you make should have terminalized impacts that tell me clearly why I should be voting for them. Please do impact weighing.

I am a fan of creative counterplans, but I will also absolutely vote for a perm.

Theory:

I read a lot of theory so I don't mind hearing procedural arguments and I think you can trust me to evaluate it pretty well. I don't think frivolous theory is particularly good education in the context of debate. That being said, I do default to competing interps and will evaluate friv t like any other shell, I just don't like listening to it, so I ask that you make me happy and don't run it. Similar to case, please weigh standards and voters so I know how to evaluate the shell.

Ks:

I read a cap K last year and appreciate the educational value of Ks, but I may not be familiar with your lit base and its specific jargon. I am plenty willing to vote for Ks if I can understand them, and I will try my best, but at the end of the day that is your burden.

Tricks:

As opposed to Ks, I think that Tricks like presumption triggers or paradoxes have little to no educational value in debate and I am likely to intervene against them. Please don't run them.

POIs:

I don't care how many you ask as long as you stop if your opponents ask and keep your POIs to real questions.

POOs:

I will do my best to protect the flow, but please POO if you think an argument is new. I won't dock points for multiple POOs as long as you keep them respectful.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaks based on how convincing, respectful, and fluid I think your speaking is. I will try my best to reduce personal bias, but because speaks are subjective, they won't contribute to my decision about who wins or loses. I will give the average novice debater a 27 and the average varsity debater a 28.

TLDR: State a clear problem in the status quo, have a clear link chain, and weigh your impacts! Try your best :)

Hello, I'm a junior at Nueva and I have been a parli debater for around 3 years. I'm comfortable with all Parli stuff, but not that experienced with other formats of debate. Treat me as a tech judge for parli and a flay judge for other types. Please ask me if you have any questions with my paradigm.

Case (Advantages/disadvantages)

For Aff, please have a clear top of case. This means: 1) Definitions. 2) Plan. 3) Weighing Mechanism.For each advantage, have a clear structure: UQ --> L --> MPX. Please clearly say when you are moving to the next section of a contention.

For Neg, please also have a clear structure: UQ --> L --> MPX. Please clearly say when you are moving to the next section of a contention. In addition, please leave enough time to respond to the Aff's arguments in the first speech!

For both teams, please weigh your impacts! Tell me which impacts are more important and why! Tell me whether I should weigh the magnitude of the impacts first, or the probability, or the timeframe! I default to Probability > Magnitude > Time Frame

PoO's

I protect against new arguments in the last speeches for the Aff and Neg for the novice division, but please call PoO's anyway! They are good practice because many judges don't, especially for the open division.

Evidence

All claims should be supported by both logical evidence and empirical/statistical evidence. For example, "40% of the population is in poverty, and this is because the government is corrupt and there is lack of infrastucture." Lacking either one of the evidence, arguments will likely be parallel (which is very bad because I can't evaluate it). In the case of a logical evidence vs empirical/statistical evidence debate, make arguments about which kind of evidence I should prefer.

Although you don't have to cite evidence in Parli, evidence is still a very very strong tool that strengthens your claims. Please do not fake evidence!! If I find out that your evidence is faked, I will drop you, give you low speaks, and report you to tabroom.

Unsportmanlike Conduct

Please treat each other with respect! Many times, it is the first tournament that someone has gone to, so please be nice to everyone. Do not laugh at your opponents or call them stupid. It is okay to say that their arguments are wrong, but not okay to say that their arguments are stupid.

I do not expect speed to be a problem in the novice division, but please do not speak so fast that your opponents cannot follow.

Theory/Ks

IMO, Novices should not be running friv theory or Ks. I will be very open to responses that are "wtf is a interp." If your opponents do not understand your argument, I will most likely not be voting for it.

I default to reasonability > competing interps

tech judge, love and have read all types of arguments.

run whatever you want, this is your round, i'm down to evaluate anything (case, k's, theory, tricks, etc).

perhaps this is a hot take, i love friv theory. read it, it's funny!

speaks-- winner (29.5) & loser (28)

Nevin Pai // November 2023

Hey, I'm Nevin. Here's a little bit about me:

1. I am a senior at Los Altos High competing with MVLA
2. I have only competed and judged parli; most other formats are unfamiliar to me
3. I'm in my 4th year of debate
4. For e-mail chains use [redacted]
5. I strongly advise you not to take AP phys but take AP CS
6. Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes fan
7. I only believe in going 5-0 or 0-5; no in-between
8. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have
9. Imma try to keep a poker face but I doubt y'all can read me regardless
10. I am a 2nd dan black belt in tae kwon do and enjoy computer science
11. I wrote this on my phone - be nice about spelling and grammar !!
12. he/him

My preferences - lets keep it short and sweet shall we?

1. Sign post. If you don't know where you are on the flow, I don't either
2. Don't be problematic.
3. Don't lie/fabricate evidence n stuff - debate is about education and fairness, not winning at all costs
4. Weighing is cool. I like it. You should too. I don't have any preferences as to how you weigh
5. Theory arguments are cool. That doesn't mean you can win on them without strong warranting. I'm not big on Ks atm so probably don't read them?
6. I'm tech>truth. Please understand what you are reading and the arguments you are formulating. Reading a bunch of statistics with no links or terminalized impacts means nothing to me
7. Make my job easy. Signpost, collapse n all those good things
8. I do not protect flow. Point of Order!
9. Formal language doesn't impress me but good arguments do. You can be informal or whatever as long as what your saying is of substance.
10. Tag teaming is cool. POIs should be verbally requested. Stay within time. POOs are important sometimes so use them, speed is fine but be clear. Cool and unusual arguments will be rewarded with speaker points if well executed.
11. I'll disclose if I'm allowed. Everyone gets 28 speaks by default. An amazing argument can earn you a couple points. Problematic arguments can lose you many points
12. Lets have fun and be nice - debate is a game and you shall treat it as such
13. Follow the tenets of tae kwon do: courtesy, integrity, self-control, indomitable spirit and perseverance

Hey everyone,

My name is Shiv Pandya and I’m a recent UC Davis graduate. I did public forum debate throughout High School so feel free to go at whatever pace is comfortable.

Good Luck!

about me

ethan (any pronouns). debating with mvla in west coast parli and toc circuit ld. partnered with: yuika sun, caleb lin,sandy xu, preston bhat, caroline martin, catherine wong, sophia zhang, keira chatwin, abhinav kasturi, taylor luna, nevin pai, calista woo, grace chang, sumanth mahaligam, sally tei, and abby zhou. my views on debate have been shaped by all of those partners, though i probably don’t agree with them on everything.

tl;dr

tech > truth. i like explicit extensions and good weighing. i don't reject arguments as long as they're warranted. if i think you're being problematic, i'll vote on the flow but report you to tab + your coach. also will vote on reps bad or you link you lose if justified. this is a parli paradigm, but can apply to any event.

general

• all arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication
• nothing is sticky and i dislike shadow extensions
• i can hang with any speed, but don't spread out your opponents
• tag teaming is fine but i only flow speaker unless given reasons otherwise
• grace time is fake i stop flowing after time

policy debates

• trichot is fake. "should = a policy round" is not a fw argument
• terminalize impacts. just saying "econ goes down" is not enough
• fine with intrinsic perms but open to arguments against
• default to no judge kick (i'm lazy) but can if told to
• pass me relevant texts at some point

t/theory

• default to competing interpretations
• no default for dta v dtd. without an implication, it's an incomplete arg
• weigh standards & voters
• will vote on the rvi but it needs to be weighed against the interp
• will vote on nebel but don't misrepresent semantics (i know linguistics)
• will vote on condo bad but i think condo's good
• will vote on misc cp theory but dta probably solves
• i went for friv a lot. i'll vote on basically anything

kritiks

• familiar with queer theory, cap, lacan, and some pomo
• know some setcol and empire
• do weighing and layering. extinction ows is probably true
• will vote on disclosure (rotb + alt) for k-affs
• will vote on k-fw/policy-fw
• will vote on t-fw

misc tech

• i know how kant and util work
• i don't understand phil justifications
• will vote on phil but need thorough explanations
• will vote on tricks but need warrants
• will vote on performance but need judge instruction
• will vote on presumption/permissibility triggers but need warrants

misc

• poi/cx answers are binding
• i protect but call the poo. incorrect poo answers will not be punished
• default to allowing new weighing
• 2ar gets golden turns on new args + shadow extensions
• i check back against golden turns by ensuring sufficient warranting
• the 2ar is broken if you can weigh. the block is broken if you collapse
• i give speaks based on strategy

everything in this paradigm is a soft default and can be changed if the right arguments are made in round.

---

rants (skip if u want)

lay vs. tech

everything in debate is just an argument. i think t-fw and substance crowd-out bad are both true in formats where high-quality research is intrinsic to the activity, but i don't think parli is one of those events. ev ethics in parli is garbage, topics are recycled every tournament, and 20 minutes is not enough to conclusively understand what is blatant misinformation and what is legitimate.

i think parli should be a space to learn how to think and construct arguments critically. i think new arguments like friv theory, cool ks, fun spec affs, and creative counterplans all do that. i think if people stopped being so scared of certain arguments and just tried their best to engage, they'd stop hating different style of debate so much. that also means debaters should be accessible.

warrants in parli

anything that can be used to justify a claim is a warrant. "this person says it's true" is not a very good warrant, but is sufficient for me to evaluate the claim. better warrants would be empirical analysis, the reports of a study, or actual explanations of why a claim is true. if you do not have a warrant, i cannot evaluate the claim. some parli tournaments are messing with evidence rules. even if that continues, i still need warrants in one form or another.

style in debate

i think it's really funny how different debate formats and different regions have such vastly different styles. i don't think the west coast parli style is very rhetorically appealing to people outside of the area and format, but it works in front of lay audiences within the space. my personal debate style (rhetorically) more closely resembles toc ld than anything else. i'm probably subconsciously biased in favor of styles that are in that realm. i think it's very inefficient and kind of confusing how people in parli say "first is the uniqueness. point 1 is __. subpoint a is ___." i don't factor these things into my decision, but i think it's important to analyze why we've adopted certain styles and instead of conforming to what everyone else is doing, try crafting your own, more unique and efficient style.

---

final note

if you're a novice and none of this paradigm makes sense to you, that's ok! i make it this detailed because i don't want to underestimate any debaters. ask questions if you have them or just try your best in round. i'll give in-depth feedback and disclose if allowed. good luck!

Updated Feb 2023

I competed for four years under Notre Dame High School (2014 - 2018), primarily in Parliamentary Debate and National Extemp. After 2018 I left the debate space and now judge on an ad hoc basis.

Debate ----

I primarily judge debate. I think the below points apply to all disciplines.

I am admittedly a stickler for case construction. I want to see framework and uniqueness/links/impacts. I find links are most often the weakest part of any argument - give me a clear link story and I will give you your impacts. Weigh your impacts too. My most common comment is to terminalize your impacts.

I am no longer capable of following speeding but still judge entirely on the flow, especially the last speeches from each team. That being said, call points of order. I will note new argumentation on the ballot.

Tell me the most important issue in the round and I'll vote there if I can. Make my decision as easy as possible. I will flow crossfire. Clear signposting will help both me and you. I love overviews and road maps.

Unless told otherwise, I weigh factors in the following order: 1) magnitude 2) probability 3) timeframe and nobody brings up reversibility any more.

I just don't believe that net benefits should be limited to one country in global resolutions. This includes resolutions about trade policy.

Please also remember to give me offense I can vote on.

On tech debate: If you don't say it's a priori, I'll probably avoid voting on it. I don't really like judging tech debate. That being said, I will be favorable to T shells where there is legitimate abuse (whatever the brightline for "legitimate" is, which I'll admit probably comes down to judge discretion). I don't like judging Kritiks, mostly because I think the base philosophy generally gets warped beyond repair.

Do not be exclusionary. Have fun!

Speech ----

I don't judge speech very often, but I think the following point is relevant in Impromptu and Extemp: In cases where rankings are close, I decide based on content rather than how "well" a competitor spoke. I think this is the best way to mitigate implicit bias.

For other Speech events, I do have to take delivery into account.

About:

American University MA '26 | 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 Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. Formerly, I was the Director of Debate (2021-2024) for Crystal Springs Uplands School. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

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 jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

PF Paradigm (last updated 10.04.24 for Northwestern)

Email for the email chain: jtelebrico23@cmc.edu

General

• Feel free to read any cool, funky cases on this topic in front of me. See the last bullet point of the paradigm if you're concerned about prep-outs, etc.

• Can flow any speed, so feel free to go as slow or fast as you'd like.

• Feel free to read my Parli paradigm for more nuanced thoughts on argumentation and strategy.

• STOP stealing prep time during evidence exchange. I will interrupt debaters if I see Second Speakers exploiting evidence exchange to prep further. Have your cards available, set up the email chain before the round (yes, I want to be on it), and use the prep time that has been allotted to you. The amount of prep-stealing in debate has become unreasonable and structurally unfair. You can even use this bullet of my paradigm as fairness uniqueness for a theory argument. Don't steal prep in front of me.

Evaluation

• Every argument requires a warrant for evaluation—articulations of "extend xyz author/statistic" are insufficient without accompanying warrants. Please extend and implicate warrants in both summary and final focus.

• Weighing (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility) is also SUPER IMPORTANT. Start doing this in summary. This also goes beyond just impacts—do link-level weighing and collapse pls.

• I maintain that I won't flow crossfire. However, you may generate offense off of concessions (they're binding!) or contradictory answers made in CF ONLY if you explain and strategically utilize the indicted claim to generate meaningful clash.

• [ask me what my thoughts are about GCF before it happens]

• Second Rebuttal absolutely should begin to frontline. First Summary doesn't need to extend defense unless second Rebuttal begins to frontline args. However, it's probably strategic for second Rebuttal to answer first Rebuttal and start frontlining. Defense is not sticky, except maybe between first Rebuttal and first Final Focus.

• If it's in Final Focus, it has to be in Summary. This does not mean collapsing Final Focus from a single 'conceded' warrant or sentence in Summary without proper analysis.

• Impacts should be terminalized. I prefer numbers to scalar impacts, which should always be contextualized within the evidence. In other words, I'd much rather vote on an impact of "affects 10k people" over "iNcrEaSe oF 500%."

• Impact framing is also very cool.

Tech

• I think theory, kritikal, phil, and other forms of tech argumentation are severely underutilized in PF due to both structural and perceptual bias concerning speech times and the nature of these arguments. Open to hearing any kind of argument on these layers (and do uplayer the argument for me) but I am otherwise agnostic concerning my evaluation of them—I would not consider myself a tech hack judge, I just think a lot of case debates are done poorly and these rounds are fun to judge. Debate flight seems infinitely regressive so don't be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.

• I think strategies like IVIs being read on anything your opponent does or represents in-round are advantageous insofar as maximizing paths to the ballot.

Evidence Ethics & Speaks

• To minimize intervention, I won't view the email chain or card doc (but still add me!) unless a particular card defines the round—and debaters should be explicit that I should do so (e.g. "Look at their x ev, it doesn't say y"). I prefer cut cards but don't mind paraphrasing so long as you can have a substantive theory debate.

• Do not use any surveillance or tracking technologies like MailSuite/MailTrack on the email chain. I will not begin the round until an email chain without them has been created and I'll tank your speaks for even having me click on the initial email in the first place.

• However, I do reserve the right to intervene on behavior that I find explicitly oppressive and morally reprehensible; if it's implicit or you're just excessively rude in general I will simply tank your speaks.

• My updated speaks average aggregated across both PF & Parli is a 28.7 [L/H = 27/30; n=234; last updated 09.24.23]. Most people will get a 28+.

• Speech docs are very appreciated (jtelebrico23@cmc.edu). I will exclusively use these documents in the context of accessibility (e.g. to clean up card citations on my flow) in the debate round and not for coaching or sharing purposes.

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• 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. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. 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 though, sorry.

• 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, traditional 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.

Framework

• 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 weigh for 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: 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)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• 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.

Theory

• 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 theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• 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. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison 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 form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• 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.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• 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.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

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.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim 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)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Hi everyone, I'm Shriya Tripathi, a sophomore at Washington High School. Just some background about me, I've been debating for 3 years now. I currently compete in parli, so I'm not comfortable with other debate formats. I also teach middle schoolers MSPDP. This is my first time judging novice parli, and I'm super excited to see you all debate!

Preferences:

• Tech > truth: I'll believe anything you say as long as you warrant it properly. Explain your arguments; I love a strong link chain.
• Weighing: I'll vote off of whichever side can prove that their impacts are the most likely to happen and that make the most sense.
• POIs: I'll give you higher speaks if you're able to confidently answer a POI. That being said, you still need to explain your answer and it needs to make logical sense. I don't mind tag-teaming, but it shows you aren't confident in what you're saying. Please don't abusively POI.
• CPs/perms: Make your cp text incredibly clear for both the opponent and me to understand. Please don't run abusive counterplans. Feel free to perm a cp if you want.
• Sign posting: Please sign post. It makes it so much easier for me to see where you are in your speech and what part of my flow I should be on.
• Speed: I don't mind fast talking, just make sure that its still understandable.
• Be confident when speaking! Pretend you know what you're talking about no matter how confused you are. Confidence will reflect well in your speaks.
• Respect: This is a HUGE part of debate. If you disrespect your opponents in any way (laughing at them during their speech, attacking them and not their arguments, etc.), I will tank your speaks.

I'll act as if I have no prior knowledge of the topic once the round starts, so definitions and BGI will be your best friend.

I'll try not to give speaks lower than 27.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. Have fun and good luck!

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.