I am a student at UC Berkeley who competes in American Parliamentary Debate and British Parliamentary Debate. In high school I competed in Public Forum Debate. I have no specific objections to any arguments, and my only specific annoyance is competitors being distracting during rounds. Feel free to ask me any questions during the round!

1. my judging background:

1. I have judged twice before so relatively a novice judge (no pun intended), but I have participated and won Extempore and debate competitions in High school days and have a good public speaking skills. I like eloquence.
2. What do I value most in debate rounds:
1. I value facts and its clear/concise delivery. No lengthy explanations. To the point-crisp and clear facts with reasonable speed. Cannot grasp fast speakers.

3. Speaker Speed

1. Normal speed ..meaning - as long as words are separated, I am okay. If you feel you are running while speaking, you are fast for me. You may jog, I will try to lower my hand to indicate to slow down.

4. Do you understand debate jargon, or should students be careful to spell things out for you?

1. Please do spell out for me for now. May be I will get a hang of it soon.

5. How do you view speaker points?

1. Speaker points are judging your abilities as speaker so if you are eloquent, clear and concise - you get it. On the other side, too much repetitive stuff or too fast in speed (to the point, I cannot understand what you are saying) goes against. Using effective use of time is important. I view negatively, going over time limit or underutilizing time (more than a minute of time not used)

6. How do you view cross-examination time?

1. It is an important segment as other way to put across your point.

I am relatively new to parliamentary debate though I have judged 2 previous debates days. Please talk clearly and slowly (just not for my benefit but for the other debaters) define your terms and make clear link for policy to impact. Don't use complicated jargon as the team who can simply and eloquently explain their argument and why will get my ballot.

TLDR: PLS SIGNPOST. Tech over truth (unless problematic). I like tech debate a lot more but keep in mind the other judges on the panel with me and your fellow opponents. Be nice & have fun. Do risk calc for me when ballot framing. I laugh or smile when I hear something I think is funny--just ignore me cuz it doesn't affect the ballot.

i don't care about the NPDL online rules for warranted claims = unwarranted. warrants will always be more important than a lack of them.

Weighing: Do comparative analysis when you weigh your arguments; modules are cool--but why your module should come first before their modules.

Theory: I like theory. I run theory (all but speed). I allow RVIs. I have higher standards for theory.

Case: Links should correlate with all the UQ and IL to IMP. Y'all should totally signpost and give off-time roadmaps ;). I think trichotomy is fake news -- feel free to make it evaluated through a policy lens with NB.

K: like a 7/10 feel for them. I mostly ran queer eco, kappeler, and cap. I'm also out of the loop now.

Speed: I don't mind the speed, tho note that I haven't properly flowed in a while. Thus, I would air on the side of caution with my capabilities.

Everything else: Speaks only go up w/cringe humor (29+ 4 all). I protecc, but still POO (I might notice even while protecting). Don't steal prep between speeches. Read content/trigger warnings as necessary for this should be rudimentary respect. Don't call me "judge" pls. Also, "Protected Time" is fake news. Shadow extension is fake news too mates.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round email me at amargao@stanford.edu.

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

Here Is A Link To My Parli Paradigm

TLDR: I am a standard pervious parli debater / flow judge. Run what you want, explain it, weigh everything and give me impacts.

Alt Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT2VJ0znd2fZ5pxNmNAkm-h5HvJfQgAw7cfm083e1hbKeow2PiSxEN6G6g0oYTaUzhm7JxrNLoAmO_V/pub

If I am judging any other debate event you should still read my parli paradigm, but it might not be as applicable (my high school and college debate background is in parli so that is what my paradigm is about).

If I am judging IE then who knows, its all subjective anyway, but be funny and don't exploit other's sob stories to gain my pity.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

No K's unless you can't help it, same with K's, happy debating

I’m a parent judge who will do my best to flow the round. With that in mind, please speak clearly. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments. Likewise, I can’t hang with spreading. Please connect the dots for me AKA signpost so I can better flow the debate.

I like good case debate. I don’t know anything about K’s and I don’t have any experience with theory (but my son talks about theory shells a LOT).

Please avoid debate lingo unless you spell it out for me.

Above all, have fun while being respectful!

I know nothing. Assume I know nothing. But don't assume anything else. And I don't shake hands.

For parlimentary debate:

Please give a clear framework at the beginning of the round if you're the first speaker on the affirmative. The first negative should either opt to adopt the framework or contest it.

I'm open to hearing frameworks other than net benefits (and also believe those are some of the better rounds to participate/judge in).

I'm open to all types of argumentation like disadvantages, counterplans, theory, and kritiks ,but it has been awhile since I last debated ,so I prefer that you slow down on kritikal and theoretical arguments. Therefore, this round is probably not the best one to debut your newest theory argument or abstract kritik. Please do not be flagrantly offensive or disrespectful to the other team.

I value clarity and presentation in delivery. Try to make sense. Speed is okay but not okay if its against a team that is obviously inexperienced.

General: I am a lay parent judge. Speak as if you were explaining your case to your grandma. I will try my best to be tabula rasa.

Case/ Theory: Have strong, believable links and expand on your impacts. I like impact analysis in the voter speeches. If you are going to run theory arguments, EXPLAIN THEM WELL. No Ks.

Speaking: Do not spread. Please articulate and speak clearly. Also, be respectful when your partner/ opponents are speaking. If you talk loudly or act rude during speeches, I will decrease your speaks.

I am a parent judge with some experience judging rounds. What I want to see in a round is well structured, easy to follow logic. You don't need to assume that I don't know anything, but please impact out your claims. I'm not inclined to do the extra work of sorting out your case in order to vote for you, so please don't make me. I am more interested in the merit of your argument rather than your delivery. I buy evidence over claims with no warrants every time. Please don't use excessive jargon, if you do, please define and explain it. If you present an organized, well-articulated case with good points backed up with evidence, I will likely vote for you. No Ks, theory is fine when it's explained at every step and its relevance in the scope of the round is impacted out and easy to follow. No spreading, please. If you ask for feedback I am more than willing to give it, but please don't ask me to disclose.

Debate Role: College Judge

Debate Experience: BP and Australasian Parliamentary, 8 years

Affiliation: Currently at Debate Society of Berkeley on exchange, typically from the University of Sydney

No preferences!

I am a first-time parent judge.

Judged Parli before.

My preferences are

1. Content aligning to the case/topic

2. Speaker Quality - How clearly you are able to elucidate and put forth your point

I have judged parliamentary debate before.

Preferences:

1. Talk slowly. I can only give you the vote if I can understand you.

2. Sign-post everything.

3. Be respectful to your opponents and their arguments.

4. Tell me why something matters, meaning don't forget to impact.

I'm a parent Judge, I will vote primary on arguments that make sense and are supported with logical explanation and supporting instances and data.

To make sense, an argument must be logical with a claim, warrant, and impacts.

All arguments should also be defended and no extensions should be made without responding to attacks on it. Ex: If your opponents make turns in the first rebuttal, make sure its responded to in your own rebuttal, otherwise I will consider it dropped. Signpost in speeches, especially if you're jumping around the flow. Weigh your arguments in the end and tell me why to vote.

Speaking needs to be clear enough, with expressions, going too fast may turn out counterproductive.