Paradigm are stupid, just do your best and it will show.

I don't like excessive speed or Kritik/philosophy arguments.

If you must go for K's/philosophy, it needs to be put in simple terms to make me feel comfortable voting on it.

The debaters must to remember to focus on their impacts, as well as their framework/value criteria as it relates to their impacts. That is where they tell me "where the goal is" and "who reaches it" for the debate. Having the biggest impact doesn't mean anything if it doesn't fulfill the right framework.

If framework is not debated by the neg, I will default to 1AC's Framework.

Email: marinaalan02@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her ♀️

Email: nalan0815@gmail.com,

Please also include: damiendebate47@gmail.com

I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for 10+ years now.

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember: magitude⚠️, timeframe⏳️, probability ⚖️. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts, and compare them with your opponent's as reasons for a judge to prefer your side.

• However, I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.
• Be sure to extend arguments (especially your T voters) even if they're uncontested - because that gives me material for the reason for decision. If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it (tech > truth here). Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

------------------------- Miscellaneous ----------------------------

Prep and CX: I do not count emailing /flashdriving as prep time unless it takes ~2+ minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner. Please keep track of your speech and prep time.

Full disclosure: Beyond the basic K's like Cap, Security, Biopow, Fem, etc., I'm not familiar with unique K's, and especially where FrameWork tends to be a mess, you might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or I might get lost.

I often read along to the 1AC and 1NC to catch card-clipping, even checking the marked copies.

I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

I debated throughout high school, with a main focus on public forum. I am now an assistant debate coach in Utah. My decision will come off the flow, and I will vote for pretty much anything that is well warranted, as long as it falls within the confines of your event.

Things I’d Like to See:

1. Thoughtful responses. Please do not read off a novel of evidence, expecting me to automatically buy your claims. Use evidence as a supplement to actual argumentation.

2. Clear links. This relates to 1. If you have obscure evidence claiming a link, with no logic to back it up, I likely won’t buy or weigh it.

3. Impacts. Please weigh the impacts of each argument, and how your impacts are preferred. If you have frivolous arguments with no impacts, I likely won’t buy them.

4. Tell me who won. Use clear voters and give me a strong summary. Additionally, my decision is easier when you give line-by-line.

5. Smile every once in a while!

Things Not to Do:

1. Waste time. If you have sufficiently countered a point, or if a point holds little weight, please do not spend an entire rebuttal on it.

2. Spend entire speeches staring at a computer screen. While I weigh substance of the debate first, speaking ability/confidence/knowledge of the topic can give an advantage in determining close rounds.

3. Be disrespectful/patronizing towards opponents.

If you see me outside the round, I will be happy to provide feedback. Feel free to ask me more questions before the round, and any you might have after as well. Good luck, and have fun!

chris, travis, and i are also coaching vaibhav dara

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

I'm a parent judge and so I have very basic but specific guidelines:

1. Share an outline or roadmap at the beginning that is not only clear but that you follow in your presentation (If it does not flow, I cannot follow).

2. Speak at a moderate pace so that it is easy to follow and understand.

3. Following speaker etiquette is important. While I may not vote down a debater for rudeness or lack of etiquette, it will affect their speaker points.

4. Strongly prefer traditional debates so please do not use progressive tactics (e.g., no spreading, no kritiks).

5. During cross fires, please do not ask questions for questions sake... recommend that you take advantage of the opportunity to ask probing questions to either clarify a point or expose a flaw in your opponents statements.

6. (For LD) Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

I have 5 years of debate experience. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum, and I now do British parliamentary at the University of Laverne. If you make me laugh or smile, I'll be more willing to give you better speaks, but don't fish for votes, make it natural.

I'm good with speed

If you're debating policy try to have some original thoughts, I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

If you have any questions, my email is: colin.coppock@laverne.edu

Hello Debaters!

I am very new to judging and ask that everyone in the round speaks clearly and speaks slowly so I am able to write everyone’s arguments down. If you do not speak slowly and clearly I may not be able to write everything down for your case which could effect my judging decision. Also be nice and respectful. Have fun!

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

Honestly, if you're the type of debater who looks up their judges paradigm, you'll probably be fine.

Experience: I debated in Lincoln Douglas all through High School. I have experience in and am comfortable with both traditional and progressive debates. Stuff I read: Plans, CP's, one K, and Advantages/DA's (when not going the traditional route). My vote goes off of the flow and I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

Speed: I'm cool with top speed if I can at least catch your tags and authors. If I can't then I'll clear you, but I won't dock any speaker points.

Theory/T(procedurals): I prefer Drop The Arg over Drop The Debater, No RVI's, and Reasonability over Counter Interpretations. I don't have a ton of experience with this type of debate, so be clear on the interpretation if you go this route.

Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless you take waaaay too long. Flex prep is fine for clarification if both debaters are comfortable with it.

If each debater/team asks me then I will disclose.

Please be respectful and make debate a safe place.

Contact: jefftwitch38@gmail.com or just come find me after round if you have questions.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

If you are the kind of debater that checks tab for paradigms, then you probably know enough.

I’m a simple former high school debater. Impacts will win the round but they can’t be reached without links ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

Avoid spreading and jargon, both are lazy. Focus on direct clash with opponent. While I expect you to time yourself, I will also time you. Anything said beyond time will be disregarded.

Flowy debate judge. Values concise and orderly substantive clash (on warrants, links, and impacts), good time management, consistent strategy, effective use of cross ex, and signposting. Mostly tabula rasa but dings for gross fantasy and adds points for good argumentative use of accurate knowledge of real world. No speaks given for extensive use of debate jargon. Spreading fine as long as the diction is crystalline.

I am a former high school LD, PuFo, and Parli debater, I also did Parli in college and am a member of Pi Kappa Delta. I have a BA Degree in Sociology with minors in History, Political Science, and Economics. I am the NFA-LD(1 vs 1 Policy) debate coach at Simpson College and the Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Kent Denver School. I also have a Masters Degree.

If you want to read a nicer version of my paradigm please look up my good friend David Sylva's page it is basically mine written much nicer =)

I have been involved in speech and debate for 10 years on and off, and I am a mix of Tabula Rasa and Game judging. I am a flow heavy judge, so reefer back to the flow. Make my job as easy as possible tell me what's happening.

Please put me on the email chain: scgdebate@aol.com.. or: Just create a speechdrop (https://speechdrop.net/)

Spreading- Don't care, however if your opponent or another judge does not want spreading then DO NOT spread. But, read as fast or as slow as you want. I can hear and understand around 350-450 wpm, it honestly depends on my mood and attention that day, PLEASE ASK BEFORE ROUND STARTS!!

Signposting- VERY VERY IMPORTANT. Make my job as easy as possible tell me where you're at on the flow and where you're going, you have 15-30 sec for an off-time roadmap USE IT!!!

K's- Make sure you run them correctly, appropriately, and make sure they apply (Links Matter). You can K a K. Honestly it's your round just run it. I am familiar with a lot of K literature but I need and want you to explain it to me.

Topicality's- I am unsure about topicality still. I will vote on proven abuse... But I will vote on potential abuse sometimes.. Honestly just convince me your are correct.

Theory- Love it, I coached a theory hack at Simpson and I find theory very very fun =). Again just convince me you are correct.

Framework Debate- Love it, as a former LDer.

Definitions Debate- Love it, once again as a former LDer

Voting issues- Very important, TELL ME WHY YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!

Like I said I am TOTALLY open to anything, 100% Tabula Rasa and Game, whatever I have on my flow is what I use to decide who wins. Sometimes I make weird facial expressions just ignore them, I might be thinking about how and why I'm writing the way I am or thinking about my pen's smooth writing, or anything weird so just ignore my face lol.

Side note: the most important part of this activity is the educational value YOU'RE getting out of this. NO MEME cases, and nothing stupid, I am on Discord and Reddit DAILY so I do know what's going on in the community. Stock issues are VERY important you should know them and refer back to them whenever possible. IF you can prove your opponents are de-valuing the education of the debate that's a big plus(On that note it is important to PROVE that they are de-valuing the education of the debate. DO NOT just tell me they are you MUST PROVE IT). I can't stress this enough DON'T make me do work for you, yes I know all about Kant and Marx and Butler and all the big-wig philosophers and I know how they link to everything but YOU must tell me explicitly your links AND your impacts, they are literally the most important thing in round don't forget to do some Impact Calc/weighing in round. Have fun though everyone, this is an amazing and rewarding activity and do your best. =)

I have a couple of years’ experience judging debate events, and when judging I try to be as Tabula Rasa (not bias) as possible. Some of the points I focus the most are the following:

Excessive speed and excessive jargon don´t not add value to the debate, instead, strong arguments and clear exposition addressing the opponents contentions, are more appreciated.

I am counting on the debaters to use their time to transmit confidence in their arguments by using evidence, documented reference, deep screening during cross examination and logic to support their cases.

Spreading is not always the best way convince a Judge. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not have a way to weight your arguments.

I consider the debate, not only as a contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers, but as a great opportunity to present strong arguments logically linked, easy to follow in a convincing manner. Be polite, be respectful, be convincing and enjoy the moment.

I am a lay judge and a university history professor. I expect respectful behavior, logical arguments, and please no spreading.

For debate:

Do talk to fast that the opponents and judge need to be reading your case with you. I will deduct points for talking to fast.

I do not like spreading and will not give you the win just because you spread and your opponents couldn't counter your spread arguments.

I prefer value or framework debates where both sides are clear on value or framework and build your arguments in the round around the main value or framework of the round.

In crossfire I want courteous speaking and questions. Do not use up the entire time with one question or one answer. This is a time for questioning, not making a speech

Do not belittle or degrade your opponents in final speeches. You can discuss the merits of evidence, but do not lead that into comments about your opponent and the type of debater they are. Those comments will be ignored

For speech:

I look at overall performance when ranking speakers for speech. If you are relaxed and poised, you will be fine. I do not count one flub against you, because you will be nervous. I like seeing intentional hand gestures and movements, but don't try to look robotic.

Sixth year parent judge for New Roads, which is my only debate experience. I am, however, familiar with argument as an attorney for more than 30 years with lots of trials, arbitrations, administrative hearings and oral arguments in appellate courts. You could say I argue for a living.

I am most familiar with Parli and LD. I’m old, with slow ears, so don’t spread. Speak clearly and enunciate. Theory, Kritik and other more technical forms of debate are fine, but only if you really explain your position. All too often the punch of these arguments is lost without a full, complete and thorough explanation truly supporting the point being made. Don’t rely on debate jargon or buzzwords. Likewise, explain why your proposed framework for how I should decide the round makes sense.

Over all I am looking for the most compelling argument. This can be several smaller points, or one or two very strong points. Most of all, always explain how your arguments relate to the topic in question.

Include me on your email chain: gurrola.victoria@gmail.com

Background:

I competed in policy debate for Claremont High School from 2006-2010. I enjoyed running K's. I was a volunteer mentor coach and judge for the Bay Area Urban Debate League from 2011-2015. I have a masters in Public Policy from Mills College. I taught first grade for the last three years in Oakland Unified. I've only judged at a few tournaments over the last few years as teaching took up most of my time.

I am fine with speed. However, my ear is not as trained as it used to be. Please slow down for taglines and theory arguments. If I miss something because you were going to fast on a bullet point, it can hurt you. Argument quality over quantity is always better.

I am open to hearing all kinds of debate. Just as happy hearing a k debate as I am a cp/da debate. I do believe that the aff has an obligation to affirm the resolution. I don't think that K affs need to have a plan, but you need to have some connection to the topic. Tell me how the debate should be framed. If you're going to run a K I need to have a clear understanding of how it specifically links to the aff. I am less likely to vote for a generic K with a broad link.

PLEASE do not assume that I have read/am an expert on any of your K arguments. YOU have the obligation of explaining your arguments. If I don't understand your argument then I can't vote for it. I have no issue with voting you down on something that you didn't clearly explain to me. For K debates I've found myself much more compelled in debates where I am told the roll of the ballot/judge. I don't believe that debate exists in a vacuum.

Don't be rude or condescending to your partner, opponents, or me.

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

*NOTE: I have not really judged since COVID-19 took hold. Just a heads up I might be a tad rusty*

Experience
Claremont High School
Was on the team for 3 years 2010-13
Events: Parliamentary Debate, Congress, IX, Extemp

Paradigm
I consider myself a "flay" judge. I will always flow the round and tend to make my final decision based upon that. However, if you are going to run something like theory, then you will need to spell it out for me. As long as you present it clearly, I should be able to get the gist of it. (Though I don't recommend running theory unless you can do it well)
I am a blank slate judge and do my absolute best to remove any biases when coming into the round.
I place a large amount of importance on LINKS, WARRANTS, and IMPACTS.


Preferences
As a former debate student, I have seen a lot of rounds in a variety of debate events. I have no expectations of debate having to conform to a certain style, but rather enjoy the surprises that could happen in a round with good arguments.

• Be courteous to your opponent, myself, and anyone else in the room. Being pretentious or rude will not win you points in the round or in life. It will in fact lose speaker points.
• Give me some good clash. You should be ripping up your opponents in cross x, but not by calling them names.
• Give me a road map. If you are meandering and lost in your arguments, I will be lost, too.
• I am fine with spreading as long as it's clear. If your spreading is hard to understand then it is in your best interest to speak at a normal pace.
• Know what you are talking about. You should understand your case and not just read something other people wrote.
• You need to clearly make your own arguments, and not count on implications. Even if I understand that your opponent(s) are messing up, you need to verbalize that to actually win the round.
• I don't recommend you run a K unless you know how to do it well.
• Topicality should only be used if absolutely called for in the course of the debate.
• Don't use outdated evidence. Keep your research current because the world changes every minute.
• Time yourselves and be honest about it. Sneaking extra prep time or trying to do "off time road maps" will not win you favor. The teams that win have learned to use their allotted time well.
• I do not disclose at the end of the round, unless instructed to do so by the tournament officials.

I enjoy an engaging and fun round as much as any other judge or debater. Best of luck!

LD Paradigm:

Overview:
I am a lay judge. My daughter does policy so I know some of the jargon, but make sure to explain EVERYTHING. Please do not spread- at most fast conversational speed- otherwise I cannot flow and will miss your arguments. I will shout "clear" if I can't understand you twice and then stop flowing.

Specifics:

Aff- Just know your aff and be able to explain the ins and outs. If I am confused about your solvency mechanism then it will make it very hard to vote aff. If you are running a nontraditional affirmative, I am not the best judge for you. I took one philosophy class back in college and barely remember most of the theory. If you want, take your chances, but I recommend striking me.

Neg-

T- I'm probably not the best judge for this unless it is clearly outside of the resolution (ex. topic is let's go eat nuggets; aff says salad is wonderful--- while related, I know what the difference is). If it is not something you would expect an average citizen to understand be sure to clearly explain the violation. Also explain the debate jargon.

K- Again, I am not the best judge for this because I will get easily confused by the jargon.

DA- I'm probably best for this. Make sure you explain your link story and do impact calc

CP- Explain everything. Will probably not vote on theory, but who knows I might.

Speaker Points:
I'm not really sure how to give these out. Things that will up your speaks: Being slow (not spreading), clear, and making good arguments that I can understand (minimal debate jargon). Things that will kill your speaks: Spreading, using only debate jargon, being rude to your opponents.

I am a parent judge. I have debated in LD when I was in High School over 25 years ago. 2 years ago I have reacquainted myself with debate when my son started competing. So with this being said, I am comfortable with all types of debate however I am not super familiar with all the arguments that currently popular. Assume my understanding at your own risk. What you will get from me is an independent judge that is flow-based. I will base my decision on how articulate your arguments are and if you adequately addressed your opponents key arguments.

I can handle moderate spread, but NOT if you're incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and articulate. Additionally, although I will base my decision on the flow of arguments, I do NOT appreciate any show of disrespect to other competitors, spectators, and judges. I cannot guarantee that it doesn't affect my decision or assignment of speaker points.

School affiliations: Redlands High School,Los Gatos High School, Leigh High School

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Hello competitors!!

My name is Francis (Sae-Rom) Kim,

I am a parent and an assistant coach at Redlands High School, have been judging Congress for about 6 years now, and I am very excited to see all the amazing, talented speakers today.

As a judge, I evaluate the "Best Legislator" in the chamber based on a demonstration of various skills, not just speaking. I often use the congressional debate rubric chart. This means I evaluate basic skills as well as participation in setting the agenda, making motions, asking questions, as well as content, argumentation, refutation, flow and delivery. Most importantly, I'm looking for effort, passion, and consistent participation in the round. Just because you gave a good speech doesn't mean you get an automatic good rank. You need to show you are engaged with the chamber. Also being a well rounded debater is very important for me. During rounds, I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Any speech after the first cycle should be referencing other speakers in the round and you should be utilizing refutation. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. Providing evidence is very important for me.

I will try to be as fair and just as possible, so enjoy the experience and be respectful during the round!!!

Thank you.

I debated four years of Policy at Claremont High School (2008-2012), and have been an intermittent assistant coach for all forms of debate since then. While I am comfortable with pretty much whatever styles, forms, or arguments you would like to run, I do not regularly judge each year and may not know all the resolution-specific acronyms or plans or strategies; be mindful of your topic jargon. Speed is not an issue, but only if you are CLEAR. I value good signposting; if I cannot follow your argument, it does not exist on my flow.

I generally prefer Policy strats over K strats. This is not to say I will not vote for K arguments, but my threshold for rendering such a decision is somewhat higher. Please clearly link your arguments and firmly/clearly establish your framework, and we'll all have a good round. This also goes for theory: prove there is substantial in-round abuse that warrants your running a theory argument. Nothing is more dissatisfying than finding out the theory is just a timesuck (especially Topicality). Consequently, I tend to prefer substantive debates over theoretical debates.

Concerning China: I would like to believe that I am better read on China than most debaters and other judges. If you read cards by Gregory Kulacki in my round, know that I likely have the original article and probably know whether you're cherry-picking my father's arguments or not.

Concerning In-Round Protocol: Tag-team CX is fine. I count flashing evidence as both teams' prep time if it takes longer than one minute. I highly value courtesy in- and out-of-round; your perceived skill or victory over your opponents is no warrant for toxic behavior.

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; 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 claim 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 ~7 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.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. 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 blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). 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.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• 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. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, 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 when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. 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've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: 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 was an English major not a philosophy major!) 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 at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

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.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

I am a parent judge who has experience since 2017. For speaker evaluations, I pay attention to basic skills like enunciation, intonation, volume, pacing, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures. For debate, I keep track of arguments and logic presented by each side, as well as whether counter-arguments were persuasive. If appropriate to the debate form, I also consider the strength of the evidence presented by each side. The winner of the debate is the side with the most clearly communicated and defended arguments. I strongly dislike spreading.

I am a lay judge, this is my fourth year of judging league and invitational speech and debate. If you have any questions, please ask.

Email for chain: debate.wm@gmail.com

Because this is being done online, please slow down a bit. I would hate to miss anything due to latency or other technical issues. If you need to spread I won't stop you, but your opponent might miss something, and I might miss something.

I am open to just about anything, but explain it like I am new to the argument. I am most likely not familiar with the sources you are using to cut your cards.

Please have fun.

I used to be a parliamentary debater and went to nationals in public forum. I am well versed in all forms of debate and don't have any particular grievances that anyone should worry about except for the fact that I don't like spreading. You can speak fast but if you start to spread then I wont write anything down and you'll subsequently lose the round. Stick to good ol fashioned debate and you'll probably be fine. Please ask me any specific questions you have before the round and I will be happy to answer or clarify anything.

Ryan Nam - Los Osos High School

Background: I've competed in Speech & Debate for four years at Los Osos High School, primarily in Parli and Extemp. I've also competed in Congress, Public Forum, Extemp Debate, Worlds, etc. I have judged at a few tournaments, primarily for Parli and Public Forum, and I'm currently on the Boston College Mock Trial team ('22). If you have any questions or concerns about my history or background, you are more than welcome to ask before the round.

Parli Paradigm:

With most of my experience being in Parli, there is not much on material that would surprise me during a round. Do not ask if I am familiar with material before a round because I will most likely not answer. The following breaks down categories of Parli that you may have specific concerns about to help you find your answer. If your question is not answered here (and it is NOT about material), you are welcome to ask me about it before a round starts.

Types of Debate: It is my belief that there are three fundamental resolution styles in Parli: policy, value, and fact. Make sure you are aware of which resolution you are working towards in a round. If there is a dispute on this during the round, please make sure to address it during the round and not ignore it.

Policy: Policy should be fun, engaging, and the most creative format of Parli that we can debate on. I value strong fundamental set-ups for plans (i.e. AFF should have a clear and engaging inherency/problem). I also find it important to express creativity in this style. Being able to execute creative plans (even if they seem realistically ridiculous) is always interesting to watch from my perspective and will engage me more with your speeches. Of course, strong fundamentals and a clear understanding of the style/resolution is crucial. If "creativity" means you have weaker overall debating, then avoid it and stick to what works for you. I will always prioritize strong fundamentals. All tactics (i.e. CPs, perms, PICs, Ks, topicalities, etc.) are welcome for both sides. If you feel like you are being excluded via speed or that their plan is especially niche in its application, then express that during your speeches properly and I will flow it. I will probably be familiar with most of the literature (if you are using any) during these tactics, but that does not mean you should neglect it or skim by it. I am a firm believer in flowing only what I hear during the round and if I do not hear you properly explain something to me, then I will not flesh it out for you.

Value: Make sure to have your own value or I will assume you are working under AFF framework. If AFF does not have a value, then I will work under NEG framework. If no one gives me a value, then I will go with whatever framework has been presented during the round at all. The idea here is that we do not need to come to a consensus for a framework as you would normally in a policy round. Simply achieve your value best and (bonus points) try to show why you are ALSO achieving your opponents' value better than them. This is your time to really hone in on niche arguments and incorporate some aspects of philosophy that touch on moral or philosophical issues. For instance, human lives may/may not be the best impact here, so be creative with how your arguments work UNDER YOUR FRAMEWORK.

Fact: This is a simple fact-oriented debate. I do NOT weigh rounds based on quantity of factual material, but will weight based on quality. Of course, just having one good statistic is not going to win the round for you, but do not expect to just pour out a bunch of facts on me without proper explanation of what they mean and why they matter and expect to win. Treat this round as classic debate without bells or whistles and just try to win the round via strong warranting and impacting.

Public Forum Paradigm:

In Public Forum, you obviously are limited on time and must focus on what you feel are the important ideas. The hardest part of this event is proper time management as a team. It is fine to address important small details, but do not linger on them and attempt to look at the bigger picture. Framework issues should hopefully be addressed in the 1AC/1NC as best as possible. Cross is generally used as a speaking score indicator for me. If you claw out an important statement or argument from your opponent, you should reiterate that in your following speech for me to properly flow.

I really enjoy how fast this event goes and if you can keep up the tempo and be aggressive in your argumentation, it will yield more offensive flow for you. Frankly, there is not much on material that I can address, but do explain your arguments thoroughly, yet efficiently as if it is my first time hearing the resolution to begin with. As I mentioned in my Parli paradigm, I also tend to value creativity. I understand that it may be harder in this event as by the end of the month, the tier list of arguments is generally pretty much fixed, but maybe developing your case with new and intriguing twists can be helpful for you throughout a round. Do not be careless, but use your strong fundamentals to incorporate some fresh ideas into the round, if possible.

General Paradigm:

Speed: I can "understand" up to 400wpm, but I would recommend sticking to no more than 300wpm. I am not confident in my own ability to flow all of your arguments above that as I have been out of debate for a few years. As I have stated earlier, if you are getting spread out of a round, then I welcome you to argue that appropriately. If not, I will assume you understand what is happening just fine. That being said, I am aware that most judges disapprove of spreading in Parli for good reason. I am not that judge. You are welcome to spread in this event AS LONG AS YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO IT. Do NOT spread if you are not clear and cannot enunciate properly. *If I say "clear" during a round, please actually either slow down or read more carefully. If I am saying "clear," I expect you to respond in some way and not doing anything about it, is likely to cause me to not flow your arguments correctly*

Tag-teaming: I am fine with it. I would appreciate a notice that you will be doing this just for me to make sure that the opponents are also aware of their ability to use it. Also, I will only flow what is said by the appropriate speaker at that time. Therefore, if you are speaking and your partner says something, make sure to repeat it to me or else it will not go on the flow. This is very important if you are tag-teaming.

Flow/Protecting the Flow: If it has not been clear by now, I am a flow judge and will flow arguments equally across the board. My eventual weighing does not impact the flow, but will be factored in at the end of the round. I protect the flow for novice/JV, but I will not protect the flow for Open/Var events. I would advise you to be attentive during your opponents' speeches to keep track of this.

Impacts: This is how you win rounds. If you do not impact out an argument, I will not do it for you. Flesh out your arguments and negative impact out your opponents' arguments. If you want to run an impact chain to death/human suffering every time, then go ahead. Just impact out everything that you feel should be impacted out.

Foul Language/Rudeness: I am OKAY with mild foul language. It will not hurt you during the round. However, do not start cursing every sentence or speech for the sake of it. If it slips, it slips. Don't sweat it. On the other hand, rudeness will not be tolerated. If you begin to attack your opponents directly and not their arguments, this is not only frowned upon, but will likely lose you the round. This is an educational activity that should be fun, enjoyable, and accessible to ALL people. Please advise.

I have not included speech paradigms, as I fall pretty much in the same realm as any other speech judge. If I am the only judge, you can ask me simple questions NOT related to the direct speech material and I would be happy to answer.

If there is anything that was not covered in this paradigm that is not related to direct material, please feel free to ask before a round starts. It will be more beneficial you to be knowledgeable and aware than to simply assume.

Good luck!

I am a philosophy professor (emphasis on logic and ethics) and a parent judge. This is my sixth year judging, and I enjoy LD most, followed by Parli and PF.

I prefer when debaters have a clear and well-researched case supported by a specific ethical theory or moral principle. I expect that debaters will be assertive but never disrespectful toward their opponents. In terms of debating style, please avoid "spreading." Also, I don't like it when the round has been reduced to debate jargon and you're arguing the rules of debate rather than debating the educational issues within the resolution.

Content

I am a former high school LD debater. I'm not very particular as it relates to style but I do prefer that debaters don't spread; it is important that I actually hear the points you are making for them to have any bearing in my final decision. Unique arguments are interesting so long as they aren't too abstruse. I value debaters who clearly demonstrate how their contentions are supportive of their value and criterion. Please don't make LD a policy or parliamentary debate. Keep the focus on competing value systems.

Delivery

While the weight of arguments is paramount, I do put an emphasis on delivery so please seek to speak clearly and persuasively. Vocal inflection and slowing down during important points help to focus the debate on key areas of contention and clash.

Composure

Lastly, please show class and magnanimity toward your opponent. Ad hominem arguments have no purchase in a debate. Haughtiness also makes it difficult for one to focus on content. Show passion and have fun!

Note- my judge wiki hasn't been updated in quite awhile and is focused mostly on policy judging (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pack%2C+Erin ). Please default to the paradigm below.

Paradigm: I identify most strongly as a Tab judge and will listen to any warranted argument. I tend to default to Policy Making and enjoy a good impact calc debate. Argue what you are comfortable arguing. It's your debate round, not mine.

Speed: I understand spreading pretty well, but please enunciate. I will shout "CLEAR!" one time if I can't understand. Adjust accordingly. Be especially clear on your tags and theory args.

Kritiks: As they logically flow within the context of the round, go for it. You need to have more than a Spark Notes understanding of the author's ideas. The rule of thumb for me with K's- don't read something if it doesn’t offer a competitive alternative and you can't sufficiently link it into the case without making a huge leap. I want logical progression. Generic Ks for their own sake are no bueno.

Style Points: Be polite and present thoughtful arguments. Don't be an awful human being. I consider this to include: being rude to other people in-round, randomly shouting at the other team during their speeches, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic/ableist comments to other people.

LD Specifics: I appreciate good clash on framework. Most of my LD ballots go to debaters who can provide the most offense-based arguments and the best value/criterion linkages. I also like evidence, policy-based approaches, and a priori considerations.

Who is this person?: I love debate, and believe it can be a force for good. This is my 13th year of semi-regularly judging! I'm originally from rural Texas, hold a BA in History and a Masters in Social Studies Education, and ran my own full-service forensics programs in Texas and Utah for 8 years. I served on the curriculum board of the Women's Debate Institute, worked several camps, tabbed many tournaments, and was the judge coordinator for the 2016 NSDA Nationals in Salt Lake City. After a short "retirement" period, I'm now an assistant coach at Green Canyon High School in Utah.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

Tech > Truth

No spreading, I won't flow if you talk too fast or scream at me.

Don't interrupt each other, I prize politeness, don't be rude to your opponent. This is a debate not a courtroom.

I'm ok with flex prep if both competitors are ok with it.

Hello! My name is Jonas, I'm currently a coach for Walt Whitman High School. I have 4 years of HS debate experience (mostly Parli with a bit of PF), 4ish years of collegiate debate experience (British Parli and APDA), and 3ish years of coaching and judging experience (Parli, Congress, and PF).

I'll flow all your arguments, just make sure that you explain to me what your argument is, how it's relevant to the debate, and why it's important. If you want me to vote for you, have clear link work and explicit weighing of your impacts. If you tell me that "x" is the most important issue in the round, I will vote on "x." If your opponents tell me that "y" is the most important issue in the round, then you need to tell me why I should vote on "x" instead of "y," or how you can win on both "x" and "y." If you tell me something is the most important issue, I will spend more time trying to find a ballot for you on that clash. If no teams tell me where I should be voting, I will be very sad.

I won't automatically vote on drops. You still have to prove why that arg is round winning and can outweigh wherever your opponents are closest to winning.

I don't have a preference for any specific types of arguments, but please make sure your arguments relate to the round! I'm probably not going to vote for something super high magnitude but also incredibly low probability (as long as there's some pushback on that arg). So if you impact out to nuke war when the topic is about international adoptions, and your opponents say "that's highly unlikely," I probably won't vote there. If you can convince me that there's some degree of probability, then I will vote for it.

Weighing is really important. If your weighing is clear and specific, I'm more likely to vote for you. Your weighing should also be comparative. Tell me how I should weigh your arguments, and be specific about what impact you want me to vote for. Please weigh across your clashes too (if you are winning on one clash, and your opponents are winning on another, explain why you winning your clash is more important than them winning their clash).

I'm fine with speed, but I might drop some args if you are fully spreading.

Unless your k is really good and really applicable, don't run it. Not a huge fan of theory debates.

Always be respectful of your opponents. Debate should be an educational space and I will dock your speaks if you are too mean.

Have fun!

-

Two quick notes for the Feb PF topic:

• I don't want the round to devolve into just a back and forth about the importance of one or two statistics. Barring a glaring issue (i.e. date of the study, funding for authors, skewed methodology), I would much rather you spend your time focused on the logical warrants you can make regarding the original argument, or better yet weighing your impacts. If you hit me with a "EVEN IF you don't doubt the significance x card my opponents have, here's why we still outweigh," I will be quite happy.

• Similarly, I don't want the round devolving into whether or not a certain stat should apply because of confounding variables. I have noticed a lot of teams saying that their opponents' stats shouldn't apply because of x confounding variable, but then don't hold their own stats to the same accountability. Once again, I care more about the logical warranting you can use these cards for, and the weighing you can build off of the impacts.

In my role as a judge, I adhere to a specific set of criteria to assess debates fairly and effectively. I value clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation. Here are my guidelines:

1. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • I appreciate debaters who communicate their arguments clearly and concisely. Spreading, excessive speed, or reliance on dense debate jargon can hinder clarity and accessibility. Debaters should strive to make their points in a manner that is understandable to both judges and their opponents.

2. Respectful Behavior:

   • Respectful conduct is paramount. Interrupting a partner without their consent or engaging in disrespectful behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. Debaters should maintain professionalism and courtesy throughout the debate.

3. Argumentation and Analysis:

   • I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Debaters should focus on the quality of their arguments rather than the quantity. Logical reasoning, relevant evidence, and clear impacts are crucial in making a persuasive case.

4. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Debaters should engage substantively with their opponents' arguments. Ignoring or dismissing valid points made by the other side will be detrimental to their overall performance. Constructive engagement and refutation are key components of successful debating.

5. Organization and Structure:

   • A well-organized speech is more persuasive and easier to evaluate. Debaters should structure their speeches coherently, with clear signposting and a logical flow of arguments. A clear roadmap and organized rebuttals are essential components of effective speeches.

6. Flexibility and Adaptability:

   • Debaters should be able to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to respond to unexpected arguments are indicative of skilled debaters.

7. Final Focus:

   • In the final focus speeches, debaters should crystallize the key issues of the debate. Clear voting issues and impacts should be emphasized. Debaters should prioritize their most compelling arguments and explain why they outweigh their opponents' case.

Debates will be evaluated based on these criteria. I encourage debaters to focus on clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation to excel in my rounds. Remember, quality always supersedes quantity in constructing persuasive and impactful arguments.

I am a lay judge with three years of experience. I judge multiple invitationals each year in southern California. In '17 and '18 I judged at Stanford Invitational, and in '17 I judged at State. I have judged many league tournaments over the years and twice judged CBSR league qualifiers. I judge all events: IE and debate.

Over the years I have learned that, when judging Parli, I prefer a logical, well-organized, well-paced case that builds without falling into the "information dump" trap. I am also suspicious of Parli debaters inventing statistics in round. If I am about to judge a Parli round you're in, please know that running a K is risky. You'll need a very good reason, one that enhances rather than diminishes the value and integrity of the debate. Educational value is paramount; your case needs to respect that, as well as your opponents.

I am a former high school debater- I did Policy debate for 4 years and I loved it. I have been judging at debate tournaments since 2012. I have judged Policy rounds, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Parli and Congress.

I flow my rounds, and therefore, I appreciate offtime roadmaps. I am comfortable with spreading. However, I do not like the trend where Public Forum and LD are morphing into Policy debate in terms of speed. That being said, if you wish to speak fast, it's up to you to be understandable and to speak clearly. If I didn't hear your argument, then I can't count it in my evaluation/RFD.

I look for good clash in a round, but this is not to be confused with overly aggressive behavior, as explained below. There is a difference between aggression and hostility. I hope debaters can tell the difference.

I come into every debate with an open mind, as if I know nothing about the topic and have not judged this topic before. However, I do know HOW to debate, so I am looking for the technical aspects of debate. This is to your advantage because if you can make an argument (however outlandish) and support it, and your opponents cannot refute it effectively, then you win that argument. I look for dropped arguments, but I also need the debaters to recognize when an argument has been dropped by the opposing team and to acknowledge it. For Varsity debaters, I expect that your arguments will consolidate down to whatever you think are your most important, win-able arguments.

I look at frameworks and impacts, so I include a comparison of the "affirmative world" vs the "negative world" in my consideration of how to vote. I also need you to weigh your impacts for me- tell me why your arguments are more important than the other team's.

I believe in the value and significance of debate, and therefore, I expect debaters to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner. Please be respectful of each other. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer- do not cut them off. No name-calling or shaming (yes, I have seen this in rounds, and it is very disappointing). Do not try to intimidate your opponent or the judge. This hostile behavior is very obvious and it will show up in your lackluster speaker points.

I understand that debaters may be nervous, and I am very sensitive to that. I don't generally dock speaker points for nervousness, but I will dock points for hostile behavior and attitude.

Experience:

For starters I did Parliamentary debate and Congress for four years in High School, as well as IX, impromptu, and Original Oratory for two years. I did make it to state in IX in California. That said I have only judged a few tournaments and most of those where local.

How I Judge

For starters I will absolutely flow what is being said, and will look to see if points flow through. As part of that make sure that you clash with your opponents, as this is a debate. Also I prefer logical common sense arguments, keep it on topic and structured and we should be good. When it comes to speed I am okay if you talk fast but you should not be spreading. If I can not tell what you are saying, and can understand what your opponents are saying, your opponents are going to win. Also I do like road maps just to know what is going to be said as it helps me plan out my flow chart. As for congress make sure that you clash with other people. If it seems like you are just reading some pre-prepared speech off of your computer then I will not rank you highly. Congress is a debate event as well and not just a speech one. In summary I like common sense arguments and a team is generally not going to win on some small technical argument. Also I do like sources and, if you do need to email me my email is uboargeorge@gmail.com however, if you do not say it in round I will not include it with your arguments.

I am not a flow judge really, so ideally if we can steer away from spreading that would be preferred. Can definitely have some speed but obviously within reason. If you have your case in a Speechdrop that I can follow that would make my life a lot easier however not a requirement. In terms of in-round behavior not a big fan of passive-aggressive behavior (i.e. snide remarks you may think are said under your breath but everyone can hear you) so please be polite, and play fair. Any problematic or ill-mannered behavior will cause me to give the ballot to your competitor.

Add me to the email chain: sylvada94@gmail.com

Bottom Line

Show me clear structure in your arguments. Signpost everything clearly and highlight your impacts. Tell me how to weigh the round and lay out clear voting issues in the 2NR/2AR, the final foci, and the PMR/LOR. Be inclusive. Make sure your opponent(s) are okay with your rate of speed, work to help them understand your arguments, and just don’t devolve into insults and bigotry. Bigotry will result in an automatic loss for the offender(s). Otherwise, please be competitive, intelligent, and considerate.

Experience

I’ve been active in the forensics community for 14 years now. I’ve been a competitor, a judge, and a coach, and have experience in PuFo and Parli at the high school level, and NPDA and CEDA at the college level. Outside of forensics, I have an MA in National Security Studies from CSUSB. My specialties are in WMD strategy and East Asian comparative politics.

Philosophy

To me, goal of the round is to synthesize and disseminate knowledge. This activity is meant to prepare you for higher academic discourse, and good academic contributions are original, intelligent, and comprehensible. Thus, my general expectation for competitors at all levels:

1. Show me that you’ve done YOUR OWN research into the topic. To be clear, I don’t expect you to have prepared for the debate all by yourselves. Of course we rely on our teammates, and sometimes victory briefs, to help write and research cases. However, there is a difference between using these means as tools, and relying on them completely. Good cases will demonstrate an excellent command over the topic area and contribute an original idea which synthesizes the research presented in the round. A lack of understanding of the topic, your research, or your entire case will make a loss very likely.

2. Show me that you are an excellent critical thinker. Do not just present me with 600 of other people’s research papers. Give me some original analysis. Respond well to your opponents’ arguments. I don’t expect you to have prepared for every possible contingency, but I think good debaters are clever enough to find ways around that issue. Evidence isn’t everything (even in Policy). If you provide me and your opponents with evidence with little to no analysis, you will very likely lose the round.

3. Show me that you can clearly, concisely, and coherently communicate a cohesive and complex idea. Gut-spreading a nuclear war-extinction impact at 500 wpm for a healthcare topic is none of these things. I will not flow arguments like this. Generally, the longer the link chain you need to prove an impact, the less likely I am to vote on it. Contrived and counter-intuitive impacts derived from pure theory communicated incomprehensibly do not good academics make. For the sake of making good arguments that can enlighten the uninformed while contributing intelligently to the discourse, please make clear and coherent arguments. Please present cases that cohere without long, convoluted, and/or purely theoretical link chains. In regards to speed, specifically, I will accept spread in some cases (please see “preferences”).

Other Preferences

· Debate as a game. Debate is a game where the objective is to synthesize and disseminate knowledge in the round. I can't fact-check everything you say in the round, so I defer that duty to you. To synthesize knowledge there needs to be clash. I highly prioritize direct clash in my decision calculus because you don't create knowledge by merely claiming your position. By clash, I mean providing evidence and analysis which directly addresses your opponent's contentions. It means putting your opponent's case within the context of your own. What makes both sides mutually exclusive? Where are they mutually inclusive? How does your thesis surpass the opposing antithesis? To disseminate knowledge, I need to understand what you are trying to communicate. If you are going to spread, that's fine, just make sure that I can read your case. To this end I highly value structure. Arguments need to flow in a logical order, I should be able to intuit how links fit together, and impact calculus should be as transparent as possible.

· I like theory and straight-up debates equally. That being said, I still expect kritiks to be intelligent, original, and comprehensible. Carry your K all the way to the end of the debate; commit to it. Don't just read one sentence long blocks and call it a day. Show me you have an in depth understanding of the literature you are reading or I will drop the argument. Same goes for theory and topicality. Interpretation is always a prior question. That means that kritik, theory, and topicality take priority over case, and if you can successfully prove them for your side, I drop the opposing case and you win the debate. on the flip side, if you fail to prove your interp issue and you have no case coverage, then you will lose the debate.

· PICs are fine so long as NEG adequately shows how the counterplan isn't just a permutation of the AFF plan.

· I’m fine with speed ONLY so long as your opponent(s) are also good with speed. Keep in mind that I flow on paper, so it will be a little more difficult for me to flow the debate in its entirety if you spread.

· Signpost EVERYTHING. I want you to really walk me through the structure of your shells and contentions. This is less to show me that you understand the structure of arguments, and more to help me with my own flow. Really, anything you can do to make my evaluation of you easier is a big plus.

· I love stock issues. I’ve noticed that stock issues have fallen out of favor in a lot of high school leagues. Nonetheless, I think good cases really do need to address significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency. I expect competitors to zero in on these issues if their opponents lack them in their case. I really like to vote on stock issue

· Tell me a link story. Don't just read blocks and assume I'll know how to put them together. Give original analysis and go through the process of establishing that the premise of your contention/advantage is true, then walk me through how your premise leads to a terminal impact. In other words, what are the external links that prove your premise true? What are the internal links that lead to a persuasive and significant impact? Please do terminalize your impacts and give me some clear and concise calculus with which to weigh your impacts.

· Tell me exactly how to weigh the round. I’ve seen weigh too many people drop their weighing mechanisms, not fully understand what a value criterion is, and straight-up not tell me why they should win the debate. Please do not be these debaters. Please understand your weighing mechanisms, values, etc. and give me a clear list of voting issues at the end of the debate.

· Hate and bigotry lead to an automatic loss. If you espouse hate speech, belittle your opponent period, or otherwise judge or attack them or anyone else for anything other than the quality of their arguments, I will drop the debater.

I was a national HS circuit debater in the 1980s (policy) and did a little coaching at the college level in policy as well. As a parent volunteer the last couple years, I’ve judged most events and genuinely enjoy these rounds . . . so have fun when you’re debating in front of me!  

A few specifics/preferences:  

*    I start out with Tabula Rosa paradigm unless/until I’m persuaded to bring a different model to the debate. I’m open to all sorts of arguments, just make sure that you explain to me why something should be a voter — it’s not enough to win an arcane argument, it needs to make sense to me why it should win you the ballot.  

*    In spite of the above, I’m pre-disposed to treat the “stock issues” (especially Topicality) with reverence.  

*    I’m all about the flow. It’s not only the road map that I use to keep my brain organized throughout the debate, it’s also my record of the debate for post-round decision making. You’ll make things a lot easier on me (and therefore yourself) if you sign-post clearly before your constructives/rebuttals and make sure I stay on the same page with you during each speech.  

*    I’m comfortable with speed and will flow whatever I can hear. But one word of caution: I’m more impressed by smart arguments than I am by quantity of arguments.  

*    I’m old school when it comes to speaker points (let’s just say that 30s were a lot more rare in my day) but I’ll work hard to award them as close as I can to the current points scale. Fastest way to get dinged by me, though, is to be a jerk to other competitors — no matter how good you are. No excuse for rudeness.  

*    I like to call for evidence after rounds, from obscure definitions of terms in the resolution to cards buried in the middle of contentions. Don’t read anything into the stuff I ask to see, sometimes it’s crucial to my RFD and other times I’m just curious about a source citation.  

Last thing to understand about my judging philosophy: I was away from debate for many years, so some of the progressive arguments (e.g., Kritiks) are new to me. I’m open to them, but just be forewarned that you’ll need to explain the theory of your argument and how I should weigh it in the round.  

Competitive debate is awesome and will help you in every aspect of your academics, but it also teaches you skills that will be a competitive advantage for you in your professional careers. Have fun!

I am pretty much a debate judge, I can follow along and flow a debate really well. I understand parli jargon, but I dont like to see it outside of appropriate rounds. I also very much favor structure in debate. If you can make your arguments clear and understandable, then it makes it so much easier for me.

I have had four years of experience in judging Speech and Debate events but I still consider myself a novice at times. For debates, I weigh the arguments you presents as if I knew nothing about the topic and I like clearly stated arguments and not spreading. If you speak too fast and I do not understand or unable to follow what is being said, then you and your partner may have a less chance of me choosing your side. I also want debates to be conducted in a civil manner.

I prefer that you remain cordial and respectful to both your opponents and the judge. I am ok with most argument as long as it makes some sort of sense. Please no Ks- relatively new to debate. I am don't have a lot of experience with speed. Some things that I look for in a debate:

- pointing out logical fallacies are always good

- Make sure not to cut off the other speaker in a rude manner in CX

- I'm fine with evidence swap as long as it's done in a timely manner

- Be prepared to provide evidence after the round because I may call for some

- Hypotheticals with no inherency don't fly in this zone

Good luck in the round!!!! :)

I am a parent judge. I have no experience on the topic, so please don't spread and tell me why to vote for you. Keep your own time.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.