Nueva Parli Invitational
2019 — San Mateo, CA/US
Paul Brown Paradigm
Brier Buchalter Paradigm
Mariel Cruz Paradigm
Mariel Cruz - Updated 10/2/2018
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in parli and the other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc)
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.
Policy/LD prep: I’m fine with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
Qing Deng Paradigm
Michael Doran Paradigm
Spread is a cancer on the body of debate which must be excised. If I can’t understand what you are saying, how can I vote for you?
If you run a lot of theory, you need to convince me why I should care - I am not an expert. The last time I took a debate class, you weren't born yet.
Skeptical of Kritik, but if you can persuasively tie to the actual topic, it could work with me.
I want to see engagement and clash more than anything else. This should not be two teams talking about two worlds. To win, you need to address what the other team is saying. This is a simple point, but sometimes overlooked. This happens most frequently when the negative team has a Kritik that they have clearly practised and polished. If you can't relate it persuasively to the actual topic and what your opponents are saying, it's not going to work no matter how smooth your canned speech is.
I strive to be a tabula rosa. If you tell me the moon is made of green cheese, it is until the other team refutes it. However, the blatantly fabricated statistics in use by some teams are tiresome. Once you get into "pants on fire" territory, I am going to start docking speaker points even if I have to give you the win.
I am basically a "flay" judge, meaning I am a lay judge who attempts to keep a flow chart. If you help me by making your arguments easy to flow, you are more likely to win.
Alan Fishman Paradigm
TL:DR for LD: Theory is my favorite type of debate, and I'm most familiar with util and critical positions because of my background in NPDA-style college parli. I am also willing to listen to phil, nibs, and anything except lay/traditional debate.
I am open to all types of plans and frameworks, and also to theory against them. I am open to all theory arguments, including RVI's, OCI's, metatheory, and arguments that are unique to LD. I try not to be predisposed for or against any particular theory position, and I enjoy listening to unusual theory arguments.
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. firstname.lastname@example.org
I give high speaks to everyone who does tech/circuit-style debate unless they say something truly offensive, and I give lower speaks to lay/traditional debate.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. Make the debate technical and tell me why you're winning. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. I don't like value rounds and I literally hate fact rounds, run policy or a K aff on every res. Please DO NOT make arguments in POI's by saying things like "don't you know" or "isn't it true...", every time you make an argument in a POI instead of asking a question I'll drop a speaker point and I'm very open to voting on theory against it. Don't shake my hand after the round.
I am in my fourth year of collegiate NPDA debate and my second year of college NFA-LD. I prefer flow or circuit-style debate and I'm easily bored by lay case debate. My main priority when judging is to approach the debate objectively and leave my personal opinions out of the round. I will listen to all arguments and also to reasons why any type of argument shouldn't be included in a specific debate format. I try to be a blank slate when possible, but I don't believe any judge is a complete blank slate. DON'T watch my nonverbals - I think that deliberately giving nonverbals is interventionist and if I give them unintentionally you might read them wrong. Focus on the arguments that are being made in the round, not my body language. I hold the unpopular opinion that parliamentary debate is NOT a public speaking event, but a game that happens to use public speaking, and as such, I do not care about presentation and delivery. I do not think that your speaking style or presentation is part of your actual skill as a debater - as long as I and your opponents can follow what you're saying you've communicated well enough. I do not care about politeness, just don't be cruel or dehumanizing to your opponents. I like procedurals, kritiks,and elaborate policy neg strats better than traditional case debate. I do not time roadmaps, but I DO time thank yous. I do allow debaters to give content warnings off time before their speeches, and I ask that they do so if they have reason to think that something in their speech could be triggering - I know of many people in the forensics community with PTSD who have been affected by competitors who did not, though I do not need them for myself, I believe in making debate more accessible.
CASE/DA: I am fond of good substantive debate. Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the game of debate. I like you to have strong impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why the economy matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. 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 a link. While I think defense is useful for mitigating the other side's impacts so you can outweigh with your own, but I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. I often read econ and heg arguments, and I also think advantages and disadvantages with specific links to the actor can be quite useful. Politics was never my favorite DA but I think it's often strategic and I'll vote on it if you win it on the flow - I am not eager to hear the same midterms scenario every round but I won't intervene against it.
SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. In all forms of carded debate, I have a very high threshold for abuse on speed theory/K for arguments that were included in a speech doc that was shared with me and the other team. I do not give a flying F-spec about clarity if I have a speech doc I can follow along with. In general, if I am going to vote on an argument against speed, you need to prove that you asked your opponents to slow down and they did not. If you do ask your opponents to slow down, NEVER say "Clear", always say "slow" instead. As hard as it is to establish a brightline for speed, it is impossible to establish a brightline for clarity. I do not mind if you exclude lay/traditional judges from the round with speed though - judges are paid or have other motivations to be here. If you do run an argument against spreading, I want to hear why spreading is unfair or exclusionary to you, in this debate round, or why refusing to slow down when asked is a bad norm for the activity. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another, and I actively HATE the argument that debate should be held to IE/speech-style standards of communication. I also believe that it doesn't matter whether debate is understandable to laypeople in the audience - your words only need to be understood by the other team.
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 will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. 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. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against a dropped RVI. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another. I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. I default to drop the debater if you read voters and drop the argument if you don't. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. On extra-topicality, I am very reluctant to allow the aff to sever out of extra-topical parts of the plan.
Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. 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. In cases of rules violations, I will almost always prefer not to get anyone kicked out of the tournament - even if the rules of the event recommend that as a penalty. Also, if you threaten to report me to the tabroom for not enforcing the rules I will instantly drop you.
COUNTERPLANS: I think that CP's are legitimate in most forms of debate but some CP's are abusive and I have no problem voting on theory against them. PIC's are okay 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. Delay bad is a true argument but I'll probably vote on delay if the AFF doesn't read theory. I’m neutral on conditionality as a judge. Tell me in round whether it's good or bad. I hate dispo in parli and I expect you to provide a detailed definition of it if asked in cx in other forms of debate, and even then, I'd rather see you be condo or uncondo. However, I do not like to "judge kick" counterplans and if the neg doesn't kick the CP/alt in the block I will assume they're going for it, and I like to see them pick whether to go for it.
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. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).
KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, and cap. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that framework informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K. 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. 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. If your opponents make a new argument it is your responsibility to call point of order. 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 flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it.
DELIVERY/SPEAKER POINTS: I don't care about delivery in debate. I think that there is a place for judging people based on their delivery and that place is in IE's. I will give speaker points based on how good you are at debating and the choice of words you use, not based on who stands up or makes eye contact with me. I will sometimes add speaker points if someone says something really clever or funny (note: I love puns) or take them away if someone says something really offensive or acts disrespectful to their opponents (such as by refusing to take any questions or blatantly insulting them). Also, if you knowingly misgender your opponents I will tank your speaks and very open to reasons why it is a voting issue. I believe politeness is an oppressive social construct, so I don't care about how well teams follow social norms, and I dislike performative displays of politeness like asking "how are you?" in cx. I think that "thank yous" are a waste of time, especially at tournaments that are running on a tight schedule - we are all here because we want to be. I am completely fine with partner communication, even if you "rudely" interrupt your partner during their speech. However, I will only flow what the current speaker says.
In lay vs. flow debates, I will almost always vote for whoever is debating flow-style, so if there is a lay judge on the same panel as me in a round with multiple judges, the best way to get my ballot is to punt the lay judge, and even if you don't put the lay judge completely I'll likely reward the team that uses the most tech and jargon. If there is another flow judge and another lay judge on the panel, debating in a fully lay style would basically be punting me (since there are possible compromises between the two extremes). I do not change my judging style based on the other judges in the room - they have their own ballots and if I was do so I would be establishing a panel with unequal voting power. I'm not saying this to be insulting to the preferences of other judges - I'm saying this because it would be a disservice to the competitors if I did not accurately represent how I judge.
Also, I believe that debaters should not wear professional clothes to tournaments because professional dress is a social construct that reinforces privilege. I won't vote you down on my own initiative for it, but I am receptive to arguments about why debaters should not dress professionally. This article describes how I feel about professional dress in speech and debate: https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/professionalism-and-oppression/
On a related note, I think that handshakes after the round are a part of harmful politeness norms and I choose not to participate in them, so please do NOT shake my hand after the round. Also, handshakes can spread disease and most of us have a card somewhere that says disease causes extinction.
Some of my pet peeves as a judge:
- When the AFF says they "believe" in the res or the NEG says they "don't believe" in it. You were assigned your side at random.
- When debaters act like they're in an IE/speech event
- When debaters start their speech with a quote
- When NEG says that Trump will roll back the plan
- When anyone calls the debate round a "day" or talks about "today's debate" - it's annoying because there are usually multiple rounds in a day
- Please do not set the criterion to net benefits for one particular country or region (especially in parli). I have a very low threshold for letting NEG win that net benefits should include everyone, and if I have to vote on this kind of criterion your speaks will go down like Bitcoin did last December. However, I am fine with other parametricized forms of net benefits, like structural violence first or extinction first, I just don't think that whether someone's life matters should be dependent on lines drawn on a map.
If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.
Also, if you find me after the round, I'm always happy to explain my RFD in more detail or answer general questions about debate if you have the time. I enjoy giving back to the debate community by helping others learn about the activity.
I feel like the value of debating the topic should be determined by the arguments that are made in round. If the aff is not topical, I will not care unless the neg reads topicality. I do try not to intervene, and I think poorly worded and/or problematic topics are a real problem in parli. If both teams agree to debate a different topic I will allow them to.
If there is no flex 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 I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of a counterplan or alt. Anyone who asks or takes an unnecessary POI in a round with flex will lose a speaker point - I think that keeping POI's intact in a format with flex is rooted in problematic notions of politeness. I don't care about "protected time". I think it's a silly and unnecessary rule. I have no problem with people asking questions in protected time but I won't punish you if you choose to follow protected time.
I think that parli structurally favors MG theory so I believe that MG theory should have a higher threshold than LOC theory, but I won't judge it any different unless the negative tells me why I should, because I dislike intervening.
I do not protect the flow
I do not believe in the trichotomy. I prefer policy rounds to fact and value rounds, and I would rather see you defend a policy than a fact or value statement. If you must avoid debating policy, use value instead of fact. I am much better at judging policy rounds, and I have often felt less confident in my decisions in fact and value debates than in policy debates. I particularly hate fact rounds and I think they have no unique educational benefit because you can debate facts within a policy or value debate. If I have to vote aff in a fact round it will probably be a low point win. If you are going to have a value debate, I prefer you do it in a style that resembles circuit LD, as most people in parli don't do value rounds well.
PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:
I judge PF similar to parli. I do acknowledge that the 1NC doesn't have to refute the 1AC directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments (though you can answer them anytime before FF to have the answer on my flow). 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, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.
Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules to be a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.
I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli, 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. My email is email@example.com
Nicole Freeling Paradigm
Ben Gardner-Gill Paradigm
Updated January 2019
Varsity Parli coach at Nueva.
Former Head Coach at Menlo. 2015-2016 Public Forum Coach for Mountain View Los Altos Speech and Debate, coached one team to TOC Open PF, one team to International PF. Various individual tutoring and coaching as well.
Debated PF for four years for MVLA, typically under Los Altos GV. Winning record at TOC 2015, total of four bids and many breaks at invitationals. Co-Champion California Round Robin 2015.
Short Form Paradigm: I flow and vote off the flow. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I care about evidence and weighing. When I vote, I look to the last speeches first, so you need to extend both your warrants and impacts to those speeches. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win.
1. I flow and vote off the flow.
Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for the argument. If you spread, I won't drop you automatically, I just won't be able to understand you and so I'll probably end up dropping you. I'll only say "Slow" a few times to try to tell you to slow down.
I like to give oral RFDs and disclose if possible, but if I need extra time in order to examine my flow, that takes precedence over giving you a decision in the room. I will tell you you're not getting an oral RFD as soon as I realize I'll need the extra time.
2. I am tabula rasa and non-interventionist. I will not complete the argument for you.
I am open to anything as long as it's within the rules of the event. For example, if you're running a plan in PF I'm perfectly open to that, just don't call it a plan (hint: use "advocacy"), and remember the neg doesn't have fiat power.
3. Don't play around with evidence.
If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence.
I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at if you do so within the round.
Empirics are king, but they are not the be-all end-all. Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, as Cayman Giordano says.
PF: Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.
4. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable.
5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be.
6. Off time road maps are fine if they're useful and brief, otherwise your speaker points will take a hit. Don't make your case in the road map.
It is fine to ask if everyone's ready before you start speaking. It is fine to not ask as well.
1. I like to see high level warrant debate that doesn't get bogged down in "we have bigger numbers" impact debate. Talk about why your side makes more sense and why you have better proof than the other side does.
2. The second rebuttal should ideally address some of the content of the first rebuttal, even if it's only to weigh against it. If you've got a perfect 4 minute long attack on your opponent's case, that's fine, just be aware of the challenges you're going to face later in the round for doing that.
3. If you're going to go line-by-line in summary, tell me off time that you're going to be doing that. I don't care either way, but I prefer to be prepared for that.
4. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.
5. Give me voters in final focus.
I will not extend arguments for you from the summary: if you want me to vote on it, you must say it in the final focus.
The second speaking team's final focus should address points, most preferably voters, from the first final focus. Extend your warrants and impacts.
6. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is primarily for clarifying questions, secondarily for offensive/attacking questions, and tertiarily for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.
7. Speaker Points: Each speech is worth about 4 points and each crossfire one, roughly. Two speeches + two crossfires = 10 points (on the 20-30 scale). A 30 is reserved for practical perfection, and I can count on one hand the number of speeches deserving a 30 I've seen in 6 years. If you get below a 25, you've probably done something wrong, not just spoken poorly.
I will detract for rude behavior, which could be anything from shouting in crossfire to not being kind with evidence. A little bit of sass is fine if your opponent is making a stupid argument, but if in doubt don't do it.
I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I will vote on all sorts of T, but you need to be crystal clear in your explanation; I like listening to bizarre T for entertainment value but rarely is it done well enough to win my ballot. I will vote on Ks, but do not prefer them and frequently find them laborious.
David Gomez Siu Paradigm
Conflicts: Campolindo High School, Berkeley High School
LAST UPDATE on 07/12/19: PLEASE do read the whole paradigm - there are nuances. If you're in a time crunch, here's a little summary:
I am head coach of Berkeley High Speech and Debate and competed for Campolindo. Paradigmatically, I am inclined towards tech > 'truth' but there's no reason why tech can't also be truth. I am a flow judge for this reason, but do not take that as a hall pass to read whatever K or K Aff or Friv T in front of me - I will not hack for K's or Theory, but that doesn't mean you can't read it in front of me. I love listening to case debate, and I will equally evaluate anything you present in front of me - read whatever you would like to. This space is yours. Please weigh, please collapse, please be organized. Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I am not opposed to dropping teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment.
For Policy: I myself have never done policy debate before - I have only judged (4) rounds of policy on the 2018-2019 topic. That being said, I can keep track of your arguments and know enough about policy to evaluate the round fairly (in my opinion). Most of parli preferences apply. Skim over the TL;DR if you don't really care too much. Please add me to the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org. Cross is binding. Don't steal prep, send files quickly - if I think you're taking too long, I will ask you to run your prep time until you have the speech doc prepped and sent. Tag team cross is ok. Track your own time. Carded debate is not an excuse to spread incoherently through the card text - you can spread through it, but I still need to know what the card is saying, so be clear. I will not hesitate to clear you if I do not understand what you are saying. Anything else, ask before the round.
For PF: I have also never done PF - but I have judged a few rounds of PF. I prefer that crossfire remains as questions between teams, rather than shouting between teams, but do whatever you like - it's your round. Keep your own time - I won't do it for you. I think that final focus should have a collapse down to the most important things I should be voting on. If you want me to vote on it, it better be in your final focus, or else I won't think that is important. I will protect against shadow extensions into the final speeches from constructives, as there is no chance to check back for this.
For Parli (what you're probably here for):
Background: Campolindo High School, 4 years of lay/circuit (flow) parli debate, qualified twice to the TOC, quarters in 2018. Check me out if you care. Almost exclusively read topical govt fiat affirmatives and counterplan/squo negatives, though I do have pretty extensive practice with the K/KAff's and Theory. Currently at UC Berkeley. After running Campo junior/senior year, am now Head Coach for Berkeley High Speech and Debate.
Default to unless contested in round: NB, Competing Interps, MetaTheory > T/Theory > K > Case, 1 or 2 Condo is fine, perm is a test of competition.
The ballot: I'll try my best not to be interventionist but to a certain extent it is inevitable. I'll vote on offense, and in the case of only defense, I will default to the status quo unless a CP is presented, in which case I will then evaluate AD's and DA's to the CP vs AD's and DA's to the Aff plan. If I cannot evaluate based on cost benefit analysis (CBA), I will take the path of least resistance. I flow neg in the case of a wash, as the burden of the Aff is to convince me to change the world of the status quo - aka. if you've somehow made the round so confusing for me that I don't know what to do, I'll vote neg.
FW and such: I'm fine with the framework you want me to use to evaluate the round. This is your round, so let me know how it should be framed/evaluated. In absence of explicit framing, I default to CBA. In the past, I have been convinced by new iterations of older arguments, ie. DeDev, Cap. I find myself particularly inclined toward critical evaluations of structures that have a direct impact in the round at hand. In the case of identity politics, beware reading arguments that you do not specifically identify with. In general, I find links of omission to be tenuous at best. I prefer few strong links than many links of omission.
Lit: I'm familiar with some lit, but not all lit. However, I won't go into round with my prior knowledge of the lit, so you need to clearly articulate it to me and your opponents. Chances are, if I can't understand your argument, your opponents might not be able to also. If I don't understand it, I will not vote on it.
Weighing: Please weigh for me, because if you bring up mag, prob, and tf but dont tell me which to prefer, I will default to magnitude > probability > time frame and enjoy evaluating systemic impacts > big stick and absent framing will take the path of least resistance, which may or may not be great for your side of the round. If you tell me that you have won all three, I will not know how to evaluate that if you lose any one of those scenarios - does it mean you lose the round? Drop down to one of the three and tell me why that is the way I must weigh impacts in the round.
Rebuttals: I will protect against new arguments in novice division. In Open, I will only protect after the first two POO's, so please call them the first few times - I will decide the POO right then and there, which is important because the rest of the rebuttal speech could be impacted severely by the decision. I think it would be unfair to not decide and then throw out an entire rebuttal because it was new while the speaker believes that they are in the clear. I will be sympathetic to new PMR responses to new block arguments, I will cross apply block responses to PMR clarifications to new arguments in the MG, to offset Aff having the last word. I don't enjoy shadow extensions - I consider them new arguments. If you collapse onto the shadow extension, it was probably important enough that your member should have extended it through the flow. Since they didn't, I am unlikely to buy that the extension is valid. However, if it gets vaguely addressed in some fashion by the member, I am likely to accept the argument as extended. But again, please call the shadow extension - I will confirm if it is new or not.
POI's: Please take questions from your opponents, especially on texts and obscure advocacies. 1-2 per speech is pretty standard, POI's should not extend past 15 seconds.
Collapse: I strongly prefer that the block and PMR collapse down to key argument(s) that are winning that side the round. If you can collapse cleanly, I should not have to take any time at all with my ballot because I clearly recognize that you have won the round. I love a good collapse, and you will likely earn high speaks, and if it is the strategically correct collapse, the ballot.
Organization: I'm most familiar with standard UQ/L/IL/I for AD/DA and FW/Thesis/L/I/Alt/Solvency for K's, but by all means, read your contention or K in whatever organization you want, as long as you signpost. If I do not know what sheet you are on, I will either not flow it or I will flow it on the sheet of paper you were last on. Lack of structure is strongly frowned upon; I love organization with a passion. Please, do not make a clean win harder by making me lose track of your arguments. I can't vote for what I can't find.
Style: The debate space is yours, so I don't really care if you sit or stand or walk around in a circle, just make sure I can hear what you are saying. If style causes you to be incoherent, I would prefer that you be coherent so that I can evaluate the merit of your argument. I am fine with tag teaming, but I will only flow the words from the speaker. This means that if you're tagging in for your partner, they have to repeat what you say for me to evaluate it in the round; that speaker is guaranteed X minutes of time during which i listen to nobody but them, so it must be their words only.
Speed: I'm fine with speed, if you aren't clear I will not be able to flow. Few can go very fast and very clear. Clear does not equal slow, but it will likely help your delivery. I will yell clear or slow up to 2 times before docking points. I would rather you slow and clear than fast and incoherent. If you are using speed to exclude your opponents from the round and/or refuse to make your speed accessible to the other team, I will not hesitate to vote on theory against it. Inclusivity is important. I flow on paper, so leave some time for me to switch sheets. Interps/texts twice please. I will almost 100% of the time ask for a text. PLEASE HAVE ONE WRITTEN FOR ME AND YOUR OPPONENT.
Speaks: I evaluate speaks based on the round, with most debaters earning from 27-29, with 30's reserved for exceptional debaters and anything lower than a 27 reserved for problematic speeches, and lower than 25 for problematic rhetoric and/or problematic acts. Speaks are given for argumentation, strategy, and the sort. I'd prefer not to give any speaker points at all, but its just a necessary evil ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Happy to hear almost any argument, except all the -isms and -obias (racism, homophobia, etc.). However, I do not enjoy arguments that require me to explicitly intervene in the debate without a good reason to. I don't like skep/nib arguments at all, but will listen and vote on them if won, but probably have a higher threshold for being willing to voting on them. Blipping out a 10 second nib and asking me to vote there is going to be bad strategy in front of me. I reserve the right to drop teams for horrendously egregious rhetoric so pls just be a civil human being, and you won't lose because of it. Please make debate a safe space for everyone - using certain arguments to frame your opponents will not be well received by me or your opponents. Purposefully exclusionary methods will be frowned upon; although I probably will not drop you on it (unless I am given a reason to ie. Theory), it will be heavily reflected in your speaker points. However, I do still reserve the right to drop teams for certain actions that I deem to be extremely offensive. And if I find myself in a situation where I am not sure what to do, I will default against problematic rhetoric. Again, just be a civil and respectful human being and we'll have a great debate.
Please ask for specifics in round if you are reading an especially weird argument!
Questions or comments? Email me, email@example.com, contact me on FB, whatever. Please just remind me the round and your team code.
Amita Gore Paradigm
Natassija Jordan Paradigm
Hello My Name is Natassija Jordan.
I am the head coach for Berkeley High School's speech and debate team. I was originally trained in Policy debate where I competed on both the highschool and collegiate levels. I am a tabularaza judge, it will work work with what you give me. That being said speed is not a problem for me and I am open to K's.
If you have any questions for me feel free to ask them before the start of the round.
Gia Karpouzis Paradigm
pf/parli coach for nueva
- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters
- non-interventionist until the point where something problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)
- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to
- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. Regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.
- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters, especially womxn in debate, wear.
- If you want me to evalute anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary
- Hello greetings defense is sticky
- Please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep
- please please please please please WEIGH: pre empt this in summary, absolutely do this in Final Focus- tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda
Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of. email me at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person
Michael Kelly Paradigm
Virginia Kerr Paradigm
4 years college parli and some LD.
I debate for San Francisco State University so I'm pretty sympathetic to cap and kritikal args but I've become very aware of vacuous arguments with no real-world examples and lots of buzzwords. I won't buy your Kritik if it doesn't have examples and warrants I can filter impacts through.
Feel free to reject the res.
I enjoy very specific foreign policy debates.
Don't say problematic crap.
Mark Mabie Paradigm
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 4 years since then, close to a full time job. I try do be as tabula rasa as I can be. Refer to specifics below
Philosophy of Debate:
Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of a debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out of round decorum, and of course the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also remember to have fun too.
I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told
I will ALWAYS disclose even if the tournament tells me not to. It is my ethical duty as a debate instructor and judge to give you the best feedback I can after a round and increase your education. No one will stop me!
Judge preferences that must be met:
When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must sign post every argument and every response. If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.
Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)
Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. If you run a generic “CAP BAD K” just because it’s the easy way out in the round, I’ll probably be very upset with you. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I would prefer to see a case debate but I consider myself tabula rasa so just because I might not like your K, there is an equal chance of me voting or not voting for it. I think it's important to disclose this bias, because no human is perfect and we do all have bias.
Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.
Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it. If I'm voting on T there must be proven abuse for me to go for it. Potential abuse is proven abuse if warranted and explained well.
Speed is fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. If I can’t understand you I will raise my pen and not attempt to flow.
I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debater’s in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.
I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.
Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.
Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words them self if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.
Public Forum specifics:
I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.
I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run in some circumstances. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine.
Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus.
Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win a round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.
Lincoln Douglass and Policy:
I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read. Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com
Rob MacCoun Paradigm
I am a parent who has been judging for several years. Please speak at an ordinary, conversational rate, track your own time, and be sure to tell me your name the first time you speak. I usually don't give feedback in person, but I try to provide detailed written comments.
Sierra Maciorowski Paradigm
TL;DR: call the Point of Order, use impact calculus, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I'll vote where you tell me to. I won't shake your hands but I love you still.
Updates for TOC 2019:
1. Since this is the TOC, I expect my standards will be slightly higher for speaker points—let's say, adjust my scale by about 0.3 points down.
2. For TOC, let's be clear: I have a strong appreciation for both NPDA-style parli and APDA-style parli. Realistically, I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blips, use theory/abuse arguments when needed, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude (yes, real policy analysts use these too—they are NOT a "flow debate only" thing), and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without a kritik structure.
3. Sorry, this paradigm keeps growing—if there are teams in the field that I am unfamiliar with, I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge. If terms in here are confusing, shoot me a message!
I did high school parli, NPDA, and NFA-LD. I now do APDA + BP at Stanford and coach parli at Mountain View-Los Altos. I've judged 100+ competitive rounds including TOC. Broke to elim 2 at NPDA nats last year with Steven, so I'm not too out of the loop yet! Majoring in English and Human Biology, but I spend my free time reading critical theory.
- Content warnings are good (link).
- Call the Point of Order.
- Debate is a game but should be respectful and educational. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that.
- Your rebuttals should be almost entirely weighing: impact analysis, warrant comparison, and strategic clarification of the round. Analyze how and why you win.
- Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run your stock cases when they don't apply.
- Fine with Ks, theory, and any CPs, but open to arguments against those as well.
- I default to probability in impact comparison and competing interpretations on theory. That means your link stories should be specific and I really like theory when it's good. But default weighing is silly on principle: risk calculus is probability x magnitude, so just do good analysis.
- I don't give a damn if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should come before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".
- Tagteaming and speed are fine, but should be respectful— if you puppet your partner without being asked, I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding. Please don't go fast if you don't have good word economy.
- Blips without meaning won't win you the round— Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every argument should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~4 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.
- Be good to each other. Parliamentary debate is a community that should always expand, not push people out.
- Presumption flows the direction of least change. If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.
- Theory relies on logic as much as any other argument: have clear standards and weigh them against your opponents'.
- Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased-- and well-adapted to the round at hand.
- On any theory, tell me how and why to evaluate your argument under competing interpretations.
- No need for articulated abuse-- if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory.
- Throwaway theory is fine, but I'll appreciate it more if it sounds serious.
Kritiks + Tech
- General: Ks are fun when well-run, but I tend to drop them because people run them wrong. Don't run arguments you don't understand. Please.
- Familiarity (ADDED 3/20/19): In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me: I have worked with queer theory, crip and disability theory, settler-colonialism, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, Afrofuturism, biopower, Baudrillard, and securitization in academic settings. Familiar with central theses of anti-Blackness, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, etc.
- I think there are very few teams that will pref me and also plan to spread postmodern things, but I should probably note that if you spread postmodern things at me I will likely get lost and sad. More importantly, this list is more for background info on what NOT to run than what to run—I am not particularly receptive to psychoanalysis, etc, and can provide better feedback on the subjects above.
- Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.
- Conditionality: collapsed debate is good debate. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.
- Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I can handle your speed, but if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.
- Rejecting the res (ADDED 11/5/18): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the tag is these days. Generally better to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright.
- Flow: I’ll flow through what you tell me to flow through, and will vote on the flow to the best of my understanding of the round. Overviews and underviews are good. Be clear as to what I'm voting on.
- "Identity"-related kritiks are fine, but please don't make arguments based on your own identity in round nor make assumptions about other people's identities— debate is an inherently weaponized and adversarial space, and it's difficult to bring personal identities into play without risking emotional harm.
- Fine with severance or intrinsic perms if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.
- I'll be as tabula rasa as possible, but if you say things that I know are untrue/misrepresentations, your speaks might reflect that. That being said, I'm aware that I have oddly specific depth of knowledge in certain fields, so if you for some reason mix up the steps of creating a gene drive I'll probably forgive you.
- Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.
- I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the POO. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the POO to avoid intervening.
Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)
I have fairly high standards for speaks— if you pref me low because of that, we're cool, I get it. #inflation
25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-30: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, win top speaker, and win TOC (unlikely)
I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.
I really have no desire to shake your hands.
Feel free to email me with specific questions at email@example.com or message me on Facebook.
Michael Menches Paradigm
Domingo Mihovilovic Paradigm
I am a ley judge, I do not like theory or kritiks. Please talk slowly and clearly. Have a fun and respectful debate. :-)
Nate Munger Paradigm
I debated policy for multiple years in high school and college. I'm tab and very comfortable with speed, but I have much more experience judging policy than parli.
Some random musings on various types of argument:
Framework: I will default to util in the absence of an alternative framework, but I am far from wedded to it. You will have a hard time convincing me to vote for frameworks that entirely exclude any form of K.
Theory: I am relatively wary of vague fairness/ground claims in theory arguments, and typically prefer arguments grounded in terms of the role of the ballot/education. As an example, if you are saying the States CP is bad, you will have a hard time winning on "it's abusive because nothing links to it." I would much rather hear arguments that no individual actor has the power to compel 50 independent state actions, and why that matters. Do not assume that I am overly familiar with the details of theory arguments totally unique to parli, so err on the side of more explanation there.
K: I very much enjoy a good K debate. I am probably familiar with the literature surrounding your argument, but please ask if you're reading anything particularly obscure.
DA/Case: Nothing much to say here. Please give effective impact calculus.
If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.
Alexander Pakter Paradigm
Cody Peterson Paradigm
In my 3 years of competing in college parli and LD, and one year judging, I have come to the following conclusion. It is my belief that the education, portable skills, and other benefits gained from debate begin and end with the argumentation itself. And by that, I don’t mean that I don’t want to hear the same boring tix debate over and over again (Don’t let that stop you from running tix). Moreover, that means that you will always be getting education in a round, no matter what, just different kinds of education. Whether you are burning down white civil society, talking about the South China sea, consulting an alien god, having magneto do the plan, or doing nothing at all; there is still always a debate to be had and education to be gained Z BN. Now, whether that debate is straight up, super weird, hyper kritikal, or all in on theory, is up to you. (If you want my opinion though, I love super weird rounds. I’ve won way to many rounds on weird shit and I love voting on it) My dream round that will never happen is someone coming to the tournament with a dog as their partner and only runing anthro.
Alright, next is the line by line, here is a neat list because I think this looks cool. In no particular order, here are my other opinions about debate:
o I can handle it, don’t use it as a weapon (If you only win cause you talk fast, you aren’t a good debater
· I don’t care about thank you’s, I don’t time road maps. When your time is up I will let you finish the argument you are making, don’t do that thing where you add a shit ton of analysis on the end because you think you can get away with that
o I really only need offense talked about in the rebuttals. You can briefly address your defense if you think it’s super important, but otherwise you are probably wasting your time. Talk voters, big impacts, impact calc. I love some good impact calc. Weigh it against the other case, do some indepth analysis on the impacts
· Case debate
o Love case debate. Would love to see a round where the LOC is 8 minutes of case. But that’s also super difficult to do, so don’t fuck it up.
o My prefer policy rounds (That doesn’t mean I don’t like K’s, just that I don’t like value and fact rounds) I prefer hearing advantages to contentions. Uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. Signpost for me, it’s the best way to get my attention.
o MG Theory: Okay, it’s pretty easy to win on MG theory. As such, I’m pretty receptive to MG theory bad arguments unless the aff has pretty good proven abuse. That being said, time suck MG theory is a pretty cool idea
o I really like heg debate
o I’ll be honest, I can follow K’s, and I really like K’s (especially weird K’s), but I’m really bad at framework. That being said, I can follow, you just may need to hold my hand a little bit with some of the explanations
o I’m good with your generic Kritiks (cap, security, etc). I also dabble in a little bit of Baudrillard. I have a decent understanding of anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and Fem. Anything other than that, you can run it, but I may not be as familiar with the lit, which means I may get lost a little bit.
o Does theory come before K? You should probably know that if you are gonna run both. It’s really frustrating when Neg goes for theory and Aff goes for turns on K, but no one tells me whats more important. I default to theory comes before K.
o Reasonability vs Competing interps: I default to reasonability, but it’s really easy for me to go to competing interps if you make the argument, but you need to tell me why it’s better and why competing interps outweighs judge intervention (cause that’s prob what the argument is gonna be). This is especially true if it is a unique or uncommonly run theory position. (However, you may not know what I consider to be uncommon).
§ Following that, if it really becomes that important, don’t forget to impact this stuff out. I see a lot of students say “reasonability causes judge intervention” but very rarely do people tell me why that’s bad. Same goes for the other side. Talk about how your standards outweigh and shit.
· Weird Stuff
o Don’t just run weird stuff to be funny. You actually got to commit to it. You hear stories about people running weird shit, using Magneto as their plan actor. They didn’t do that laughing and giggling, they probably looked relaxed/a little bit serious (depends on the debater). But you can be sure I will probably laugh.
· Speaker points
o They are an arbitrary part of debate, I'm not a fan of them. Unless otherwise argued, these are the things that will effect your speaker points
§ You do something racist, homophobic, xenophobix, etc
§ Ad hominin attacks
§ Using puns in your speech, or telling jokes in general. Basically, just regular entertainment that makes me excited to be in the round, and flowing in pencil
· Just to be clear, this one will increase your speaker points, not hurt them. (Yes, I'll give you higher speaker points for flowing in pencil
· If you bring me food it will guarantee you and your partner the highest speaking points in the round. I have no major food allergies, I’m not a fan of spicy food, my favorite sandwich is ham and cheese
§ I reserve the right to add more exceptions to this list
o I’ve always wanted to hear someone run a theoretical position saying everyone should get zero speaker points.
Here is an always expanding list of weird and surprising things I have seen in different debate rounds I was apart of
1) Aff doesn’t get access to fiat
2) Give the other team the turing test, call them robots, and then say it’s unfair to debate robots
3) Kesha is more important than the United States Currency
4) Invade china
5) Squirrel conspiracy theory
6) Consult the Illuminati
7) Consult the Judge
8) Tony Stark Building nuclear power plants in Brazil
Javin Pombra Paradigm
Debate HS Parli, check here if you're interested in more specifics. Also thank you @shirley cheng for inspiration for this paradigm
Tech comes before truth.
I will try my best to be tabula rasa, but if all else fails, I'll default to what's obviously true.
Okay with speed, but if I call slow, don't speed back up.
Tag-teaming is fine, will only flow what speaker says.
I will protect what is obvious, but it's best if you call the POO. Do not have mini-debate when you do call the POO.
I'm okay with any type of argument, but it's been a few months, so I'll be slightly rusty with like intense jargon.
Read all advocacies slow and twice.
Speaker points will be essentially based on good strat, though I'm happy to give extra for humor, etc..
All arguments should have impacts and a strong internal link story. If there's absolutely no weighing, I default to probability first, but you should make arguments otherwise. I am a strong supporter that logical warrants are powerful in parli rather than random evidence, but both are important.
All cps and perms are up for game. Don't have a preference if they're condo or uncondo
I truly hate blippy arguments, so you might as well save the time.
Know you can't win everything, appreciate when debaters collapse (though I recognize from personal experience it's scary)
I default to theory comes first (though certainly can be convinced).
I default to competing interpretations.
I'm totally fine with friv theory.
Brownie points for interesting/creative standards and underviews/weighing (predictability, education, fairness blipped out can get boring and repetitive).
Default that it comes after theory.
I'm most familiar with cap/colonialism/security/nietzche/biopower. If you run others, especially post-modern stuff, please take time to explain.
Fine with the AFF K, but I think you should disclose.
As a personal preference, you should only run a K if you fully understand it (can concisely summarize it in a poi). I also appreciate if it has less jargon and more substance. I will probably look down on you if you're only running a shell to skew another team out of the round.
Have fun, please don't skew the other debaters, and lmk if you have any questions before the round or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeanne Roensch Paradigm
I am a parent judge with no debating experience. I do not vote on theory or other debate technicalities. Please keep a steady flow that is easy follow so I can flow all of your points, is you spread I may not be able to record all or your contentions on my flow. I tend to vote heavily on impacts so be sure to clearly link all of your arguments and their larger impacts.
Shilpa Shenoy Paradigm
Pratiksha Singhai Paradigm
I am a lay, parent judge, who has judged Parli for the last 2 years. Signposting is very important for my flow, and please don't speak much faster than conversational speed, I will not flow everything if you exceed that speed. Kritikal arguments are highly discouraged, however I am willing to vote on lay theory with articulated abuse. I default to Net Benefits, however please still clearly articulate your weighing mechanism and if you choose to set it to something else please be sure to clearly explain and justify it. Clearly articulate your impacts (and why they matter) and don't assume that I will make connections for you. If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round starts.
tl;dr just do what you would do with any other lay judge.
Robert Stone Paradigm
Alex Vainberg Paradigm
De Vu Paradigm
Please keep your points to a manageable number and cover them well.
No spreading. No theory. No Kritiks. The team with the best impacts will get the win.
Wendy Wang Paradigm
Donna Wing Paradigm
George Yu Paradigm
I judge based on the notes I take. I try hard not to inject my own knowledge and opinions into a debate.
Please engage one another's arguments and provide clash. Please provide well-developed arguments with good warrant and impact. I would be more impressed with one to three well-developed, deep, and logical arguments over eight superficial, conclusory, and/or flat-out-ridiculous arguments.
Theory arguments have their place. If you make a theory argument, please convince me that your theory argument is actually worth caring about and is relevant to this topic, to this debate, and to your deserving to win.
I could go into further detail and give an extended lesson on what is good debate, but why would that be needed? The above and the below should be enough.
Please be a human talking to another human and not a space alien talking to a computer. This means (1) you should be respectful to all, (2) if you speak too fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you, and (3) if you decide to use jargon, please explain the jargon as if I don't know what it means. Debate is supposed to develop great leaders, and great leaders can communicate to all people, not just to other specialized people exactly like themselves.
Feng Yuan Paradigm
Stefanos Zenios Paradigm
1. Do not use jargon.
2. I am looking for well constructed, logical and easy to follow arguments that are understandable by a lay person.
3. Use evidence to support your arguments and provide your sources.
4. Speak at a normal pace. If you speed up in an attempt to cover more, you will be penalized.
5. I am ok with Kritiks but use them judiciously and do not use Kritiks to avoid substantive arguments. Again, speak at a normal pace, clearly and DO NOT spread.
6. I like rigorous and scholarly arguments.
7. Be respectful of your opponents.