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
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. firstname.lastname@example.org
TL:DR for 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 am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text every round. 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. 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 fifth year of collegiate NPDA debate and my third 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 fairly under the framework that you decide 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. DON'T watch my nonverbals - I think that deliberately giving nonverbals is interventionist and if I give them unintentionally you might read them wrong, also I believe that ability to read nonverbals is distributed unequally and it is ableist to win rounds by reading judges.
I hold the unpopular opinion that 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 - 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 do not time roadmaps, but I DO time thank yous (except in final rounds). 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 who have been affected by competitors who did not, though I do not need them for myself, I believe in making debate more accessible.
If any of you need to flow on a laptop because of a disability, I will allow you to do so even if it is against the published rules of the event I am judging, and you will not have to tell me what your disability is or provide a medical diagnosis. I will defend you if your opponents complain to tab about it. If you need any other accommodations, let me know and i will try to help you.
CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the game of debate. I like you to have strong terminalized 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 offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.
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 really care 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. As hard as it is to establish a brightline for speed, it is impossible to establish a brightline for clarity. While I do prefer you not use speed to exclude the other team, I won't drop you for it unless they convince me I should. 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. 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. 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, 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 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, 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. Also, I will always allow debaters to debate a different topic than the one the tournament assigned if both sides agree, and I will keep it a secret if asked.
COUNTERPLANS: I will usually vote for cheater CP's 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. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. However, I do not like to "judge kick" counterplans and if the neg doesn't explicitly kick the CP/alt in their last speech I will assume they're going for it and giving up the status quo.
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, 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.
IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I think that these arguments are important and should be taken seriously, and while I want to let you read them and talk about the things that you are passionate about, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity, I will be more willing to vote on framework. Also, I don't think that reading framework against these positions makes you a terrible person - I am willing to listen to both sides of the T vs Identity K debate. However, please do not attack your opponents' marginalized identities to deliberately trigger them - if you do that, you are the worst kind of person and I will have a hard time justifying a decision for you.
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 the most extreme circumstances. 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.
SPEAKER POINTS: The system of speaker points is violent towards me as a competitor with a speech disability. I almost always got lower speaks that what was relevant to my win loss performance. I am no longer willing to participate in it. I will give 30's to all debaters by default if the tournament allows it. If not, I will randomly assign speaks between 29.7, 29.8, 29.9, and 30. I will reduce speaker points if you engage in offensive rhetoric towards marginalized groups, such as racial slurs, misgendering, or person-first language about autism, or do other things I mention elsewhere in my paradigm as reasons to reduce speaker points.
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 disrespectful to 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 willing to vote on 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 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 unless you read social contract theory as your framework (especially in parli). I have a very low threshold for letting NEG win that net benefits should include everyone. 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.
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 I will take away a speaker point. 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. 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 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 believe in the trichotomy. I don't think that resolutions being worded as questions of fact or value is mutually exclusive with having a plan text.
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. However, if you do choose to debate at speeds comparable to policy, you should email your evidence to me and the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being 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
I'm a parent judge with four years of experience. I keep track of flow and will buy dropped arguments. Neg, make sure you explain why the aff plan causes more harm than good, not just why it won't work. If your main argument is solvency I will probably vote aff if they make it clear there is a problem in the status quo. CPs are great just make sure they are mutually exclusive. I will always vote lives over econ, so if your main argument is econ make sure you terminalize impacts.
Ben Gardner-Gill Paradigm
Updated November 6, 2019, to add definitions.
Varsity Parli coach at Nueva.
Former coach at Menlo and Mountain View Los Altos. While in school, I was a TOC-level PF debater; I typically debated as part of Los Altos GV.
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.
Disclose: to inform the debaters who won the round.
Dropping: to vote against
Fiat power: the government's ability to declare that their plan will pass through appropriate channels into law, and be executed by the appropriate authorities. Fiat power does not absolve the government of the potential downsides of this process.
Flow: my notes of the round. I capture the essence of, or paraphrase, all content.
Framework: an argument about how the judge should assess the various content in the round. A common example is a net benefits or cost-benefit analysis framework, which adheres to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
K: short for "Kritik," a category of arguments which seek "to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views" (Bennett).
Line-by-line: a way of organizing rebuttal and later speeches that addresses arguments and evidence in the order they were originally stated, rather than grouping them together in a condensed format, thematically or otherwise.
Non-interventionist: I do not insert myself in the decision of the round; I judge based on who provided the better arguments as recorded on my flow.
Plan: an organized description of the government's proposal for addressing the resolution. It must include a description of the timeframe, funding, and actor.
RFD: Reason for decision. This is provided in written form on the ballot, and frequently verbally immediately after the round as well.
Signposting: when a debater indicates which argument they are addressing, before addressing it.
Spread: a very fast style of speaking, frequently eclipsing 300 words per minute.
T: short for theory, which are a category of arguments about how the rules of the debate and how it is conducted, rather than arguments about the content of the resolution. "Friv" T, short for frivolous, is that which is only tangentially related, if at all.
Tabula rasa: lit. "Blank slate," meaning I come into the round without bias (as much as possible).
Tag teaming: a parli debate practice when in the middle of partner X's speech, they confer with partner Y, either in a hushed tone or with an audible statement by partner Y that is then repeated by partner X. Statements are not flowed unless they are said aloud by the partner whose designated speech it is. [My own opinion of this practice is quite negative. Please do not tag team if I am your judge.]
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.
Signposting is key. I will write everything down, but if you're disorganized, my flow will be too, and that makes my job a lot harder.
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 in PF.
3. Don't play around with evidence.
If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence (more so in PF than Parli).
I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at if you do so within the round (all events included).
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. If you have a short-circuit voter that I should look at first, you need to tell me that clearly AND warrant why I should be considering it first.
5. Be civil, especially in crossfire. If you're questioning whether you should be sassy or not, don't be. I will detract speaks for rude behavior; this is an educational activity.
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. I do particularly like road maps before the Opp block and PMR speeches in Parli, but they're not necessary per se.
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 first for clarifying questions, second for offensive/attacking questions, and third 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 9 years. If you get below a 25, you've done something wrong, not just spoken poorly.
I am tabula rasa and will vote on anything. That said, coming from a PF background, I prefer case debate. I also like evidence - most tournaments these days have internet prep, you should use it.
I will vote on all sorts of T, but you need to be crystal clear in your explanation. This includes stock components like education and fairness and is especially true for non-stock. I like listening to bizarre and friv T for entertainment value, but the flow is a sheet of notes incapable of being entertained, and I vote off the flow.
I don't have a background in Ks, but I'll vote on them.
Speaker points: I treat 27.5 as my average, scoring roughly on a flattened bell curve. Typically, the highest speaks I give on a regular basis at an invitational/flow tournament is a 29.2. The highest level tournaments may see a 29.5. I have yet to see a parli speaker deserving of a 30. Tag teaming is absurd and I'll deduct your speaks significantly if you do it.
David Gomez Siu Paradigm
Conflicts: Campolindo High School, Berkeley High School, various individual constraints
Last update: February 15, 2020
I am the head coach of Berkeley High School Speech and Debate and I competed for Campolindo for 4 years, qualified twice to the TOC, quarters in 2018. I explicitly tie my ballot to the flow I keep for the round. Paradigmatically, I am inclined towards tech > 'truth' but there's no reason why tech can't also be truth - in fact, I prefer it. I will not hack for any argument, and do not paradigmatically prefer any argument over another; 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 have impacts, please be organized. I am a scribe for the round, so I do not do work for you nor do I protect against new arguments in the last speech - call the POO. Be wary of shadow extending in front of me.
Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. Also just as important, if not more - if you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). I am an empathetic judge; my threshold for voting on that theory is based on how much abuse is present to me, and trust me when I say I usually know when people are being abusive in round. But I'm not perfect, so, help me help you make sure that teams who read abusive and violent arguments lose the round. Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Ignoring them / deliberate misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people in any sense / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab.
The debate space is yours, so I don't really care how you give your speech, 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. However, it is up to you how you would like to use your time and present your argument. Feel free not to adapt to me. 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.
I can flow your speed, but 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. Feel free not to, but know that I may not be able to understand what you are saying and therefore cannot flow it. 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 OPPONENTS.
Happy to hear almost any argument, except all the -isms and -obias (racism, homophobia, etc.). I am highly skeptical of arguments that require me to explicitly intervene in the debate without a warranted reason to. Blipping out a 10 second argument and asking me to vote there is going to be bad strategy in front of me. I have a very high but not unreachable threshold for being asked to vote apart from the flow.
Be a civil and respectful human being and we'll have a great debate. I am not a fan of punting judges - everything above still applies, but I will just really really not like you. Yes, that is interventionist and yes, I do think that it is justified.
Please ask for specifics in round if you are reading an especially weird argument! Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you! I am more than happy to stall the round a little if talking through non-debate related things makes you more relaxed and able to compete at your best. If I have done something that you find problematic or has made the space harmful for anyone, please do not hesitate to either let me know or let the tournament know so that I can fix it for future rounds.
Questions or comments? Email me, firstname.lastname@example.org, contact me on FB, whatever. Please just remind me the round and your team code. I’m down to give extra feedback after rounds and to share my flows if I happened to type them for that round. Not as many people take advantage of this as they should...
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 & judges
- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)
- tech over truth
- 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, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know
- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early
- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores
- 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). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. 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 wear.
- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway
- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me
- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within
- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!
- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist
- 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). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. 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 wear.
- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key
- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make
- hello greetings defense is sticky
- please please please please please WEIGH: 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 given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.
email me at email@example.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person
Michael Kelly Paradigm
Virginia Kerr Paradigm
Tldr; flow, you do you, please don’t touch me.
Four years of college parli and some LD.
I debated for San Francisco State University and Santa Rosa Junior College. I love very specific foreign policy debates and I’m really sympathetic to cap and kritikal arguments. I really like to hear warrants and impact calculus. Tell me where to vote. Feel free to reject the res. :-)
I will drop you if you are an ass.
Mark Mabie Paradigm
*DON'T READ 900M PUSHED INTO POVERTY FROM A GLOBAL RECESSION IN FRONT OF ME. STOP USING IT AS A CRUCH FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. THE CARD LITERALLY NON-UNIQUES ITSELF.*
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 5 years since then - close to a full-time job. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. 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 debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly 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 TRY to 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 the round and increase your education.
Judge preferences that must be met:
When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). 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. 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 am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.
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.
Speed is generally 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 hands 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 themself 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. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.
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 the 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 NPDI 2019-2020:
1. Copying this with permission from Ben Shahar, because they say it very well: "If the round, or this space, is inaccessible for you for any reason at any point, please let me know and I will do whatever possible to help." I would be honored to help you by having a quiet word with someone whose behavior/rhetoric was hurtful, talking to coaches/parents/chaperones/judges about their own or their students' conduct, brainstorming ways to deal with a situation of injustice, or simply to listen. Whatever it takes.
2. I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I'm an English major not philosophy!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me.
3. Fun trivia facts: 1) the person who evaluates debates most similarly to me at this tournament (afaik) is William Zeng (it's an English major thing). 2) Goodreads is the only social media I take seriously, so here are a few recent book recommendations: Walter Benjamin's Illuminations, Ocean Vuong's On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous, Alison Kafer's Feminist, Queer, Crip, Ilya Kaminsky's Deaf Republic, Lauren Berlant's Cruel Optimism, Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower, Ricardo Piglia's La ciudad ausente.
Updates for TOC 2018-2019:
1. 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.
2. 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 2018 NPDA nats with Steven, so I'm not too out of the loop yet! Majoring in English and Human Biology, so I work a lot with literature/political rhetoric from the Global South and with public health/epidemiology, 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 (UPDATED 11/06/19): In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:
- High familiarity: queer theory, crip and disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives (Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, intercommunalism, eco-marxism, etc)
- Medium familiarity: Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, Walter Benjamin, Lauren Berlant, Eve Sedgwick, anti-neoliberalism
- Low literature familiarity but absolutely listening: anything Afropessimism, anything transfeminist (a gap in my knowledge currently, which I'm working on fixing )
- I will be sad and/or mad if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan or anything psychoanalytic, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, anyone else who was racist, anything that is trans exclusionary.
- I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests from, say, following me on instagram, when other teams are unaware.
- 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 interest in certain fields, so if you for some reason mix up the steps of creating a gene drive I'll certainly 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.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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
Observe Silence when not Speaking: Please respect the speaking team by observing silence when it is not your turn. If you need to communicate with you partner, do it on paper. DO NOT WHISPER while the other team is speaking.
No tag-teaming - do not interject or add onto your partner's speech.
Debate Speed: Keep your speech at a normal, conversational pace. If I cannot keep up with you, then I will not be able to consider your arguments thoroughly. You will be better served by having fewer, well articulated arguments than by trying to cram in extra points.
Theory: Arguments based in theory will be considered, but I don't give a lot of weight to them. I care most about your ideas and ability to structure an argument.
Presentation is important: eye contact, posture, clarity of speech and appropriate volume. Please speak loudly and clearly enough for me to hear you.
15 second grace period to finish your speech after time, after that you will loose speaker points.
Cody Peterson Paradigm
Show me something new
Quals: Debated for 3 years, coaching/judging for 2 years
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 email@example.com
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
Please speak at a reasonable rate, define 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 Counter-plans are acceptable . The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.
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
This is my fourth year as a parent judge. I am inspired by spirited, intelligent conversation.
I look for well constructed, persuasive arguments based on supporting facts (state your sources) that address the resolution. Outline your points upfront and signpost them as you go. I am rarely persuaded by public benefit arguments that end in a dooms-day scenario.
I prefer substantive argument over tactics. No spreading – speak clearly and in a reasonable cadence.
Point of order objections must be timely and the objector must raise a legitimate (good faith) objection, or I may consider the objection a failed tactical move and score accordingly.
If you run a critique (“K”), it should be a coherent and relevant argument challenging the premise of the resolution, or I may assume you are just trying to avoid substantive argument on the resolution.
Be courteous to the opposing team. Racist, misogynist, or otherwise offensive comments or personal insults will earn the speaker low points.
Humor is appreciated, creativity and wit will be rewarded. Have fun.
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
I am a lay judge with five years of combined Parli and PF judging experience.
- Be polite, especially in cross. Don't shout at each other, please.
- Speak clearly. Don't spread.
- Take the time to explain complex arguments.
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.