I'm a lawyer and have judged parli debates several times. I've also judged mock trials and moot court. I want to hear the strongest and most credible evidence that supports your position. Sometimes less is more. I like debaters that anticipate their opponents' arguments and try to steal their thunder. As for style, I don't care if you talk fast so long you are clear and understandable. Respect your opponent. To quote the Bard, "And do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends." 

I am a parent judge with multiple years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.

Hi, I'm a parent judge. I'm new to judging. In general, I'm comfortable with fast speakers, but I may ask you to slow down a tad if I'm unable to keep up. Please be respectful to everyone involved - your teammates, opponents, coaches and judges. Lastly, don't stress out, and have fun.

My name is Dr Jason Belk and I have been judging Parli Debate since 2021, not virtual and in person. Looks forward to another event. I strongly discourage any use of AI or chatGPT.

Hello- my name is Erin Biber and this is my first time judging a high school debate. I'm excited to be here and look forward to hearing your arguments. Here are a few things to know about how I approach judging: While I may be new to judging debate I have had experience teaching high school for 15 years. I believe in fair and impartial judging. I value logical arguments and solid evidence. I value respectful engagement with opponents. I will be taking notes but I'm always engaged in listening to you. Thank you and good luck to you!

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

Top-level:

Read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years. Now I go for only policy arguments in college.

Tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention

Judge instruction in the rebuttals is crucial and slow down if its something important

Well researched and specific neg strats > generics

Quality of cards > quantity of cards

Topicality:

Specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

Competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

I am good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's. Not great for competition debates

Judgekick is fine but the 2nr needs to say it and justify it

Disadvantages:

Not much to say here. Explicit turns case and impact analysis makes the DA a lot more persuasive.

Mitigating the case is very important.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with most common K literature

Throughout high school we went for: afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

I'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

Specific links to the aff >>> generic links

Explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

I'm fine if you go for framework + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

Framework is usually the most important part of these debates

K-Affs:

K-affs should be unique to the topic

Explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

If you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt da's or case turns i'll err neg

K-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

I don't think you need to win spill-up claims or that debate shapes subjectivity but I want to know why the ballot is good

Framework vs K-Affs:

I do not care if you go for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

Debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

I prefer a counter interp but am fine for a straight impact turn strategy

The counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments

Affs need specific answers to tva and ssd

Its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

Neg case debating is key because most aff fwk da's are embedded in the case

K v K:

These debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

Affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

Anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

Condo is good up until 5 or 6 then I am more persuaded by theory arguments.

I have a low threshold for answering cheap theory shots

LD stuff:

Everything from the rest of my paradigm applies

Good for policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, k v k, theory

I haven't seen much of phil debate but it seems fine-- make sure to explain arguments thoroughly though

Would prefer not to judge tricks but will still evaluate them

No RVI's

Random stuff:

The death k is a valid argument

You can insert rehighlightings if the lines in the card have already been read by the other team but you must read any new lines/warrants.

Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

Aff: It’s hard to sell me on the “if we have even a 1% chance of solving” narrative, instead I prefer for Aff to stand firmly behind a strong advocacy. I would always prefer a straight-up Affirmative plan to a squirrely, technically-still-upholds-the-motion case. If you choose to be squirrely, I’ll listen to you, but will be extra-receptive to Neg burden presses and topicality arguments.

Neg: I don’t think Neg’s burden (by default, but you can change my mind) includes anything more than proving why Aff’s plan is a bad idea, and so it’s entirely possible for a negative team to win just off refutation and disadvantages they thought up in the moment. That said, I want Neg to show me what they did in prep time. Make me believe you put some thought into this round before you walked in the door, or I tend to lean Aff.

Impacts: I much prefer a reasonable, well-linked impact to a blown-out-of-proportion one. Just because you technically can link your argument to nuclear war or dehumanization of masses of people doesn’t mean it is in your best interest to do so. 

Kritiks: You are welcome to run them, and I will be receptive to them. However, anti-K arguments don’t require a shell, and I always prefer for both teams to still engage on the case if a kritik is run.

An Unpopular Opinion: I believe that the place of parliamentary debate is to instill public speaking skills and the ability to think on one’s feet. I like convincing speakers, who tell stories and explain evidence as though they read it more than 20 minutes ago. I like to pretend that you all believe in the arguments you make. But, Thomas Jefferson put it nicely: “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend,” and as a judge, I certainly won’t use personal beliefs as a reason to vote you down.

Hello, I’m a parent new to judging parliamentary debate. While I’m still learning the intricacies of this style, I am committed to being fair and attentive to each round. Here’s what you can expect from me as your judge:

1. Clarity and Communication: Since I’m still familiarizing myself with parli terminology, I greatly appreciate clear and structured arguments. If I can follow your points, it will help me evaluate your case more effectively.

2. Respectful and Civil Discourse: I value respectful engagement between debaters. While I understand debate can get passionate, please maintain professionalism and respect towards each other.

3. Argument Weighing: I will weigh arguments based on the logical strength of the case and the evidence or reasoning provided. Don’t assume I know everything about the topic, so make sure to explain complex concepts in a straightforward way.

4. Speed (Spreading): I prefer a moderate speaking pace. Please don’t spread, as it might hinder my ability to follow all your points. Clear, concise arguments are more persuasive to me.

5. Role of the Judge: I view my role as an objective evaluator of the round. I will do my best to flow (take notes) throughout, but if something is crucial to your case, emphasize it clearly in your speeches.

Thank you for your patience as I learn the ropes and I look forward to hearing your debate!

I'm a new debate judge - I've judged speech though. I'd prefer slow and clear speaking so that I can be sure I understand your arguments. Good luck!

Hello!

My name is Simone. I graduated high school earlier this year. I am experienced in debate. My background is some policy, but mostly parliamentary. Im interested in hearing convincing structured arguments. Please be respectful in your rounds!

Looking forward to see everyone debate.

I did c-x in high school and parli in college and have gotten back into the swing of judging quite recently. I flow and can keep up. A few things I would note about my own thinking as I process my judging decisions:

To win: crystallize for me what matters, why it matters and why you win that issue. As we get to the end of the debate, save time by compressing the flow to this vs. going over what by that point is an increasingly overlapping set of gov and opp contentions and refutations. Synthesis also saves time and lets you really own the arguments that matter. You won't lose if there is a minor point that falls through the flow - I will see it in my flow, but unless the other team makes a clear case that dropped issue is important, it won't be decisive.

Specific likes:

1. I like creativity and wit. Pulling off a clever argument gets more points than an obvious argument.
2. I really like when you can show how specific examples your opponent uses/logic they employ actually work against them. I notice a lot of examples are not thought through by a team and can get used against them - I appreciate when their opponents notice!

Specific dislikes:

1. My point above notwithstanding, especially early on, you should respond to everything in the flow, even if briefly, especially if you have time. Ending a speech early and simply not addressing points on the flow feels like time not well spent
2. Pay attention to the definition - if you disagree/need to contend with how government has defined things, lay it out early. Government, if something about your definition makes some of the opposition's points irrelevant, say so.
3. If you want an off-time roadmap, it should be something important to share/different - no need if all you are doing is reviewing your opponent's points and reinforcing your own
4. Please don't just reassert an argument you have made previously. If your opponent has offered a refutation, say something new - don't just make the same assertion again. If they have not refuted it, let me know it is unrefuted and why it is important/why I should care

I am a novice judge. I look for good delivery.

I judge based on the effectiveness of the debaters' presentation. Address your arguments to the judge. Have a good grasp of current events. Link your statements to your overall point. Explain to me like I'm five years old, as they say. Appear authoritative. Present your ideas as if you really believe them. Re-state your overall framework a few times, but don't be repetitive.

Hi! I’m a first-time parent judge. Please be kind and respectful. I’m looking for clarity and organization. Please don’t speak too fast. Good luck!

This is the first time I will be judging a debate tournament so please state the topic, the definition and the weighing mechanism (if any) clearly. Please time yourself and try to go a bit slower so I can follow along. My pronouns are she/her. I will try my best to judge with an open mind, please be be respectful during the rounds.

I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

I am a parent and new to judging, and though I am in the learning stages, I am committed to being fair and attentive.
I am looking for clear communication, respectful engagement, a moderate speaking pace & concise arguments.
Thank you for your patience while I learn.

I am looking for clearly articulated arguments and evidence supporting those arguments. Don't speak too fast and clearly refute your opponents. Refutations matter the most to me as long as your case is solid.

As a first-time judge and debate newbie, I am looking to you to guide me clearly and concisely through your debate round. If I have to think about a point because I don't understand what has been said, I won't get it and will score accordingly. I'm looking forward to see what this is all about!

Hi, I'm Liv, I've been involved in debate for a while.

Debate:

I weigh factors in the following order: 1) magnitude 2) probability 3) timeframe.I like a clear case with obvious advantages/disadvantages, links, internal links, etc. Before your speech, I like a quick off-time road map unless you're PMC, I will be timing your speeches and am okay with a 30-second grace period.

Speech:

Please speak loudly and with diction. I am okay with cussing if it adds to your point.

I'm honored to be a judge and so impressed with the quality of teams that I have the pleasure to judge:

- I find roadmaps helpful, either off-time or on-time is fine

- Please speak at a pace that is understandable. If you are speaking too fast, I won't be able to hear your key points

- Please be respectful to me, your teammate, and your opponents

Good luck and make your school proud!

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

I competed in forensics back in high school (policy debate, national and then international extemp, impromptu, HI, and student congress) and college (primarily extemp and impromptu with a little CEDA debate). I served as the co-director of forensics at UC Berkeley in 1993-94, was co-director of the Cal invitational, and coached a bit. I judged more than my share of rounds in every forensics event that existed in the 1980s and '90s. Of course that did NOT include parliamentary debate...

This will be my FIRST parli tournament. It is also my first time judging any kind of debate tournament in around 25 years. You will probably want to avoid finding out if I can still flow a round where the debaters are all-out spreading. I will be far more receptive to logical arguments with strong links and real-world impacts than to squirrel-y arguments with mediocre links and highly unlikely impacts. Please signpost your arguments. Most importantly, please have fun!

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

My name is Elisandra (they/she). Senior at Berkeley High School, 4 years of Parli experience

Achievements include being called something along the lines of "scary nose ring girl" by a confirmed 7 teams. Hobbies include debating, watching people debate, teaching people how to debate, writing about debate, thinking about debate.

tl;dr- I don't protect, I dislike off time roadmaps in lay rounds, be nice, have fun, run what you want

Case

- Tech > Truth.. This means I will vote on offense you win and weigh without intervention, regardless of if I have some preconceived idea it is false. That being said, tabula rasa cannot exist or else I wouldn't be able to impact weigh so your incentives aren't to lie

- I intervene if the argument is problematic

- Most east coast rounds are won on framing so make sure you have a clear and consistent model, as well as a confident idea of what the world you're defending looks like

-I like counterplans. I dislike ridiculously plan inclusive counterplans. The bright line is confusing- but please just negate the resolution don't come at me with some 50 states bs

- Spend your rebuttal speeches weighing and not recapping

Speaks

-I do speaks based on organization, signposting, creative argumentation and case construction

- Speaks are super subjective but be silly when its appropriate I'm fairly generous

- Speaks r the first thing I tank when you say problematic stuff before I auto drop

Theory

Non east coast ig-

-rvi's are fire

-Pls stop running friv against lay teams/novs

-Pls stop running theory that polices debaters clothing, appearance, or vernacular/manner of speaking

-I vote on anti K theory,... (especially when the only justification I've heard against doing so is it "sounds like whining??")

-If you don't know what these words mean you don't need to

Kritikal

- NYPDL: Why., just run an a priori moral philosophy argument or sum idk.. smth not banned in the league

- I like kritikal ads/disads, no one should be running ks in front of me until next year

Pls ask me questions about my paradigm, decision, debating advice. Also down to offer debate resources I put together as co prez of the bhs team, schedule practice rds with our debaters etc.- especially if ur a small/newer school pls reach out to me ;))

Elisandramoulitsasbatista@students.berkeley.net

I am the Director of Policy for the San Francisco's Office of Housing and Community Development. I have a professional and personal interest in policy and civic engagement. I hope you do too!

Do

• be respectful of opponents
• I value quality over quantity in your arguments. Focus on depth and detail instead of overwhelming with points
• Impact out your claims
• An off-time road map is helpful
• Time your own speech

Don't

• Speak faster than I can flow
• make so many arguments that your opponents don't have time to refute

I am a first time judge. I will vote based on the quality of reasoning, clarity of thought, and clear diction.

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I flow the debate. I have been judging debates for 6 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

Logic and reasoning are key in parle.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

Hello! I'm a relatively new judge. I appreciate clarity and not rapid-fire speech, and courtesy along the way with the opposing team. I look forward to hearing your well-laid out arguments. Thank you.

I am a working professional with experience in high school as a Lincoln Douglas debater.

I enjoy hearing solid, well expressed reasoning and arguments. I look for professional conduct and respect and I am very interested to understand and hear debaters' explanations of their positions. Citing examples and grounding on tangibles will help me understand and weigh the case.

Hello! I look forward to listening to your debate and learning from your team's logic, creativity and critical thinking.

Here is a little bit of background about me. I have a significant legal background, but I am fairly new to Parli debate. I am a parent of JV debaters. To help me follow your team's arguments, please speak slowly and clearly. In addition, please clearly organize your arguments. Finally, please note that I have a high regard for civility. It takes a considerable amount of strength to remain calm, logical and civil in the midst of a heated debate.

I am a former high school debater, current Benicia High School coach.

I will buy most (non-offensive) arguments as long as they are well supported.

Go as fast as you want at your own risk, excessive spreading can lead to me missing parts of your argument. I will not fill in the blanks.

Any argument can win as long as it is a good one.

Open to T's and K's, however they must be connected to the round, how is up to you.

My first time judging a speech and debate contest was in September 2023 and I learned a lot. I have also watched example videos, taken the Cultural Competency course and reviewed the rules. I studied public policy in college and enjoy hearing well-reasoned arguments on current affairs. I will do my best to be impartial and provide feedback that I hope students will find useful.

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