Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 9 years. I've debated for Chabot College (Parli, LD). I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats as well. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc: uagug147@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot in however my threshold on voting on T is high. You must prove ACTUAL in-round abuse. I'm not the biggest fan of T and Framework in its entirety because personally, I view it as a one-shot kill for Aff teams. Don't let that stop you from running it in front of me though.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you.

I've been out for a minute so please signpost and start at 80% speed so I can tune my ear to the round.

disclaimers for preffing:

- i competed four years at archbishop mitty high school, policy for two years and parli for two years after, won chssa parli 2021. went to nats in congress three years in a row, was a semifinalist sophomore year and quarterfinalist senior year.

- i'm cool with the common k's (cap, neolib, security, etc), as a debater i have experience with running antiblackness, orientalism and queer k's. im good with anything, but im probably not familiar with ur niche lit base so just explain it well. if you're a super high level k or theory debater however, consider preffing me low lol

- spread if you want, i'll say slow or clear if i need to

my judging preferences:

1. if u cause harm in the debate space ill drop u immediately

2. tech over truth unless you don't warrant

3. organize uq/l/il/mpx and signpost

4. impact everything out or it doesn't matter; if i'm judging parli, everything should be centered around your weighing mechanism

5. im down for friv theory, unless u make the debate completely inaccessible to your opponents EDIT: if you are going to run theory, please for the love of god, run it well. don’t give me shitty theory shells to evaluate instead of substantive k/case debate. you may not suffer but i do

6. everyone gets a 29, make an atla/aot/jjk/hotd reference and i'll give you a 30. speaks end up being arbitrary and ableist/sexist anyways so just have fun

7. stick around for feedback, i'll always try to disclose. email me at nishita.belur02@gmail.com if you need anything else

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

Hi, my name is Tina Dayal and I am a parent judge. I am very new to judging.

Please explain your arguments very clearly and talk slowly.

Dinesh Elaprolu

I have been involved as a debate judge for last 2 years. I am familiar with both Middle School debate and Parliamentary debate.

As a judge, I believe my role is to evaluate objectively and not introduce my personal beliefs or opinions in my decision process. I want the students to follow the ground rules and be clear with their arguments and evidences. I will flow the round, so I expect clear reasonings and properly cited evidences in my decision process. As per the rules, I will not allow new evidence or arguments in the final speeches. I am comfortable with any speed, provided the debater can articulate his reasonings well.

I expect debaters to treat each other and the judge with respect and as I mentioned above my decision will be based on debaters performance and not my personal beliefs.

Please feel free to ask me questions after the round and I will try my best to clarify your doubts.

Background: MBA | Technology Industry Veteran | Parent | Novice Debate Judge

Focus Areas:

• Definition: Clear, non-ambiguous definition of all components of the motion
• Substance: Strong analysis, clear evidence with real-world examples
• Style: Clear and objective communication, strong and continuous delivery of speech, respectful debate etiquette
• Strategy: Effective use of debate theory, ability to anticipate, adhere to topic, respond to opponent's arguments

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. I appreciate clear articulate arguments and prefer a lack of spreading. Make sure to connect different arguments during the round as well as impact/tell me why they're important. Clearly tagline and signpost. Explain any jargon that an average person would not understand. Treat your opponents kindly and with respect. And lastly, make sure your arguments have evidence that clearly connects back to the topic.

Don't talk excessively fast/signpost well and I will flow to the best of my ability. If I get lost I will stop flowing until I figure out where you are again.

TECH>TRUTH.

I am a parent judge.

New to Parli. I prefer clarity over speed. I am a partner at a consulting firm. I love clarity, simplicity and humility.

Judging:

I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.

1. The topic/Message being made clear

2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed

3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate

4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known

5. Points being correctly attacked and built up

6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions

Speech:

I judge based off of:

1. Topic/Message made clear

2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story

3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments

4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene

5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.

About me:

Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.

Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com

I am novice volunteer judge and I am a new-bee judging in speech and debate competition, so please be slow while speaking.

Also, please follow the pattern and come up with a structure in your speech and provide evidence for the arguments that your were making whether you are talking on the pro or on the con side.

Try to go in-depth on the points that you are choosing and emphasize on how it relates to the topic that you are speaking for.

Good Luck

I'm a former policy debater, judge, coach a couple decades ago; recently returned to judging and coaching, now Parliamentary.

I can flow speed, but don't think I should have to in Parli. An organized flow is important to me, so please number your arguments, signpost, avoid jumping around the flow. Keep roadmaps a few seconds long. If you're signposting as you should, a roadmap isn't really necessary. I generally prefer good clash, line-by-line, etc.

I prefer good case debate. If it's not against the rules (including equity expectations), it's generally up for debate, and I'm not categorically opposed to any argument types. That said, Parli isn't the best forum for too much complexity. I think it's a good idea to disclose to your opponents anything that may surprise them. I have more patience than most for debate theory. Kritiks can be great but almost never are, especially in parli.

Neg, don't wait until the second aff/gov constructive to ask about plan specifics or definitions and then scream abuse in the next constructive. Obviously, aff contradicting their 1A in the 2A would be an exception.

POI - Follow the rules. You can refuse POIs if you have reason to, but I'm suspicious of a speaker never accepting one.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly as I need to take clear notes for myself.

Please be respectful of your opponents at all times.

Enjoy yourself!

tl;dr: I am open to almost any argument you want to read and will do my best to judge the round the way you lay it out for me.

Background

I’m a first-year at UC Berkeley now competing in NPDA as a 1A/2N and am currently coached by Amanda Miskell, Will White, lila lavender, and June Dense. I competed for EVHS for four years in NPDL debate as mostly a 2A/2N, but I have some experience with 1A/1N when I mavved at NPDI ‘21. My thoughts on debate so far have been mainly shaped by Trevor Greenan, lila lavender, Will White, Amanda Miskell, so feel free to check out their paradigms - I’ll probably evaluate rounds in a similar way.

General

My decision is based almost entirely and primarily on my flow (i.e. tech > truth), however if intervention is inevitable, I will try to find the easiest, least interventiony path to the ballot. In a similar fashion to Trevor, I will prioritize (in roughly this order): conceded arguments with weighing/framing, conceded arguments that are otherwise extended, arguments with substantive warrant analysis, arguments with implicit framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of. Speed is fine, although be mindful of “slow/clear” calls (see lila’s paradigm for the steph stew 2022 incident - I have very similar thoughts on speed). While I do protect, feel free to call your POOs.

Case

My 1ACs/1NCs for the first half of my career were typically two advantages or DAs with large uniqueness blocks and impact work. Given this, I tend to believe strong uniqueness and on the flip side good defensive analytics make arguments compelling. A structured approach to answering case arguments by section with an overview, signposting, and a good collapse is your best bet to beating back these arguments.

I default to fiat being durable, utilitarianism/net benefits as the moral framework, and counterplans being conditional, but am open to arguments to the contrary.

Read any counterplan you want, cheater or not, but I’ll also vote on MG theory here if it’s won.

Theory

Have fun - I lived for theory and I am generally a fan. Collapse to what is strategic - just bc you think I’m a theory hack should not mean you poorly collapse to theory for the hell of it. In fact, I now think bad or unnecessary theory collapses typically lead to a boringish debate compared to a similar quality K or case collapse (still means make strategic choices! if theory makes sense go for it).

My view on theory is that it boils down to case debate with a slightly different structure. This means UQ, links, impact analysis, and collapse should be a big part of any theory debate.

I default to competing interps, and need a good warrant to prefer reasonability + a brightline. Theory is you upholding a model of debate through your interp vs any counterinterp, so you want to do comparative standards and voter work in your collapse.

I did go for MG theory frequently in high school so I will respect your decision to read/go for MG theory, but poorly read multiple sheets in the MG will make me sad.

Kritiks

Since getting into NPDA, I’ve almost exclusively read variations of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) on both the aff and the neg. In high school, I got a lot more into kritiks in my junior and senior year, with a lot of Buddhism, and some MLM and Baudrillard. I find these arguments to be a valuable and fun tool in debate and am happy to evaluate these debates to the best of my ability.

Don’t assume I know your literature and esp in high school if ur reading smt nuts then take questions (it’ll help me too!).

Specific links to the aff are much more compelling than generic links or those of omission, which I will hold a higher threshold on.

I enjoyed K affs a lot more in my senior year and I’m down to hear them. I think FW/T is good when done well - I personally like the “we lead to better versions of ur aff bc truth testing is good” version more than the “drop them!! they didn’t fulfill their burden!!” complaining version but you do you.

Random Specific Thoughts Post NPTE 2023

Genocide seems pretty bad! The PMR seems to exist! Topicality and spec seem to be different things!

I have similar thoughts to Tim: The PMR should probably get to read new offense against the block’s rhetoric bc how would the MG predict that the block was gonna say slurs. IDK seems to make sense to me. And I will not randomly intervene to decide what rhetoric is “reasonably egregious” or not, ESPECIALLY if I’m a CIA-employed Zionist imperialist actor (to clarify which I am not). That seems pretty bad to me idk!

I have no idea wtf extending the perm means. I feel like if you want to extend a perm to get rid of an unconditional counterplan then you have to either read or pick some kind of terminal defense to get rid of your own competition. For example, you need to say “extend this defense” which means the counterplan doesn’t work and so the world of the counterplan solely is the status quo. Then if you extend the perm that makes sense to me because then the uncondo counterplan is the status quo so the world of the perm vs the CP is the same as the world of the aff vs the status quo. If you don’t do this then the only way you can get rid of offense on your counterplan probably seems to be actually kicking it. But I am slightly iffy about this so explain how extending the perm gets rid of the uncondo CP please thx.

Everything seems like fiat based on my understanding - if fiat is saying that we “should” do something and then imagine the consequences of that action then almost everything seems like it fiats an action. This also extends to the pre/post fiat distinction since either smt that is prefiat is saying their speech act has done something to change the world in which case I don’t know why I have to vote for you uniquely if that impact has already occurred, or my ballot will do something in which case the “pre” vs “post” fiat distinction seems mildly blurry to me but idk. This probably does not change the way I evaluate rounds, since I’ll assume the traditional fiat = policymaking fiat paradigm until someone tells me that fiat is what it rly is, in which case you can do a lot more weighing with the policymaking 1AC. This still doesn’t preclude framework analysis, in which case I will default to epistemic modesty over confidence (this means impacts = probability of ur framework being true x ur impact).

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on Instagram (@tejas.prabhune), Messenger (Tejas Prabhune), Discord (papaya#8124), email me at prabhune@berkeley.edu, or ask away before the start of round!

I’m very down to be postrounded at the above places as well - I encourage you to push me to be a better judge.

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

About Me: I'm a parent judge in my second year of judging, and I'm thrilled to be here to witness you debate with passion!

Here are the specific aspects I prioritize:

1. Logic: While evidence holds importance, I give higher weight to the clarity and strength of your logical reasoning.

2. Clarity: The ease with which I can follow your thought process and the effectiveness of your speech are important to me.

3. Honesty: I greatly value fair play, so calling out any fallacies or inaccurate/unfair statements is a plus.

Note: I'm slow in processing, so please talk clearly and at a normal pace.

· I am a parent judge with many years of experience judging debates and public speaking.

· I value the presentation of the debate a lot, and look for good eye contact, diction, and inflection of the voice.

· A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments

· Please do speak clearly. Speed is okay, but you must be understandable. Please remember this is not about how fast you can go, it’s about how good your arguments are.

. I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments.

. If I am unable to clearly hear your arguments, the ending decision may not end up being fair. (I am not a fan of spreading)

. I have no knowledge on theory/kritiks/jargon, so please don't run them.

. Make your impacts clear to me. Highlight why you win the round.

. Ask POIs, and take at least 1.

· Remember that in order to get good speaker scores, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to favor debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

· And finally, please enjoy your debates. It will show in your performance.

Hi, I’m a judge who has debated before, so I’m familiar with both lay and tech styles. Here’s what you can expect from me:

1. Logic Over Tech: I prioritize strong logical arguments over excessive technical jargon. If your case is clear, well-reasoned, and backed with solid impacts, you’ll do well.
2. Weighing Is Key: Please provide comparative weighing. Tell me why your impacts, values, or mechanisms matter more than your opponents’. If you don’t weigh, I will, but you probably won’t like how I do it.
3. Theory: I’m open to theory arguments, but structure them well. Clearly articulate your shell (interpretation, violation, standards, and voters). If it’s poorly explained or seems frivolous, I’ll be less inclined to vote on it.
4. Speaking Speed: Speak at a medium pace—not too fast, not too slow. Enunciation matters; if I can’t flow it, I can’t vote on it.
5. Framework: I’m fine with framework debates, but make sure you explain why your framework should govern the round and apply it throughout the debate. If you both drop it, I’ll default to the standard of whichever side gives the clearest path to offense.
6. Clash: Direct engagement is crucial. Don’t just extend your own arguments—spend time dismantling your opponent’s case. The more you interact with each other’s content, the better the debate becomes.
7. Speaker Points: I reward clarity, confidence, and good strategy. Be respectful and professional; any rudeness or over-aggression will cost you points. If you mention crumbl, ill give you a few bonus points.
8. Evidence: I appreciate well-cited evidence but won’t automatically vote on card dumps. Tell me why your evidence matters in the broader debate.
9. Clear Voting Issues (Voters): Give me a roadmap at the end of the round. Summarize your key arguments and why they should win you the debate. I’ll evaluate based on what’s on the flow, but a clear crystallization makes my job easier.

I am a Parent Judge and I would like to hear about facts and figures during the debate. I would prefer to hear debate points in a slow and clear way.

All the best to all the contestants. Having been a judge for more than a year I look for good eye contact, clear and concise arguments, respectful behavior and clear speaking. Confidence is the key, not aggression.

Email : subrantap@yahoo.com

Hello! I’m Sunila, an IT professional with extensive experience in Healthcare IT operations and database solution deployments.

As a debate judge, I value clear and structured speeches. Please start with an outline or breakdown before diving into your arguments.

Important notes for speakers:

• No spreading. Speak at a moderate pace, if possible give a offtime breakdown before your speech.
• I vote for the team that presents the most compelling case, supported by meaningful reasoning backed by strong evidence, examples, and statistics.
• I appreciate critical thinking, collaboration, and effective refutations grounded in relevant reasoning.

Delivery tips:

• Use an appropriate tone, volume, pace, and gestures to effectively convey your message.
• Minimize filler words, hesitations, and distractions.
• Add a touch of humor, show confidence, and bring charisma to your speech—leave a lasting impression!

Looking forward to hearing your arguments! Good Luck!

I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.

Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.

I am a lay judge. I have been judging parli debate for 2 years. I prefer clear and not too fast speaking. I vote off of reasonable arguments and whichever team has the strongest points standing at the end.

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

Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:

1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.

2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.

3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.

4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.

5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.

6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.

7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.

8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.

9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D

parliamentary debate at berkeley debater o7 i'm most familiar with case, cap, and buddhism. i think knowing things and putting in the work to know things should translate into wins, and I don't care about how you speak or present yourself in the round so long as I can flow it and it's not unkind. i don't know what people perceive my biases to be (if you perceive me to be a particularly good or bad judge for anything, please let me know! it would be educational for me), but i'd like to think myself chill for anything other than complaining about "tech". maybe i'm also bad for ks that heavily rely on going for frameouts.

here's all the most actionable and like not literally every judge thinks this stuff:

• It is my mission to eradicate prep stealing. I will bastion ult your speaks!!! don't do it!!!!

• I'm down for rejecting the topic, just win the T sheet - i think it becomes much easier to win T when the topic is bad, forces debaters to defend imperialism, is not affirmable, etc. I'm also down for breaking the trichotomy i.e. reading plantexts on value and fact topics when one could reasonably be defended, again, just win the trichot sheet.

• Preponderance of evidence is not a weighing mechanism, I ponder evidence every round. It is as best something that I can do in service of an actual weighing mechanism (i.e. you need to explain to me what the topic actually wants me to preponder evidence towards)—like I at least need some burdens or definitions that are contextually evaluable. I default to net benefits.

• I default to judge intervention being axiomatically bad, and will attempt to minimize it. If it's won that I am to intervene on an issue, I truly will do whatever the heck I want, so ask me to intervene at your own risk.

• I evaluate the round by going down the LOR and PMR. I do highlight important things in the MO and go back and reference the MO against the PMR, but I do actually think the LOR is important and you will have a much better chance of winning me if your LOR is organized into voters.

• I by default weakly protect, but if you ask me not to protect before your rebuttal I won't. I think point of orders are actually really cool and yall should call them and argue about newness. Like obviously don't call POOs that you think are wrong, but call all of them that you think are right. I'll try my best to rule.

• I tend to evaluate theory fairly technically, i.e. convoluted interps, kicking the interp but going for a standard implicated to somewhere else, reading an rvi as an oci, convoluted counterinterps that solve the standards are all cool. I'm not like extremely confident in my ability to parse every argument related to competing interps tho, so like explain xd.

• I am chill with friv, but at this point I feel like it's become a tool of laziness. Maybe the problem is just that the contexts in which friv is read in front of me are usually those in which it provides a free win, so I never get to see an actually good debate on the standards proper, which is sad, because I feel like the general lack of learning how to do good theory responses shows that even if teams started reading cap instead, they'd just collect free ballots on cap and still nobody would bother to get good at responding to cap. Maybe I'm wrong tho and friv prolif actually has increased the amount of people who are good at responding to friv. Regardless, I'd much prefer to judge K debate or good case debate, but I do recognize that friv is fun, so I'm reserving the right to cap speaks for any non-T theory collapse to 28, with no effect on my evaluation.

• My policy towards speed theory is one of strategic ambiguity. I dislike how speed theory often becomes a vibe check call for intervention and will attempt to avoid evaluating it as such, i.e. I will fairly strictly evaluate the line by line. Win the line by line first, then win the vibe check. I simultaneously think making a good-faith effort to slow to some floating reasonable speed is probably kind.

here are the stuff that every judge thinks but that i think are important and not enough debaters do:

• You should read terminalized impacts. Death, dehum, suffering, quality of life, genocide, cultural genocide, ontological violence, racism, are all things that I'd consider "good enough," but specificity will enable you to weigh. You should weigh. You should metaweigh, meaning tell me what metric of weighing I should be using, independent to whether you outweigh on that metric.

• COLLAPSE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COLLAPSE. If you have two viable substantive outs in the block, make sure you are completely done with winning everything you could possibly want on one before you go for the other.

my paradigm mostly exists so I can gesture at it when the round doesn't answer important questions for me, but there's also probably some helpful stuff for yall in there: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

feel free to ask me anything before the round.

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work