I’m all about clear, well-organized arguments over speed. While I get that spreading is a strategy, I prefer calm, thoughtful delivery where points are easy to follow. Quality over quantity!

I also appreciate good signposting—it helps both me and the audience stay on track. Keeping things organized and clear is the way to win my vote!

Most importantly, remember to have fun and enjoy the experience! Good luck :)

Debate is a game nothing more. I am a coach now and competed in NPDA for several years. I will vote for anything and I am familiar with almost all arguments including theories and Ks. I do not care if you are polite. This is debate not a conversation.

hi sorry writing this super last minute so it’s really short but if you have any questions please feel free to ask before round starts!!!

i'm a sophomore at pitzer college. i did high school speech and debate for four years and competed in about 10 different events. in debate i mainly did parli and congress, but i do have experience with lay policy.

PARLI: i want to see a debate with a lot of CLASH!! i don’t want to just hear you restate the same points in every speech, and i’ll probably dock you speaker points if that’s all you do. i protect the flow. i vote completely off the flow unless there are blatant lies that are harmful to the educational aspect of parliamentary debate. use your pois!! be clear and articulate, interact with your opponents, and don’t drop arguments. also remember that you are doing SPEECH and debate so make sure to use some speech skills to convince me that your side is the right one!! i expect you guys to time yourselves and keep each other in check. i won't listen to anything past the agreed upon grace period. being overly rude to your opponents will dock you speaker points.

CONGRESS: be memorable--in your speaking style, intro+conclusion, arguments, rhetoric, etc. want speeches with clash and actual acknowledgement of what other people have said even if it's just to agree with them/build on their point. i flow general ideas/points from your speeches

i think i hit all the main points but definitely ask for clarifications if you need them

good luck :)

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
25 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

The Basics: Hi! I’m Alex, I use they/he pronouns, and I compete for El Camino College in both IEs and debate. I have experience in parli, POI, impromptu, IPDA, LD, and extemp with judging experience in public forum.

The Real Stuff:My decisions usually come down to who has the most realisticimpacts with strong links and clear inherency. Not a huge fan of nuke war/any global extinction impacts unless you’re giving me a fantastic link story. You can run theory (agood, well-structured, purposeful K is one of my great debate loves) but make sure it has a purpose in the round that isn’t just to give your opponent more stuff to cover and, again, is well-structured.

Also- be creative!! Forensics is a performing art as much as it is an academic event so don’t hesitate to get silly!

Be respectful, be organized, have fun ☆

I am a parent judge and I've only briefly heard about debate from overhearing my son's practices.

Please don't spread.

I believe that debate is about being able to paint a strong picture of your argument, and this picture must effectively convince me why your argument holds more weight. However, this doesn't mean I don't value the aspects of logic. Your logic and argument should be sound and thorough. When making a claim it should require a warrant, whether it be some sort of empirical or historical evidence paired up with a clear reasoning. When it comes to making my final decision I also value when you demonstrate confidence and can communicate your points effectively.

Hi! My name is Sean. I am a parent judge and I primarily judge Parli and Impromptu. When speaking please always be respectful to your opponents and teammates. The most important things to me are clarity, communication, and organization. Rude behavior will not be tolerated, this includes hateful speech and aggressive speaking. But most importantly have fun!

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I am fine with speed, but I think you slow down if your opponents ask you to. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should prove you made an effort to get them to slow down and they didn't. Otherwise it can be difficult to prove a violation, but I do think speed bad arguments can be necessary in situations where one team is deliberately weaponizing speed as a tool of exclusion.

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I don't believe in the mission of IPDA and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's unless there is an argument made in round that they are bad for accessibility (which I am open to especially for students from teams that don't do other formats). I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).

When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

email chain: csulbegg@gmail.com

LAMDL/DMHS '23 now debating at CSULB '27

ppl i talk abt debate with: jean kim (bestieeee), aless escobar (my db8 partner), gabby torres, erika linares, curtis ortega, diego flores, deven cooper, jaysyn green

stuff to know

tabroom has been glitching but please refer to me as Dorian they/them even if my name shows up as something else

have the chain done before im in the room if possible

be nice to each other

things to know

run whatever arguments you're the best at. i vote on things i don't think are true all the time. so stick to what you know.

i appreciate a good role of the ballot/judge and framework debate above anything else. if you're winning framework, use that to your advantage!

annunciation > spreading like please i dont wanna be mean but like please...

impact things out. if something was dropped, tell me why that matters in the round.

i LOVE LOVE LOVE "even if" arguments

don't just do defense, also make offensive arguments and force your opponents to explain the nitty gritty of their stuff

you become a lot more compelling when you use real world scenarios/examples for every argument

if you come up with questions after the round, have your coaches email me :)

Ks & K Affs

I'm a K-aff and K-friendly judge so feel free to pref me if that's what you go for. Make the framework debate exceptionally clear for me. Do extensive work on how your K Aff creates subject formation or changes subjectivities and why reading the k aff in the debate space is good. It is crucial you make and win these arguments in every speech. I think these arguments are inherently true and winnable but don't just automatically assume I'll believe this if it is not made a huge deal in the round since on instinct T/FW teams are gonna say k affs are useless (which i soooo disagree with but not winning these arguments makes debating a K aff exceptionally harder) and you SHOULD have extensive answers to this...

As for Ks as an off case, really just make the links known. like spending 1-3 minutes of your speech on the links will do you justice and also do more work to explain the alternative because I feel as though the alt debate almost becomes an afterthought in some debates . . . also don't assume i automatically know what you're talking about if you're running some higher theory things. So idk, I would appreciate a good overview lol

T & T-FW

i like to try to be a flexi debater so if T/T-FW if your go-to then I'm willing to vote on that as well. Impact the procedural out and definitely use examples of how their model of debate wasn't/can never be fair to you.

LD specific

don't do tricks

speaker points

i start at a 28.5

good speech organization, line-by-line, answering things said in cross X will get you good speaks

i will lower speaks for general rudeness in round or only one partner engaging/answering CX the entire time or spreading with no annunciation

i think a lot of kids don't know the difference between being assertive and rude so if I find behavior particularly problematic I'll notify coaches

i would prefer if you didn't run arguments that interfere with the way I evaluate speaks. I try my best not to inflate speaker points and be fair in my assessment of who deserves what speaks.

I will disclose speaks after the round only if requested during the rfd.

thx for reading

since u made it to the end something you should know about me is that i love cats. if you can guess what my fav cat breed is I will give you +0.1 on your speaker points (hint its an expensive cat and is kinda instagram-famous) email me your guess with everyone on a chain and i will reply if you got it right.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (2023-present). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round (or, in parli, a new argument out of the block). I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think debaters sharing docs with each other increases the likelihood of them trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

- 4 years of traditional LD
- 4 years of APDA college Parli
- 11 years of coaching

_________________________________________

SUMMARY:
- experienced “truthful tech” flow judge from a traditional background
- true arguments made with good technique > true arguments > everything else
- topical case debate > stock critical debate > necessitated theory > everything else
- you should weigh well-warranted, terminalized impacts to get my ballot
- big fan of strategic collapses, prioritize and go all-in on what matters
- smart analytics + good cards > smart analytics > good cards
- sit/stand/handstand, whatever’s comfortable for you works for me
- always be kind & respectful, try to learn something new in every round

CAUTIONS:
- I don't know how to evaluate high theory, AFF Ks, performance
- not a fan of non-topical / clash-evasive progressive debate
- will probably hack against tricks, frivolous theory, and other meme-y tech
- I have a high threshold for warranting relative to other experienced judges
- I tend not to like race-to-extinction scenarios/am skeptical of futurism
- speed is fine, but never use it to exclude an opponent, L20 if you do
- I don't follow along in speechdocs; this is an oral communication activity

LARP/POLICY:
- never voted for de-dev/spark, sorry!
- AFFs must prove risk of solvency to win
- NEGs must disprove/outweigh the AFF
- love smart counterplans & perms
- don't love conditionality

THEORY:
- friv is L20, unless mutually agreed in a down round
- competing interpretations > reasonability
- education > fairness > access
- RVIs are probably good
- lean DTA > DTD

TOPICALITY:
- please be topical; stable resolutions are good!
- reasonability > competing interpretations
- pragmatics > semantics
- RVIs are probably bad
- almost always DTD > DTA

KRITIK:
- most receptive to stock Ks (e.g. capitalism, anthropocentrism, securitization)
- links should be cited examples of wrongdoing; links of omission aren’t links
- explain the K’s thesis in plain English – don’t hide behind poorly cut gibberish
- I won’t evaluate anything that asks me to judge a student’s innate identity
- rejecting the AFF/NEG is not an alternative; the alt must advocate for something

chain email: csulbkt@gmail.com

Jean Kim (she/her) policy debater @ CSULB '27

my favorite debaters: Dorian Gurrola (debate bestie), Gavvie Torres (debate partner), Erika Linares (debate sister), Aless Escobar (debate twin), Curtis Ortega, Jaysyn Green, Deven Cooper

please know

spread at your own risk. not being clear enough will dock your speaks.

have a lot of pathos to convince me I enjoy the dramatics

speaker points

start at 28.5

i flow cross X and weigh that into speaker evaluation

please don't tell me what I should be doing with my speaker points

using real world examples to support your arguments are very compelling and will results in good speaks

i'll disclose speaks if you ask during the rfd

LD specific

don't do tricks plz

K affs

Good K-affs will have a strong link to the topic or else I find it to be an uphill battle. You MUST be making arguments about why the debate space is key and/or it changes subjectivities and/or results in subject formation. I am a K-aff friendly judge if you'd like to pref me but if you're not winning the arguments I listed above I'll find it harder to vote aff. And I do think those claims are winnable but it must be a huge part of the aff in EVERY speech.

K's

love a good K. don't assume I know high theory literature, definitely wouldn't mind an in-depth overview. you should be winning your framework and alternative. I also appreciate an in-depth link debate or seeing those links cross applied on case.

T/T-FW

i'm also willing to vote on this. focus more on how the MODELS of debate that are being forwarded are particularly bad for debate for XYZ reason. So think of what their model of debate looks like outside of this round and why it's unfair/bad for education/worse for clash/etc.

Case

neg should be saying there is a 0% chance of solvency, go for case turns, or if there is a small chance of solvency it still results in something worse than the squo etc. also neg ... never drop the aff impacts especially if it's like an extinction impact .. aff should be saying any risk of solvency is a reason to vote aff/case outweighs/aff is a good idea.

CP

this is cool, just make the net benefit the top of the flow every speech if this is what you go for. should be saying how the CP solves the aff AND more (i.e. disad or case turn).

THANKS FOR READING :DDDDD

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

He/him

Affiliation: Leland HS '16, currently coaching for Leland HS

Competed 4 years HS parli(lay)/extemp, 3 years Congress(local+nat circuit), 1 year college parli(APDA). I've been judging for about 8 years, and coaching for 5 years.

I usually judge congress, with some occasional parli/PF.

General things:

-Don't be racist/sexist/ableist/discriminatory.

-Presentation skills(essentially make sure I can hear and understand you) matter for speaker points, but organization/clarity of your case/argument structures matter more. Appearance should not and will not be a factor.

-Organization/clarity is key--signpost, use clear taglines, make it very clear where I should be on my flow.

Parli(and some things applicable enough to PF):

-I'm not going to time for you(so time yourselves), though I may have a stopwatch going for my own personal use. Generally, once you go past 15-20 seconds overtime, I'll just stop flowing.

-Pretty much all of my experience is with lay/case debate, which I strongly prefer/can understand best. I have voted for theoretical/kritikal arguments before, but don't expect me to be knowledgeable or well-read. Run those arguments if you really want to, but be prepared to do more explaining at a more basic level than you usually do. Keep things simple/clear/clean/organized, and that'll give me the best chance at understanding/voting for your arguments.

-I can't really do speed-If you go too fast for me, I'll call "clear" and hope you slow down. If you don't, I provide no guarantees for the state of my flow.

-Impacts are very important. Please have them, please explain them, please terminalize them. Impact calculus is also very important to me. Please have it, because that significantly influences how I vote. I'd also suggest you have a clear/consistent/strong internal link chain, because your impacts should make sense.

-Write my ballot for me. To put things poorly, some of the best rounds that I've judged are the ones where I've done a minimum of independent thought and work-give me your impact weighing, make clear the voters, and highlight critical parts of the debate and explain why they fall in your favor.

-POIs/Crossfire: Useful/purposeful POIs are appreciated, but don't be rude or impolite. I would rather that at least one(maybe two) questions be taken, but given time constraints, not taking any questions is perfectly fine, and won't impact your speaks. POIs generally aren't put on the flow, but if something interesting gets brought up, I'll try to take note-if you want me to write something from POI/cross down I will, but responses/rebuttals should be brought up in your actual speeches.

-POOs: Call them. If a team introduces an entirely new argument in the LOR/PMR, I'll try to make sure it doesn't make it onto my flow, but I can't guarantee that I'll catch it unless a point of order is called.

Congress:

UNDERSTANDING MY CONGRESS BALLOT/RFD/FEEDBACK: Generally I'll just copy/paste my flow of your speech, with other notes/feedback/critique interspersed-hopefully, this lets you see which aspects of your speech and argumentation were most notable from a judge perspective, and how it influences my feedback. Your individual speech scores will reflect my judgement of that individual speech, and are not necessarily reflective of your overall performance in a given round.

CONGRESS NOTES:

-I see congress as a more holistic event compared to other debates, and will judge as such. Your speaking/presentation skills/quality of argumentation/questioning performance/overall level of activity and engagement with the chamber all matter.

-Presiding: I give good POs high ranks. The PO should not only be fair/fast/efficient, but also should make things very clear and understandable in their decisions and maintain decorum/control in the chamber. If there's clear bias or notable/repeated mistakes, expect low ranks. Know proper procedure. You don't necessarily need to know Robert's Rules of Order front to back, but you should have a very solid grasp on the common general motions/procedures in round. Please remember to call for orders of the day at the end of a day/session. (Note: If I'm a parliamentarian for the session, I'll be largely non-interventionist barring a point of order. Mistakes will still be noted.)

-Clash and rebuttals are important, especially with mid/late-cycle speeches, and will increase your likelihood of getting higher ranks. Clash is not just stating your point and a list of other legislator's names-it is actual engagement with and responsiveness to specific arguments made in the round.

-If you're giving the authorship, while you may not be able to refute anyone, your speech should establish enough background to allow me to understand the context of the rest of the debate. Give me the mandate for the legislation and the initial advantages. Do it well, and even an authorship that generally can't have clash/rebuttal will rank highly. There should not be multiple minutes of dithering because no one wants to give the authorship.

-Know how the flow of debate is going, and adapt your speeches accordingly. What would have been a good constructive speech early in the debate will be far more poorly received in later cycles, where crystallization/weighing/refutation speeches are more appropriate. Even if your speaking is competent, if you don't substantively contribute to the development of the overall debate, you won't get a good rank.

-Be polite/appropriately decorous. There's a not insignificant element of congressional role-playing in this event, and that should reflect in your speeches/argumentation/questioning.

Hi yall, I'm a current debate coach and I did 4 years of parli in HS. I agree with Kristina's paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=52599

Except for the speed part, I can't flow 300wpm so keep it slowish.

Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.

Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB

my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com

HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:

1. Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
2. Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.

SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.

HOW I JUDGE:

I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.

BUT-

If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.

K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.

DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.

CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.

T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.

LD-

Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.

I’m an experienced parent judge. I’m unfamiliar with progressive arguments so run k’s and theory at your own digression. I value clear, logical arguments and appreciate solid clash. I’m ok with speed but please keep spreading to a min. If I have to refer to a document in order to understand what you’re saying, you’re probably going too fast.

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread, do theory, run K's or any other technical parts of debate.

Hi everyone. I did varsity PF for fairmont prep for 4 years. I now judge for Canyon Crest.

Email: kionmanesh1@gmail.com

you can call me Kion (key-on) not judge cuz that sounds a bit odd.

tech > truth

to quote Jonah Sah: "have fun/be funny; it's high school debate; I think rounds should be relaxed. that being said, I will do my best to take the round seriously. debate takes a lot of work and I know what it feels like to have judges who aren't trying their hardest, so I will do my best to match or exceed your effort"

If I haven't covered anything here, or if you have any questions at all, ask!

SIDENOTE FOR Varsity PF - I haven't flowed a fast debate round in a hot second, so just keep that in mind before you go all 300 wpm. i can only vote on what i understand.

For NOVICE PF: if you know any of the below, that's great and try your best to adhere to it! Otherwise, just try your best and you will do great. I'll give you the best feedback I can as novice PF is the best place to learn skills early on as opposed to later. Don't worry about following my paradigm to a T, just try your best.

The basics

1) you should treat me like a tech who isn't great at flowing super fast or some types of prog. Theory is probably ok, I ran theory enough to know how it works, and K's are very case-dependent. Regardless, arguments must be warranted and understandable for me to vote on them. I will evaluate anything but I can't promise I'll be good at evaluating it (especially in very tech rounds I can get lost and I don't want to screw you over). Generally speaking, if it's a substance round you can go as tech as you want (still cap the speed) and if it's a K round you probably will need to be a little more explicit on things.

2) I really like good substance arguments. I also really like good (comparative) weighing, meta-weighing, and framework debates (as long as I can understand them). Running these things well means you are more likely to get higher speaks. Fun, creative, and/or nuanced arguments on the topic are more engaging to judge.

3) I will generally give high speaks. I've been 4-2 screwed enough to know it sucks and I want y'all to have fun and do well. I'll generally set the floor at 29's unless you've acted inappropriately.

4) To definitively win a round you must be winning offense and winning that the offense outweighs your opponent's offense. That's how I evaluate rounds so try to go for something like that. This means you should almost always collapse and weigh + metaweigh. Your best bet to winning a round is to simplify it and collapse on good, well-warranted arguments. Now if you wanna run some silly stuff, by all means, but do it well.

5) Generally speaking, things should be fair. For example, if it's in final it should be in summary unless you are responding to a new implication made in the last speech. Or, if you read 30 blippy, unwarranted turns my threshold for responses will be a lot lower, etc etc. Err on the side of being a nice person.

Things you should do when I'm judging

send speech docs with your evidence PLEASE it would be so much easier if you did and I'd be happy and your speaks will be higher

please signpost I get confused easily. Make the round easy for me.

I hate bad evidence ethics - just tell me to call for a card in speech and I'll look at it but I'll only look at evidence if you ask me to and say why it's bad. I am totally fine dropping evidence if it's miscut, dropping speaks, or dropping teams depending on how severe it is.

I'll let you finish your sentence overtime but after that I stop flowing

I may or may not listen to cross just depending but don't be a douche (ill dock speaks) and if its important from cross say it in a speech. The rule of thumb I use for cross is to trade off asking and answering questions and only doing follow-ups if you ask first. This makes it so much more civil so I would recommend

be nice in round don't be a douche canoe

extend, don't be blippy.

spectators don't get to be on devices during rounds

Some specific preferences I have

1) quality > quantity. If I'm gonna be persuaded by an argument or a response, it should be warranted and implicated in the roundwell. otherwise, you risk getting into intervention territory

2) Evidence comparison is a very good way to break the clash of two competing claims. If one team says affirming means interest rates go down, and the other says it means they go up, things like recency, methodology, etc. become a lot more important and you should implicate WHY. This can easily decide debates. Having good, well-warranted evidence to begin with is a good cheat-code too.

3) If I don't get your argument I will listen to cross to try to understand it. if i still don't get it, that's on you lol. just a heads up

4) I disclosed and didn't paraphrase. I think those are generally good norms. but i can be persuaded otherwise. if you run theory you still need to win it.

5) weighing should come earlier and the better it is or more of it you have the more likely you are to win a round. Good link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, or metaweighing can easily win my ballot.

6) have your evidence easily available and make sure you got cards.

if you are just here for giggles

1) if you wanna run some funny stuff, go ahead it would make things so much more interesting. There were a few times where I read Empiricus tricks because I couldn't break (and the other team could understand it) and it was really funny. I will give you the highest speaks I can if you run funny stuff or are funny because I like to laugh.

2) If both teams agree on something I am completely ok with it. Skipping grand cross, debating a different topic, whatever (as long as it is fair)

He/Him

Include me in the evidence chain if we're using one: lmcdonald@nuevaschool.org.

If any of this is confusing, ask me before the round and I'll explain.

PARLI (some of this might apply to PF but not all - read at own risk, ask questions):

!!! TERMINALIZE YOUR ARGUMENTS !!! Tell me why I should care about what you say happens That means more than just "this is bad for the environment", tell me why negative things happening to the "environment" is bad under your framing mechanism. Without telling me why things happening

I have functionally no experience judging Parli, but a solid amount of PF experience otherwise. That means a couple things:

• I don't have experience flowing Parli rounds; don't trust me to keep up with poorly signposted fast argumentation. This includes things like using the abbreviated speech names - I know what they are, but it takes me a moment to translate them from the abbreviation to the actual speech and that makes me lose the flow.
• I'll evaluate tech > truth to the degree possible. As long as its not abusive, which to be honest I don't have a brightline for, I'm very open to atypical argumentation. But...
• I don't have experience with theory or ks. No ex-ante dismissal of them, but I can't promise I know the conventions. Even for something like topicality, make sure you're really telling me what I should be doing with regards for the round, and why I should be doing so.
• I'l not great with speed - I'd recommend you don't go fast unless you're super, super clear.
• The quality of the presentation of your speech only matters to me with regards to how well your position is being articulated.

PUBLIC FORUM (some of this will apply to Parli but not all - read at own risk, ask questions):

Background:

Former PF debater with Nueva. Flow judge but my flowing skills were never that great - I'll follow your complicated arguments as long as you signpost your way through them.

It is my belief that debate is a game which we engage with to better ourselves through the mechanisms of competition, collaboration, inquiry, and improvisation.

Procedural Preferences:

Prefer if you don't call me "judge". Generally - it's my opinion that the speeches don't actually need to address a specific person (the judge), but instead should be given as if given to a public forum (hah, imagine that). If you want, you can just call me Liam though.

I can track relatively quick speech, but anything quick risks getting muddied on the flow - if you're way too fast for me to understand I'll call "clear".

All offense in final focus wants to be in a summary - ideally this means extended specific cards as well. No new offense in rebuttals (unless it links out of opponents case: turns, etc.). The whole offensive overview situation is pretty ambitious these days IMO - but I understand it's allowed as a convention. I feel like it crosses a line when there's new terminalization in an offensive overview read at the top of rebuttal that doesn't link out of internalized link turns on the opponents case.

I flow your summary entirely on your sheet in a new column - this shouldn't effect you unless you don't signpost your points and just read down the opponents flows when defending during summary (voters based summary speeches are sick).

Cross-X is for y'all not me. I won't flow it. Use it to understand the other case and bring any cool epiphanies into the actual speeches.

Round Interpretation:

The fastest path to the ballot is to weigh your terminal arguments against theirs in final focus.

I interpret Tech > Truth. This means that I will vote on an argument that I know to be factually incorrect if it isn't adequately defended.

I have no real exposure to theory, but I have no real baseline objections given that it's unlikely your opponents are any more clueless than me. Articulate it well and we'll see.

I'll call for any cards which end up affecting ballot evaluation and are contested in round. I'll also call for any cards that are blatantly absurd, but I'll only flag these if you're committing pretty egregious evidence abuse.

Good (qualified) cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics.

One of the more compelling ways to weigh your arguments in the final focus is to specifically compare the veracity of your link chain to theirs in the context of the outstanding defense - not new argumentation, but why I should prefer your link story to theirs.

Outside of extent circumstance a non-terminalized argument doesn't exist on the flow.

I'll give verbal RFDs. If you really want an in-depth written one, let me know and I'll try to write it up.

The fastest path to the ballot is to weigh your terminal arguments against theirs in final focus.

Aesthetic Bias:

I have a bias towards arguments which present bold and/or interesting perspectives on the topic. These will get my attention. Any contention which internally links through bat extinction gets a free 30 speaker points (this has to actually be a specifically bat aligned internal link, not some generic enviro arg specified down to just bats).

I have no preferences with regards to how you present yourself physically. Sit down during speeches. Wear a t-shirt. As long as everyone in the space is comfortable and I can hear you, I don't care.

Speaker Points:

My understanding of the lit is that speaker points are objectively pretty biased - often against the intentions of the judge. To mitigate this my speaker point range will be clamped to 28 to 29.5 outside of a few exceptions:

• If you're abusive during the round (reading exotic argumentation against teams that clearly aren't prepared and not accommodating, verbally aggressive during CX, pretty much any ad-hom) you might get something lower.
• If you take ages to pull up evidence or don't have it cut to the (relatively low) standards of PF you probably get lower.
• If you're violent (verbally counts) against any marginalized groups you probably get a 0. If this is blatant you probably end up dropped as well. I will not be a perfect judge of this but I think it is a necessary ex-ante responsibility of the judge role.
• Any brazenly creative arguments (fresh, spicy, innovative) can earn you a 30
• A really really clean and organized first summary can warrant a 30 - that speech is tough.

Debate judge. Have fun :)

Hello, I'm a third year parent judge. Excited to be here! Please keep spreading to a minimum and emphasize impacts. I love an off time road map. Thank you.

My debate background is in IPDA, but I am familiar with other formats. I like to see all types of arguments, but I dislike when the focus of the round shifts away from the main point and the debate becomes centered on semantics and rules. My general philosophy is just stick with the spirit of debate. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

Hi! I am currently an assistant Parli coach at Flintridge Preparatory and I coach at the Speech and Debate Institute (SDI). I competed in Parliamentary Debate and IPDA for several years. I have helped tutor at the Speech and Debate center at Pasadena City College and I am familiar with all Speech and Debate events. In speech I am most familiar with INF.

For debates, I am open to unique cases and technical debates like K's, Topicality, and Theory if they make sense and/or apply to the resolution. Please do not run it just for the sake of running "fancy" technical debates and do not spread! I have done some technical debate myself but I would not consider myself a pro at it. I will be flowing all rounds and appreciate clear impact calc. and weighing. I enjoy unique values and VC if they apply to your resolution.

I enjoy respectful debates, please no yelling or being rude to your opponents.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com

I am an undergraduate engineering student, and while I am comfortable with technical concepts, I am not an experienced debater. This means that while I may understand logical frameworks and argument structures, I prefer arguments that are clearly explained rather than relying heavily on debate jargon or technical shorthand.

I appreciate evidence-based arguments, but quality and relevance matter more than quantity. Don’t just read a card—explain why it supports your argument. Focus on clear, logical persuasion rather than rhetorical showmanship.

IMPORTANT:

I will judge the round using a point-based system. Each contention starts at 1 point, and it is the opposing team’s job to refute these contentions. Strong, well-supported contentions can earn incremental bonuses in +0.25 steps, capped at a maximum of 1.5 points. If a contention is left completely unrefuted, the originating team retains the full point (or the adjusted value if bonuses are awarded). If the contention is partially countered, its value will be reduced by 0.5 points. If fully refuted, the contention’s value will be reduced to 0 points, regardless of any bonuses it earned. Teams may bring as many contentions as they like, but only maximum of 5 points will be considered; any additional contentions may only serve as supporting logic or evidence for other arguments to avoid spamming contentions for free points.

I use a point-based system to stay objective and minimize bias from limited experience. Remember, any contention brought up starts at 1 point, with up to +0.25 for strong arguments, which helps resolve ties. I came up with this AP-style approach to hopefully highlight fairness and consistency.

MY BACKGROUND

competed in parli debate on the collegiate circuit - socal based
some experience in public forum and LD - ms + hs

WHAT I WANT TO SEE:

- extended impacts
- clear sign posting. please don't make me figure out where you are on the flow i'm begging
- weighing mechanisms. i would prefer if you didn't make the weighing mechanism debate last the whole round, but that's still better than no weighing mechanism brought up at all
- cordial debating. don't yell personal attacks at your opponent. i will drop you on account of courtesy if you do. cattiness is fine, just don't be a bad person
- CXbrought back into the debate where applicable (I don't flow CX)
- clash. please, please, please don't talk past each other

SPREADING (my takes):

I'm alright with fast paced debates and actually prefer them, but I was never fully introduced to the art of spreading. I agree that it can make debate a little less accessible to the general public, which is a shame (imagine if everyone knew how to spread lol). if you do decide to spread, I can get down probably about 70-80% of it. but I'd prefer not to struggle to get down your arguments.

TL;DR: fast talking, yes. spreading, no.

my definition of spreading is any pace that requires you to double clutch (the double breath, not the car thing) to keep it up. if you don't know what double clutching is, I will be able to understand you

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!

, be dramatic af- I need to feel and believe it to be fully convinced.

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