Berkeley High School Parli Invitational

2020 — Berkeley, CA, CA/US

Vish Agarwal Paradigm

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. That being said, treat me as you would any other lay judge: refrain from speed, jargon, tech, etc. I don't usually disclose after rounds.

Eduardo Alas Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joshua Alpert Paradigm

Last Update: July 30, 2020

I have been competing in various forms of debate for four years now on the college level in Parliamentary Debate, IPDA debate, and NFALD debate. In which I have been quite successful being the state champion in NFALD and getting to finals in all 3 debate events at Phi Rho Pi nationals and Doubles at NPDA. As for the teams I did this on, I previously competed for Moorpark College and now compete for UC Berkeley in Parli. I am ecstatic to see the future generation of debaters compete as a judge with that being said let’s get onto my judging philosophy which is probably the only thing you care about and are reading this for.

TLDR: As the great, powerful, wise debater Brian Yang once said "Go Nuts!"

Table of Contents:

1. General Philosophy

2. Case Debate

3. Theory

4. Kritiks

5. Evidence Debate Specific

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round.

My current views for debate, in general, are as follows:

1. General Philosophy:

A) Judge Intervention: I try to intervene as little as possible

B) Partner communication: it’s very important as it is a team event but don’t puppet (I won't drop but it will hurt your speaks) and preferably don’t interrupt your partner just pass them a note, raise your hand to ask them a point of information, or if they don’t see you and it’s something important prompt them quickly verbally if you want. In addition, I only flow what the recognized speaker says unless you have some sort of framework, performance, or theory justification that is won.

C) Protecting the flow: I do try to protect the flow to the best of my ability. However, I would still recommend calling points of orders just in case I miss something.

D) Things that make me unhappy :(

I. In addition, being bigoted or using speed to intentionally exclude the other team from the round would also cause me to drop the team given the real-world implications and harm that it creates.

E) Speaks: I have recently decided that speaks are probably ableist,sexist,racist, etc. particularly in debate events and as such I will give each team the highest possible speaks be it block 30s and 29.9 or descending by whatever the tournament allows. The exception is if your racist, sexist, antisemitic ableist, transphobic, homophobic, or any of the phobics or antis or ists. If I can’t give block scores I will give the winners higher speaks and the losers the lower ones descending.

F) Views on spreading: You do you I can flow.

G) Shadow Extensions: I believe Shadow Extensions are new arguments. (A shadow extension is an argument dropped during the member speeches that magically reappears in the rebuttal speeches)

H) Extensions:

I. When extending an argument should it be untouched I am okay with a simple extend _____ there is no need to reexplain as long as your arguments related will not be new and only weighing in the rebuttal speeches.

II. You don't need to explicitly say extend the ROB/ROJ, advocacy, interp, counter interp, etc. Just like I don't need the aff to explicitly say extend the plan. However, if you are kicking something you do need to say "kick this" or "extend their we meet" or whatever "we're not going for it"

I) Cross-Applications in Rebuttals: I believe that cross applications through other sheets of paper are new arguments. For example if you make an argument on theory and then in the rebuttal speeches apply it to case or K when it is only on theory in the flow and you don't say it applies to case or K that would be a new argument.

J) Words that you say when other people are speaking for lack of a better term: Slow and speed mean to slow down, Clear means to talk clearer not necessarily to slow down, Text means to pass the text, signpost means to say where you're at on the flow.

K) Written copies) Would appreciate written copies of your advocacies/ROJ/ROB/Interps in case I miss something important. I may ask for clarification after the speech and before the next speech before time starts for the exact wording.

L) Weighing) Absent weighing done for me by the debaters I default to Strength of link>magnitude>probability>timeframe.

however, I will weigh in whatever order you tell me IDRC

2. Case Debate:

A) Affirmative:

I. Policy:

a. Have a plan text and preferably advantages. Other than that it is pretty much up to you and your opponent

b. Advantages: Preferably in the formats of Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, then Impacts or Uniqueness, Links, Impacts. Make sure your uniqueness is going in the right direction, explain your links, and terminalize your impacts. I would love it if you would give me clear links not just plan passes and war, explain how you get to war. Don’t just say death and expect me to do the work for you. If you say gut check as a wise man once told me “I will gut check everything and you may not like that.”

II. Value: Should have a criteria and contentions. You don't need a Value Criteria in addition to your regular one but if you want to provide one strategically that is up to you. Preferably for both Contentions and Countercontentions on the Negative the structure is H.I.S. (Harms, Impact, Solvency) with harms being the harms of the opposing value, Impacts being the impacts of that, and Solvency being the solvency for using your value but I understand there are many different structures and not every value round is capable of having that clear of a structure so how you run it is up to you.

III. Fact: You should have a criteria and contentions. Your contentions should preferably have impacts and not just be statements otherwise it is very hard to weigh the debate. In addition, ideally for Parliamentary Debate, given that it is not evidenced/carded debate your criteria should be "Preponderance of Persuasion" which means that if I by the judge based on the arguments given believe that the resolution is more true than not I should vote AFF or vice versa for the NEG. However, this is simply a pet peeve and it will not affect my judging in any way should you state "preponderance of Evidence" or some other Criteria so you do you.

B) Negative:

I. DAs: refer to section 2.a.I.b. on advantages.

II. Counterplans: some of my favorite debates are plan CP debates having originally been coached by one of the “inventors” of the CP. Ideally, CPs are non-topical, mutually exclusive, and superior. However, definitely will vote on topical CPs if you win them and if there is a theory debate you win that, (definitely not going to intervene if not contested obviously) and if they’re not mutually exclusive absent some sort of Framework arguments Probably easy to win perm. I’ll vote on any type of perm textual, functional, one with net benefits, severance, intrinsic, timeline, sequencing, etc. if it’s won. I default to perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

III.Presumption: I default to presumption flows Neg unless the neg runs an advocacy/Alt/CP in which case it flips AFF absent a framework argument that is argued that it is negative. If you’re condo and kick it I default to it flips back to the neg but am open to arguments that it stays aff.

IV: Offense V Defense: if you clearly articulate how it is terminal defense and presumption is still negative ground I will vote on it. Generally, I vote along a very heavy offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

V: Condo V Uncondo: Default to all plans are condo unless the status is asked and they say not condo. IDC how you run it up to you. Also as the great Amanda Miskell says “Dispo is just Condo in a suit”.

3. Theory:

A) Structure: It should preferably have an Interp, Violation, Standards, and Voters. Unless it is an IVI, RVI, and maybe Paragraph theory but that’s probably a harder sell unless you clearly terminalize it.

I. Interpretation:

a. No preference for or against any type of Theory run whatever you want. Condo bad, no neg fiat, Ks Bad, AFC, Spec, Topicality, Trichot, tropicality etc. (although I will likely be heavily biased against theory that calls out someone's personal appearance and/or the way they dress)

II. Violation: probably should clearly articulate the violation even if so blatantly obvious and not just they violate but it can be quick if it’s very clear like if you run F-Spec, just say “they didn’t specify the funding mechanism in the PMC” or something like that.

III. Standards:

a. Your standards should provide clear links to each voter that they work in conjunction with Fairness, Education and/or accessibility and work as reasons to prefer your theory sheet. Ideally, they should be contextualized to the round rather than just general descriptions of the standard.

IV: Voters

a. To vote on theory I need clear explained voters don’t just say Apriori, fairness, and education and expect me to vote on them you need to terminalize those voters and what they mean. For example, with education you could say that education is the reason debate exists and without education, nobody would do debate and it collapses or for fairness say that if the round is unfair we cant evaluate arguments to tell if they're true. Or on fairness, we cant test their arguments/methods to see if it would work.

b. For theory, I have no preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations and will vote on how you tell me to vote. though I will say I have no idea what reasonability means until you provide some sort of bright-line like winning all the Counterstandards and standards or something I dunno your argument you figure out what it will be

c. I default to drop the team unless a drop the argument, the argument is given.

d. I also default to competing interps over reasonability.

d. Abuse: I have no problem with potential abuse unless a very good argument for articulated abuse is given

e. A “we meet” that is won is terminal defense to a theory shell even under competing interpretations unless argued otherwise and very clearly won in the debate.

B) IVIs/RVIs/paragraph theory/Kritikal Turns: I will vote on them if you win them and have clear links and reasons why I should vote on them, tell me how to vote on them and framing/sequencing. Don’t just say we get an RVI because there’s a time skew or something like that you need to impact it out as to how the time skew functions like with fairness, education, accessibility, etc.

C) Theory Defense: Ideally you should respond to theory with a Counterinterpretation that is competitive, have counter standards that link to fairness, education and/or accessibility, respond to their standards and/or voters, and provide a "We Meet" if there is a "we meet" to be had. However, that is a perfect world and almost never happens unless you're Tom Kadie or Henry Tolchard and basically like the GOAT, so just do what you need to do to win the sheet and I will vote on the flow.

4. Kritiks: Run whatever you want to be it more sociological like Cap or Set Col, Psychoanalysis like Lycan, or POMO like Baudrillard or Deleuze, "eastern" philosophy like Taoism or Buddhism, IDC I vote on the flow. Don't assume I know your lit even though I know a pretty big lit base and so your K should be clearly explained preferably.

I. Thesis: You don't need one usually the K should have a thesis embedded like for a cap K you don't need to say cap sucks we should get rid of it. However, if you feel you need a Thesis or there is some strategic advantage to having one they are always welcome on my flow.

II Framework:

A. ROB/ROJ: In my opinion, on a technical level the Role of the Judge (ROJ) operates on a higher level than the Role of the Ballot (ROB) as the Role of the judge is what I as the judge am supposed to do with the round in evaluating it and how I should sign my ballot versus the Role of the Ballot is more so what y'all need to do and what the ballot means. However, colloquially it has come to signify the same thing and absent arguments saying they do not operate on the same level I will evaluate them on the same level.

B. Framing: Your framework should preferably offer some explanation on how impacts should be evaluated in relation to other impacts and what should type of evaluation comes first.


1. Will vote on Skep triggers if they are terminalized and explained

2. I default to theory is Apriori however, I will vote on K before T if the argument is made/won. Or they are on the same level if arg is made/won.

3. I have no idea what "vote for the best/better debater" means.

III. Links/Harms:

a. You should have ones that actually link and provide clear analysis as to why they link. If they reject the topic and then you provide generic they use the state and that's bad usually pretty easy for the 2AC to no link that arg. However, I will not intervene so if they don't respond to a link I guess technically it links.

b. Ideally, if you're making no perm arguments and that links are DA's to a perm you should provide pretty strong links and impacts within to be able to leverage these arguments independently

c. On the AFF K if you're providing topical harms/Links ideally make sure that they say the topic itself is bad and why not the squo is bad. For example, if the topic is "THE USFG SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE ITS MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA" don't have your harms say that the US military being in the south china sea is super bad as this would prove a TVA should they run Framework T. If they don't point that out I guess you got lucky not going to intervene. Instead, let's say you're running a K that says the state is bad, have harms that say any instantiation of state action further legitimizes the state reifying it's legitimacy and contributing to biopolitical control" or some stuff like that IDK it's up to you this is more strategic suggestions.

IV Impacts:

a. Have them and terminalize them. As stated above don't just say nuclear war or poverty and expect me to do the work for you.

V Alt/Advocacy:

a. Preferably have one and tell me which way I should vote unless its part of your FW, solvency, performance, or something I guess that you don't need one.

b. If it has a really complex idea and philosophy explain what the terms mean either under your alt/advocacy or in your solvency.

VI Solvency:

a. You should have it and clearly explain how it solves the impacts you have provided at a minimum. Don't just say we solve you should state the mechanism and way in which you solve.

VII: Perm: Refer to 2, B), II. the perm section under counter plans.

5. Evidence Debate specific:

A) Carded evidence: it is very important for Evidence debate but you must also make arguments not just cite sources. Analytics theoretically can beat cited cards if you do the better debating. Also please don’t get into your source is bad arguments unless they cite the most biased source like Breitbart for the evidence chain please send to

B) Power-tagging: don't... Please Don’t... I’m very probably pretty receptive to some sort of theory shell against it if it is won... please don’t lose it if you do run it or I will be sad. A drop the argument claim made by the team calling it out at the very least probably has a good chance of winning in front of me.

C) Splitting the block: In policy splitting the block is fine you do you fam and I am open to arguments in parli for theory if made/won that you get to split the block.

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round or if you have questions about a round I judged feel free to email me or send me a Facebook message.

Kendricks Anderson Paradigm

8 rounds

I currently teach Theater Arts, African American / Latinx American Literature, and English I at Pinole Valley High School. I am looking into teaching Speech and Debate and appreciate the invaluable experience I gain when judging competitions. I tend to defer to the competitors in regard to the pace of the debate and I do not appreciate coaches coaching during the actual debate. Other than that, I think that I am an unbiased, open-minded judge that allows for students to shine by demonstrating their knowledge on the topics being debated.

Sheira Ariel Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Numan Atayolu Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

AnnMarie Baines Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Judith Barish Paradigm

8 rounds

I was a successful policy debater in high school, many years ago. I've been judging parli rounds for the last 2.5 years. I can flow your round and assess your argumentation, but I won't be up on the latest debate jargon. You'll need to explain the arguments you make and not assume that a quick label or phrase can make an argument for you. I can flow and follow a fast spread debate, but my preference is for speaking that is not faster than normal speech.

I will judge based on the content of the round, and in principal I'm open to any argument you want to make. I enjoy creative arguments, but I'm skeptical of theory that allows either side to ignore the topic or avoid clash. I expect rebuttal speakers to focus on the critical issues, sum up the debate with intelligence, and explain why they've won and how to make a decision.

Lisa Barker Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Evie Berg Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Bharani Bhamidipati Paradigm

He has judged already twice in Varsity level parli tournaments.

Linda Buchanan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Roland Burgmann Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sarah Burkhart Paradigm

Not Submitted

James Chen Paradigm

Clear, cogent presentation, well-enunciated, with forceful flow.

Raymond Chen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karen Chen Paradigm

I am the former Director of Parliamentary Debate at Lowell High School and am currently a member of the Debate Society of Berkeley. I will be flowing throughout your round.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Please remain respectful to your opponents during the round. I highly discourage excessive talking during your opponent's speech and obvious note-passing. If you must tag-team, the current speaker must repeat verbatim what their partner said.

2. I adhere to the timing standards of parliamentary debate, including protected time. I expect you to time yourselves (using whatever device you would like), but I will time you as well.

3. Please cite all evidence you use to specific sources to avoid any confusion or technicalities during the debate; I care a lot more about the integrity of your arguments than back and forth over a particular piece of information, so I would like to preemptively nip that in the bud.

4. I appreciate clear sign-posting and tag-lining for the ease of flowing.

I am looking forward to an interesting, educational debate!

Esha Dadbhawala Paradigm


net benefits, probability>magnitude>timeframe

analyzed evidence > logic and reasoning > evidence > nothing

marginal offense > terminal defense


i <3 theory, default to competing interps

receptive to RVIs


explain ur thesis clearly

most familiar with marx and orientalism

not great w speed


i tend to be very facially expressive but it means nothing so don't pay attention

no shadow extensions

i don't protect

good luck :^)

Denise De Mory Paradigm

Hey there,

I am a parent judge for the Nueva School. I have judged for a couple of years now (both PF and Parli) but I am still solidly a lay judge. I am a trial lawyer. How you present yourself really matters to me; be respectful to your opponents and respect the medium. I work hard to judge what happens in the room and to not let my personal opinions impact my judging. Please stay on topic; if you stray too far from the topic and the other side raises the issue, it is persuasive to me. I am more likely to vote for persuasive logical arguments than to be impressed by sources. Have fun and do your best!


Tracy Diop Paradigm

Hello debaters.

I am a parent judge with a few rounds of Novice and Open Parli debate experience.

I am not a fan of spreading. If there is spreading I will lift my hand as a reminder to slow down. I like to take good notes and use these notes to help with my decision on the round.

I am also a novice in understanding kritics (sp). If you are introducing these concepts in your round please be clear and concise as to why. My preference is to not run them.

Dan Feinberg Paradigm

I was an on-topic debater for 3 years during high school and then did parliamentary debate for 3 years during college. I have judged high school parliamentary debate in the Bay Area since 2015.

I believe that debate should help students develop their persuasive speaking and analytical thinking skills, and that these skills should be applicable to the real world - e.g., trying to persuade a judge in the courtroom or your boss at work. Therefore, I don't like "spread" debating or the usage of lots of jargon. No one in the real world talks like a "spread" debater (except, perhaps, an auctioneer).

Adrian Feinberg Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alan Fishman Paradigm

Please include me on the email chain if there is one.

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

ETOC UPDATE: Go as fast on arguments in the doc as you would in person - I'll use the doc to keep up if the connection is bad. Slow down a little on analytics not in the doc though. Also, please do not make arguments about whether online debate will last or whether the coronavirus will change debate permanently - my way of coping is to see this as temporary. If those arguments are vital to a position you have been reading throughout the entire tournament, I will try to evaluate them, but please provide a content warning first. On a related note, arguing that the coronavirus or anything caused by it leads to extinction, structural violence, or other common post-fiat impacts is fine. Also, I should disclose that in close debates I may unintentionally hack against arguments saying that the coronavirus could lead to positive change, even if I would normally support whatever the change is.

TL:DR for LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text every round. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. My favorite event is high school circuit LD and I'm down for creative arguments. I do not allow off time thank yous but I do allow off time road maps and content warnings.

Five years of experience debating in NPDA parli, three years NFA-LD. I don't care about delivery or politeness (just don't be cruel to your opponents), and I don't want you to watch my nonverbals. I try to evaluate the debate objectively based on the flow without intervening.

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

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. In all forms of carded debate, I have a very high threshold for abuse on speed theory/K for arguments that were included in a speech doc that was shared with me and the other team. I do not really care about clarity if I have a speech doc I can follow along with. In general, if I am going to vote on an argument against speed, you need to prove that you asked your opponents to slow down and they did not. As hard as it is to establish a brightline for speed, it is impossible to establish a brightline for clarity. While I do prefer you not use speed to exclude the other team, I won't drop you for it unless they convince me I should. I do not intervene against you if you exclude lay/traditional judges from the round with speed - they have their own ballots and I can't speak for them. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another, and I actively HATE the argument that debate should be held to IE/speech-style standards of communication. I also believe that it doesn't matter whether debate is understandable to laypeople in the audience - your words only need to be understood by the other team.

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation. I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against a dropped RVI. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another. I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate. In cases of rules violations, I will almost always prefer not to get anyone kicked out of the tournament - even if the rules of the event recommend that as a penalty. Also, if you threaten to report me to the tabroom for not enforcing the rules I will instantly drop you. Also, I will always allow debaters to debate a different topic than the one the tournament assigned if both sides agree, and I will keep it a secret if asked.

COUNTERPLANS: I will usually vote for cheater CP's unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. However, I do not like to "judge kick" counterplans and if the neg doesn't explicitly kick the CP/alt in their last speech I will assume they're going for it and giving up the status quo.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

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

IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I think that these arguments are important and should be taken seriously, and while I want to let you read them and talk about the things that you are passionate about, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity, I will be more willing to vote on framework. Also, I don't think that reading framework against these positions makes you a terrible person - I am willing to listen to both sides of the T vs Identity K debate. However, please do not attack your opponents' marginalized identities to deliberately trigger them - if you do that, you are the worst kind of person and I will have a hard time justifying a decision for you.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in the most extreme circumstances. If your opponents make a new argument it is your responsibility to call point of order. I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

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

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group. I no longer give everyone 30's, but I do try to give speaker points in a way that is fair to everyone.

Also, I believe that debaters should not wear professional clothes to tournaments because professional dress is a social construct that reinforces privilege. I won't vote you down on my own initiative for it, but I am willing to vote on arguments about why debaters should not dress professionally. This article describes how I feel about professional dress in speech and debate:

Some of my pet peeves as a judge:

- When the AFF says they "believe" in the res or the NEG says they "don't believe" in it. You were assigned your side at random.

- When debaters start their speech with a quote

- When NEG says that Trump will roll back the plan

- When anyone calls the debate round a "day" or talks about "today's debate" - it's annoying because there are usually multiple rounds in a day

- Please do not set the criterion to net benefits for one particular country or region unless you read social contract theory as your framework (especially in parli). I have a very low threshold for letting NEG win that net benefits should include everyone. However, I am fine with other parametricized forms of net benefits, like structural violence first or extinction first, I just don't think that whether someone's life matters should be dependent on lines drawn on a map.

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


If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down. Anyone who asks or takes an unnecessary POI in a round with flex will lose a speaker point - I think that keeping POI's intact in a format with flex is rooted in problematic notions of politeness. I don't care about "protected time". I think it's a silly and unnecessary rule.

I think that parli structurally favors MG theory so I believe that MG theory should have a higher threshold than LOC theory, but I won't judge it any different unless the negative tells me why I should, because I dislike intervening.

I do not believe in the trichotomy. I don't think that resolutions being worded as questions of fact or value is mutually exclusive with having a plan text.


I judge PF similar to parli. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments (though you can answer them anytime before FF to have the answer on my flow). I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to debate at speeds comparable to policy, you should email your evidence to me and the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.


I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. My email is

Kimberly Fradelis Paradigm

8 rounds

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience (speech events, policy, and CEDA)
St. Mary’s School in Medford, OR and Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents. Show up in pajamas or chew gum and I’m going to have a tough time paying attention to your arguments.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts.

Annika Freeling Paradigm

8 rounds

I'm a Berkeley High senior with 4 years of debate experience. Above all else I just want to see a good round.

Make sure you provide actual clash and don't just restate your arguments as refutations.

Weigh a lot in the rebuttal speech, I need to know why your arguments matter.

Don't run frivolous theory, but if your opponents actually do something abusive do of course run theory. If you make abusive standards, definitions, plans, etc. I will be predisposed against you even if your opponents don't run very good theory. Just don't be abusive.

Good luck and have fun :)

Kristina Fuller Paradigm

Kristina has been judging for at least three years and has judged approx 6 rounds this year

Scott Furman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cecilia Gamboa Paradigm

Parent judge who has judged 6 debate and 7 IE/Congress rounds this year (Claremont Wolfpack, SCDL Fall Varsity, Claremont Barga

Shilpa Ghorpade Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Raphael Goldman Paradigm

This is my first year judging parliamentary debates; my daughter is on the debate team at Berkeley High School. In real life, I am an attorney and a significant portion of my practice involves litigating appeals on behalf of defendants convicted of crimes. I would rather be convinced by substantive arguments than "theory" technicalities.

Michael Harris Paradigm


GEORGETOWN UPDATES: I'm having difficulty following along with some of these online debates due to audio quality. Please, please follow these recommendations: (a) slow down on tags and pause between tag and card body (b) anything you're reading off a doc, whether analytics or cards, please include in the email chain (c) if you're extempting something in the middle of reading from a doc or changing the order of what you're reading, please say so during the speech. If you follow those guidelines, I should be good.

I did circuit LD for four years in high school and npda parli for four in college. I’ve been coaching pretty actively ever since 2013. I am currently the debate coach at Lynbrook in San Jose, where we do LD, PF, Parli, and Policy. I rotate between judging different events.

I’m not a fan of debaters reading cards for their entire speech with no analysis of their own. I think that’s very unstrategic – you are inviting judge intervention by not explaining to me at your earliest opportunity why your evidence is better than your opponent’s (This criticism mostly applies to LD in which there are fewer speeches).

I try not to think too hard about whether the claims advanced by both sides are actually true ‘in the real world.’ This is to avoid 'judge intervention' and because it's hard for a claim made in the condensed period of time in which a debate happens to fully mirror a state of affairs in the real world. Instead I tend to see debate as a logic game (based on the arguments being won, which other incompatible arguments get excluded from my flow?) This is simply my default way of looking at debate and you could explain to me in the round why this is a bad or flawed way of interpreting it.

I default that the aff should defend the topic unless they win a proactive reason that they don't have to.

I think good line by line in the debate is essential for me to fairly evaluate it. Don’t drop arguments. I understand that this is very hard to do a lot of the time. If you can’t respond to each individual argument due to time constraints, you should group arguments or at least weigh.

I'm fine with most styles of debate. In LD, my favorite rounds to watch are 'phil' rounds (rounds about the ethical framework, or the value criterion). I'm also fine with K, policy, and theory, however --

-if you’re reading a K, you should still engage the line by line in rebuttals

-in policy debates, I might get confused if there's too much evidence and not enough layering/overview/explanation

-if the abuse in your theory shell is tiny, please explain to me why that's still sufficient to vote for you (hardly anyone does this)

DISCLAIMER: There are a lot of really unclear and blippy debaters out there. In instances where I miss an argument or don't understand the basic claim being made due to unfamiliarity with terminology/the literature, I do not stress out about it -- I simply do not consider the argument in question. (How could I consider it if I wasn't sure what was being said?) The burden is on you as the presenter to make sure I'm keeping up.

Irene Hsin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nik Ingle Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kimi Ishihara Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karuna Jaggar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kathryn Jay Paradigm

Not Submitted

Charitha Jayasuriya Paradigm

Charitha judges approximately 2 tournaments a semester and has been doing so since 2018

Jessica Jung Paradigm


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:


- 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.


- 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.


- 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

Karim Kassab Paradigm

Karim has judged approx. 10 rounds in the last year.

Ajay Kharbanda Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent judge, relatively new to judging. Please explain all arguments clearly and stay organized. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.

Elisa Khodabakchian Paradigm

Parent judge. Paradigm was written by my daughter [Maya Khodabakchian] so even if there is flow jargon in it, doesn't mean I understand it.

I read the Economist for 2 hours every day, don't think you can lie to me about domestic or foreign policy. I'm highly skeptical of low probability link chains. This may seem harsh, but don't suddenly pretend that you are a professional in whatever topic you were given. We all know you were given 20 minutes to research the topic.

Use warrants, outline solvency, explain links.

I take extensive notes, but not in the flow format. I don't protect the flow, but honestly, a million POOs is excessive and annoying. Figure out what will actually hurt you and what is an irrelevant POO.

I can handle speed. Don't explain things to me as if I am a child and get to the point. I would love a nuanced and interesting debate.

I will buy paragraph theory if it's legitimate... but you are going to have to tell me why I should vote your opponents down. In general though, just debate around the minor abuses.

And of course, be kind. Absolutely no ad hominem insults (or any insults at all in general). Relax and have fun!

Nitin Kumar Paradigm

Several league tournaments over 4 years

Gina Lambright Paradigm

Local GGSA parli

Bob Leach Paradigm

Not Submitted

Danial Leahy Paradigm

I'm open to hear all types of arguments and prefer to vote for teams that have the better analysis and impact calculus.  Don't assume me to be an expert on every peice of literature that exists.  You need to explain how your arguments function in the round.  I keep a decent flow, but dont sacrifice clarity for speed-it a surefire way to lose a round.  Trust me I have been there before, in my competitve days.  


Ultimately the round is yours, everything is debatable.  Have fun!

Judy Lee Paradigm

Local judge, sparse local experience

Mark Lee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Julie Lee Paradigm

I am an inexperienced judge so I prefer no spreading and no theory. If you use jargon, please explain. Please be respectful, speak clearly, and provide organized, logical arguments. Good luck!

Jim Leung Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dana Li Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Stone Mao Paradigm

Please talk clearly and at a reasonable pace. Please don't speak too fast. Less theory, but if you run it, it's fine.

Seth Meisels Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mohsen Mogharei Paradigm

He has judged already in one parli tournament.

Danni Noury Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shridhar Parvatikar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ashwini Phatak Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karl Rimbach Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Susan Ryan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sam Saliba Paradigm

Not Submitted

Scott Sandler Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dashiell Shapiro Paradigm

Former LD Debater. K's are fine, speed is fine. Any dropped arguments will be flowed through with impacts (but can still be outweighed by other points).

Gopal Sharma Paradigm

gopal sharma EVHS

Kriti Sharma Paradigm

Kriti Sharma

- Presentation High School - Class of 2015 - 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate, 4 years of Speech

- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Class of 2019 - 2 years of Parli, LD, and Speech (Interp)

- Add me to the dropbox/the email chain/wtvr:

Things I Like
- Environmental & Systemic Impacts
- Plan-specific links, disads, and CPs
- Impact calculus that isn't just about magnitude
- Clever CX
- Clear roadmaps
- Good speaks

Things I Dislike
- Accidental racism, sexism, etc. that isn't corrected with an appropriate apology
- Men talking over female debaters
- Climate Change Denial
- Affs that aren't topical
- Avoiding clash in the debate
- Both debaters speaking during the same speech outside of prompting

Things That Will Cause You To Lose
- Any kind of harassment or intentional 'isms'
- Referring to immigrants as "illegal"
- Clipping cards, manufacturing evidence, or otherwise cheating


Cards should be used as logical support for your contentions. I especially respect empirical evidence and real-world examples. Evidence means nothing until you link it to your case and the resolution. Explain why the evidence brought up matters. For me, content is what counts. I am more likely to weigh evidence if the content is thoroughly covered and does have a fair impact in the round.


If you run T, do it right. T is a question of "is the aff topical." Break it down. Read cards on it. Do not use T as a time skew. If you choose to run T, make sure that you have a version of the aff that is topical.


I will vote on these if they are convincing and if legitimate and compelling evidence is used and explained to back up the argument. Simply make sure that they are actually competitive against the aff, and tell me why I should vote on it. As for the aff side, please explain why I should vote accordingly with your own evidence and reasoning.


If you use K, explain it as clearly as possible since K should never be used to make yourself, as a debater, sound more like a genius or to inflate your own ego; nor should it be used to force your opponent to respond to it even if it isn't topical (aka abusive argumentation).


If run and explained well, I will weigh it in the round. "Reject the argument, not the team" is generally sufficient, but I am familiar with some other theory if you decide to use it. That being said, still explain the theory as well as the reason why the theory argument applies; do not just name drop it or leave it underdeveloped.

Framework (Value and Value Criterion)

I love framework debate. Framework is fundamental in high school LD Debate, so while you read each contention, I expect you to outline a clear connections back to your value criterion as well as back to your value (like a link chain). Contentions should contain smaller arguments for why your V/VC is the most ideal/most pertinent/most important etc. Make your lines of reasoning explicit. I may have an idea as to where you're going with your thoughts, but I can't write down these said ideas if you don't fully elaborate on them yourself.

Other Notes

- I'm generally okay with some speed/spreading, but I'm a stickler for clarity. If you're going too fast, I will say "Clear" so you know that you have to slow down in order for me to follow the flow.

- Follow your roadmaps. If you have to divert, be clear about where you are going on the flow. Please verbally emphasize and tag your arguments/evidence. Also, I definitely appreciate when debaters "write the flow for me"/crystallize/discuss voting issues towards the end of the round.

- I use a standard speaks system. Speak up and enunciate, but don't yell. Unless you need a lot of improvement, I wont give you less than 26. If I give you anywhere between 26-28.5, I'll explain what you need to improve. To get 29-30: As I'm also a speechie, I'll admit that I'm 5% lay judge at heart, so I definitely value confident, straightforward, eloquent, succinct, expressive delivery.

- I'm open to any argument as long as it is not offensive.

- As always, be respectful towards your opponent. That being said, I do enjoy clash/if you are a clever asshole during CX. However, try not to be too smug. Channel your inner Spock (for ST nerds - I mean TOS Spock).

- If you have any questions about your case, high school/college debate in general, or want to talk about college life, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me! :)

Tracy Siira Paradigm

Not Submitted

Richard Simon Paradigm

8 rounds

I have experience as a policy/CX debater in high school and I have been judging parli for just over a year. I have experience as a public speaker from many conferences, as well as corporate events and meetings.

I'll flow your arguments, but I need to be able to hear and understand them enough to write notes.

Don't expect me to know any theory that you don't explain clearly. Make sure that any theory (or any arguments at all) clearly relate to the debate you're in and the topic at hand.

Your speaking style and ability are important, but its not uncommon for me to award low-point wins. If you dont signpost well, not only can I not follow you, but you aren't delivering well.

Your summations should clearly tell me how to decide my vote.

Jeff Simons Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mohan Singhal Paradigm

I'm a Junior at Valley Christian High School and I've been debating for 3 years. I'm relatively familiar with Theory and Kritiks, but if you decide to run those they must be well explained and fleshed out. As much as I can, I run as a blank slate judge and will take everything you say as fact unless refuted by the opposing team. I like it when debates speak clearly and use examples to back up or create their point. Impacts are important and please make sure that they make sense. I like debate a lot, but I'm a nice guy so don't be too stressed when prepping. When speaking, relax and take me through your contentions well.

"Be quick but don't hurry" --John Wooden


Sankar Somasundaram Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kimberly Spalding Paradigm

I'm a parent judge. I know most of the basics (uniqueness; links; impacts etc.).

I'm focused on the merits of each argument and find it distracting when teammates comment on other's performance. I prefer logical arguments that have connection back to the topic. If you are interested in running theory, I prefer theory shells that are necessary for regulating the debate; not superfluous rules.

I look forward to hearing your case. Good luck!

Emma Sutton Paradigm

For parliamentary debate, I prefer clear, organized argumentation and reasoning over speed and jargon. I can follow a spread (my background was in policy debate) but parliamentary debate is a whole different event.

I flow, and use the flow in my decision, but not all arguments are created equal. You can win 4 points, your opponent only one, but they can still win the round if they convince me that their one point outweighs all others. Tie your arguments to the resolution, and show how they tie into your judging criteria. Speaking style matters in my decision too - a smooth, organized, persuasive speaker will have the edge over disorganized and choppy presentation.

On the subject of organization, I appreciate the 5 seconds spent to tell me whether you are starting with their case, or your own contentions.

No strong opinion on POIs. Nice to take one, but if you really are short on time I won't be offended if you don't take any.

I leave my opinions and knowledge at the door of the round. I am willing to follow most arguments if you can make them stick.

However, I am really REALLY sick of overly clever debate tactics in lieu of actual debating. I am particularly tired of kritiks. They are a technique used by lazy debaters to avoid having to actually listen, reason, and create counterarguments. Rather than pay attention and use their brains, they pull out a precanned K and spend their time on that, instead of actually debating. I expect to hear reasoning, analysis, and argumentation on the actual resolution - not endless whining about how abusive the other team is. Basically I want to see a debate.

I also hate tag-teaming. I believe that each speaker should do their own speech, answer any POIs, and generally do their part. I don't mind if you pass your partner a note while they are speaking, but that’s about it. I will only write down arguments advanced by the actual speaker.

In the end, the most important thing is to have a respectful debate with plenty of clash. Listen to each other, analyze what the other speaker said, and respond appropriately. And remember that this is supposed to be fun.

Rob Teigen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Byron Thurber Paradigm

Has judged at 2019-20 GGSA tournaments and at 2020 Stanford Invitational

Sandy Tierling Paradigm

8 rounds

No spreading.

I am familiar with Kritik, Theory and Topicality.

I expect the debaters to time themselves.

Sam Timinsky Paradigm

Specifics for Parli:

I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in the paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t’ be allowed in the round.

Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments on the link level if there is clear skew in one direction or another.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, why should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of story-telling to win the round.

If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.

My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.


I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.

Counter Plans:

I don’t like PICS in general, but I will vote for them if you put some theory on it. Delay CP are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded. I don’t think you have to have a DA. You can win the debate with a straight up “my solvency is better” argument.


Uniqueness does actually matter. No, Trump has not rendered all war or diplomacy impacts moot. Simplicity is your friend. Sign post what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.


I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.

Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.

Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.


Alternatives need to be real. You don’t need to have an alternative. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.


I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.

There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cutural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to transform the K into a new tool of exclusion. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which is violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2019 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates health norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.


I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.


Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.


I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense probably isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

Specifics for Public Forum:

Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.


Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.

Refutation consistency:

I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.

Thresholds for voting on solvency:

PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.


I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.


There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.

Specifics for Circuit Policy:

Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.


Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.

For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.

Specifics for Lay Policy:

I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.

As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.

Lisa Twomey Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Malick Usman Paradigm

New to judging.

I am looking for clarity of thought, relevance and good references.

I prefer quality over quantity. I beleive that quality of content speaks volumes about debating skills than the volume of the content.

Anstasia Vayner Paradigm

First time judging I don't care if you speak fast as long as I can clearly understand what you are saying. I'm not a lay judge I don't care for the presentation. Please run a capitalist k because the birds work for the bourgeoisie obviously, you will automatically get 30 speaker points. Also the Earth is a donut and. Also I may look twelve but actually I'm a college student so do not be deceived. If you speak Russian and run the whole debate in Russian I will fully understand you and be very motivated to give you 50 extra speaker points. I don't understand theory but just run it. I'll listen to your argument but probably won't flow. Good Luck!

De Vu Paradigm

Please keep your points to a manageable number and cover them well.

No spreading. No theory. No Kritiks. The team with the best impacts will get the win.

Bill Walker Paradigm

I care more about the quality of the presentation and the organization and logic of the argument than for the rapid-fire spouting of facts. I prefer speakers who use a more conversational style, with a normal pace, and I am turned off by the use of debate jargon — the USFG, permutation, aff/neg, etc. I’m a professional writer and editor who believes strongly in using clear language and speaking in complete sentences with appropriate pauses, rather than a breathless speech that sounds like one long run-on sentence. Use everyday idioms, metaphors and gestures.

Fang Wang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vanessa Warheit Paradigm

Not Submitted

Susanna Weber Paradigm

8 rounds

Please add me to the email chain ( Thank you!

I debated at Mamaroneck High School as a 2A. Currently, I attend UC Berkeley, where I'm also on the debate team.

Please read whatever you want in front of me! I would much rather you do what you enjoy well, than do something you don't poorly because you think a judge will prefer it. I read a mix of K and policy arguments throughout high school, though I leaned towards the K, do with that information what you will. Debate should be a testing ground for ideas, and what that means is up to you.

If you're interested/want more paradigms to read, some people who have influenced the way I view debate are Ken Karas, Daryl Burch, Edmund Zagorin, Jack Booth, Alex Sherman.

Have fun, be respectful of the other team throughout the debate, obviously do not be racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/etc.

Jeffrey White Paradigm

Has judged at some 2019-20 GGSA parli tournaments

Jessica Wilan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ken Wilan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yi Yan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hanna Yang Paradigm

As a parent judge, I prefer for debaters to have structure in speeches (ie. roadmaps/order, signposting, etc.) so that I can clearly flow down contentions. It is preferred that debaters time themselves and not rely on the judge to time speeches or give time signal. 

Xiangqian Yu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mavrik Zavarin Paradigm

8 rounds

I judge based on quality and clarity rather than quantity of information

Sara Zimmerman Paradigm

Not Submitted

bruce fukuji Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

betty suh-burgmann Paradigm

Not Submitted